Against Apaturius

It is worth while also for you to bear this in mind, men of the jury, that, if I had been surety, I should never have denied it. For my argument was much stronger, if I admitted the guaranty and appealed to the agreement in accordance with which the arbitration was to be held. That the matter was referred to three arbitrators has been shown by testimony. When, then, there had been no decision by the three, why in the world should I have denied the guaranty? For, if judgement had not been given in accordance with the agreement, neither should I have been open to action for my guaranty. Therefore, men of the jury, if I had really become a surety, I should not have given up a defence which was at hand, and have proceeded to deny the fact.

Again, the following fact has been testified to you by witnesses, that, after the articles of agreement had been made away with by these men, the plaintiff and Parmeno sought to have new articles drawn up, thus admitting that their former agreement was without force. Yet, when they sought to have other articles drawn in regard to the judgement that was to be given, since the existing ones had been lost, how was it possible that, if other articles were not drawn, there could be either arbitration or guaranty? It was the fact that they disagreed upon this very point that prevented their writing new articles, Apaturius demanding that there should be one arbitrator, and Parmeno that there should be three. But, since the original articles were made away with, in accordance with which he alleges that I became a surety, and other articles were not written, what right has he to bring suit against me, against whom he is able to produce no agreement?