<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:phi0474.phi001.perseus-eng2:85-88</requestUrn>
            </request>
            <reply>
                <urn>urn:cts:latinLit:phi0474.phi001.perseus-eng2:85-88</urn>
                <passage>
                    <TEI xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0"><text xml:lang="eng"><body><div type="translation" xml:lang="eng" n="urn:cts:latinLit:phi0474.phi001.perseus-eng2" subtype="translation"><div type="textpart" subtype="section" n="85" resp="perseus"><p>As you are on your way to
            take possession, O Sextus Naevius, the praetor himself openly says to
            you—“Take possession in such manner that Naevius may have possession
            at the same time with you; take possession in such a manner that no violence may be
            offered to Quinctius.” What? how do you observe that? I say nothing of his not
            having been a man who was keeping out of the way, of his being a man who had a house, a
            wife, children, and an agent at <placeName key="perseus,Rome">Rome</placeName>; I say
            nothing of all this: I say this, that the owner was expelled from his farm; that hands
            were laid on their master by his own slaves, before his own household gods; I say <gap reason="lost"/>
            <milestone n="28" unit="chapter" resp="yonge"/><milestone unit="Para"/>
          I say too that Naevius never even asked Quinctius for the money, when he was with him,
            and might have sued him every day; because he preferred that all the most perplexing
            modes of legal proceedings should take place, to his own great discredit, and to the
            greatest danger of Publius Quinctius, rather than allow of the simple trial about money
            matters which could have been got through in one day; from which one trial he admits
            that all these arose and proceeded. On which occasion I offered a condition, if he was
            determined to demand the money, that Publius Quinctius should give security to submit to
            the decision, if he also, if Quinctius had any demands upon him, would submit to the
            like conditions.</p></div><div type="textpart" subtype="section" n="86" resp="perseus"><p>I showed how many things ought to be
            done before a demand was made that the goods of a relation should be taken possession
            of; especially when he had at <placeName key="perseus,Rome">Rome</placeName> his house,
            his wife, his children, and an agent who was equally an intimate friend of both. I
            proved that when he said the recognizances were forfeited, there were actually no
            recognizances at all; that on the day on which he says he gave him the promise, he was
            not even at <placeName key="perseus,Rome">Rome</placeName>. I promised that I would make
            that plain by witnesses, who both must know the truth, and who had no reason for
            speaking falsely. I proved also that it was not possible that the goods should have been
            taken possession of according to the edict; because he was neither said to have kept out
            of the way for the purpose of fraud, nor to have left the country in banishment.
             </p></div><div type="textpart" subtype="section" n="87" resp="perseus"><p>The charge remains, that no one defended him at the
            trial. In opposition to which I argued that he was most abundantly defended, and that
            not by a man unconnected with him, nor by any slanderous or worthless person, but by a
            Roman knight, his own relation and intimate friend, whom Sextus Naevius himself had been
            accustomed previously to leave as his own agent. And that even if he did appeal to the
            tribunes, he was not on that account the less prepared to submit to a trial; and that
            Naevius had not had his rights wrested from him by the powerful interest of the agent;
            that on the other hand he was so much superior to us in interest that he now scarcely
            gives us the liberty of breathing.</p></div><milestone n="29" unit="chapter" resp="yonge"/><milestone unit="Para"/><div type="textpart" subtype="section" n="88" resp="perseus"><p>I asked what the reason was why the goods had not been sold, since they had been taken
            possession of according to the edict. Secondly, I asked this also, on what account not
            one of so many creditors either did the same thing then, why not one speaks against him
            now, but why they are all striving for Publius Quinctius? Especially when in such a
            trial the testimonies of creditors are thought exceedingly material. After that, I
            employed the testimony of the adversary, who lately entered as his partner the man who,
            according to the language of his present claim, <note anchored="true"><foreign xml:lang="la">Intentio</foreign> was the technical legal term for the claim made by the
              plaintiff.</note> he demonstrates was at that time not even in the number of living
            men. Then I mentioned that incredible rapidity, or rather audacity of his. I showed that
            it was inevitable, either that seven hundred miles had been run over in two days, or
            that Sextus Naevius had sent men to take possession many days before he demanded leave
            so to seize his goods.</p></div></div></body></text></TEI>
                </passage>
            </reply>
            </GetPassage>