<GetPassage xmlns:tei="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xmlns="http://chs.harvard.edu/xmlns/cts">
            <request>
                <requestName>GetPassage</requestName>
                <requestUrn>urn:cts:latinLit:phi1002.phi001.perseus-eng2:5.12.12-5.12.14</requestUrn>
            </request>
            <reply>
                <urn>urn:cts:latinLit:phi1002.phi001.perseus-eng2:5.12.12-5.12.14</urn>
                <passage>
                    <TEI xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0"><text xml:lang="eng"><body><div n="urn:cts:latinLit:phi1002.phi001.perseus-eng2" type="translation" xml:lang="eng"><div n="5" type="textpart" subtype="book"><div n="12" type="textpart" subtype="chapter"><div n="12" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> Another form of proof is provided by asseveration as in <quote>I did
                                this,</quote>
                        <quote>You told me this,</quote> or <quote>O outrageous
                                crime!</quote> and the like. Every pleading should contain some such
                            asseverations; if it does not, the loss will be considerable. Still
                            asseverations must not be regarded as supports of the first importance,
                            since they can be produced by either party in the same case with the
                            same emphasis. </p></div><div n="13" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> A more forcible kind of proof is that drawn from character and supported
                            by some plausible reason, as for instance, <quote> It is not likely that
                                a wounded man or one who has lost his son would accuse anyone who is
                                not guilty, since if he accused an innocent man, he would free the
                                real offender from all risk of punishment. </quote> It is from such
                            arguments that fathers seek support when pleading against their sons or
                            one relative against another. </p></div><div n="14" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> The further question has been raised as to whether the strongest
                            arguments should be placed first, to take possession of the judge's
                            mind, or last, to leave an impression on it; or whether they should be
                            divided between the commencement and close of the proof, adopting the
                            Homeric disposition of placing the weakest in the centre of the column,
                                <note anchored="true" place="unspecified"><hi rend="italic">I.</hi>
                                iv. 299. </note> so that they may derive strength from their
                            neighbours. But in the disposition of our arguments we must be guided by
                            the interests of the individual case: there is only one exception to
                            this general rule in my opinion, namely, that we should avoid descending
                            from the strongest proofs to the weakest. </p></div></div></div></div></body></text></TEI>
                </passage>
            </reply>
            </GetPassage>