<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-eng2:5.6.6-5.7.4</requestUrn>
            </request>
            <reply>
                <urn>urn:cts:latinLit:phi1002.phi001.perseus-eng2:5.6.6-5.7.4</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="6" type="textpart" subtype="chapter"><div n="6" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> But in my young days advocates grown old in pleading used to lay it down
                            as a rule that we should never be in a hurry to propose that our
                            opponent should take an oath, just as we should never allow him the
                            choice of a judge <note anchored="true" place="unspecified"> The choice
                                of the single <hi rend="italic">iudex</hi> in civil cases rested
                                with the plaintiff, though the defendant had the right to refuse the
                                person proposed. </note> nor select our judge from among the
                            supporters of the opposite side: for if it is regarded as a disgrace to
                            such a supporter <note anchored="true" place="unspecified"> Not an
                                actual advocate, but a supporter and adviser on points of law.
                            </note> to say anything against his client, it is surely a still worse
                            disgrace that he should do anything that will harm his client's case.
                        </p></div></div><div n="7" type="textpart" subtype="chapter"><div n="1" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> It is, however, the evidence that gives the greatest trouble to
                            advocates. Evidence may be given either in writing or orally by
                            witnesses present in court. Documentary evidence is easier to dispose
                            of. For it is likely that the deponent was less ashamed of himself in
                            the presence of a small number of witnesses, and his absence from court
                            is attacked as indicating a lack of confidence. If we cannot call the
                            character of the deponent in question, we may attack the witnesses to
                            his signature. </p></div><div n="2" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> Further there is always a certain tacit prejudice against documentary
                            evidence, since no one can be forced to give such evidence save of his
                            own free will, whereby he shows that he harbours unfriendly feelings
                            towards the person against whom he bears <pb n="v4-6 p.171"/> witness.
                            On the other hand an advocate should be chary of denying that a friend
                            may give true evidence against a friend or an enemy against an enemy,
                            provided they are persons of unimpeachable credit. But the subject
                            admits of copious discussion, from whichever side it be regarded. </p></div><div n="3" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> The task of dealing with the evidence of witnesses present in court is,
                            however, one of great difficulty, and consequently whether defending or
                            impugning them the orator employs a twofold armoury in the shape of a
                            set speech and examination. <note anchored="true" place="unspecified"><hi rend="italic">Interrogatio</hi> includes both the
                                examination in chief and cross-examination. </note> In set speeches
                            it is usual to begin with observations either on behalf of or against
                            witnesses in general. </p></div><div n="4" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> In so doing we introduce a commonplace, since one side will contend that
                            there can be no stronger proof than that which rests on human knowledge,
                            while the other, in order to detract from their credibility, will
                            enumerate all the methods by which false evidence is usually given. </p></div></div></div></div></body></text></TEI>
                </passage>
            </reply>
            </GetPassage>