What shall I say against him except that which he cannot deny?—that he came on the bench during a criminal trial, though he was not a member of that tribunal; and that, while sitting on that bench, though he had not heard a word of the cause, and though there was an opportunity of adjourning the decision, he still gave his sentence, “ that the case was proved;” that as he chose to decide without having inquired into the matter, he preferred condemning to acquitting; and that, inasmuch as, if there had been one damnatory vote fewer, the defendant could not have been condemned, he came forward, not so much for the purpose of investigating the case, as of insuring a conviction. Can anything worse be said against any man, than that he was induced by a bribe to condemn a man whom he had never seen nor even heard of? Or, can any allegation be made against a man on more certain grounds than one which even he, against whom it is made, cannot attempt to invalidate, not even by signs?
However that witness, (in order that you might easily
understand that he was not present in mind while their case was being stated by that party, and
while their witnesses were giving their evidence, but that he was thinking of some criminal,)
though every witness before him had stated that there were many armed men with Aebutius, said,
(though he stood alone in his statement,) that there were no armed men at all. At first, I
thought that the cunning fellow was well aware of what the cause was in need of, and only made a
mistake because he was contradicting all the witnesses who had spoken before him; when all of a
sudden, according to his usual custom, he forgets his previous statement, and says that his
slaves were the only armed men there.
Did you not, O judges, believe these witnesses when you considered the case not proved? But there was no question that they were speaking the truth. When there was a multitude collected together, and arms, and weapons, and instant fear of death, and visible danger of murder, was it doubtful to you whether there seemed to have been any violence committed, or not? In what circumstances can violence be possibly understood to exist, if it does not exist in these? Or did that defence of his seem to you a very sufficient one, “I did not drive you out, I opposed your entrance; I did not suffer you to come on the farm at all, but I opposed armed men to you, in order that you might understand that, if you set your foot on the farm, you would immediately perish?” What do you say? Does not the man who was terrified and put to flight, and driven away by force of arms, appear to have been turned out?
We will examine hereafter into the appropriate expression; at present let us
prove the fact, which they do not deny, and let us inquire into the law of the case, and the
proper method of proceeding by law under such circumstances.