Against Stephanus II

Even of myself, men of the jury, I could pretty well suspect that this fellow Stephanus would not be at a loss for something to say in defence of his testimony; and that he would seek to mislead and deceive you in his speech by alleging that he has not borne witness to everything written in the deposition. For he is a knave, and there are many to write speeches and give advice on Phormio’s behalf. Furthermore it is but natural that those who undertake to give false testimony should at the start prepare some means of defending it.

But I bid you to bear this in mind, that in his address, long as it was, he nowhere brought forward witnesses to prove to you either that he was himself present when my father made this will, so as to know that this is a copy of the will which my father made, or that he saw the document opened which they declare my father drew up and left as his will.

When, however, my opponent has testified that what was written in the document was a copy of the will of Pasio, but is unable to prove either that my father made a will or that he was himself present and saw it when my father drew it up, is he not manifestly proved to have given false testimony?

If, now, he maintains that it was a challenge and not a deposition, he is not telling the truth. For all pieces of evidence which the parties to a suit bring before the court when they tender challenges to one another, they bring in by means of depositions. Otherwise you would not know whether what they severally say is true or false, if they did not bring forward the witnesses also. But when they do bring in witnesses, you rely upon these as being responsible, and so from the statements and the testimony offered you cast your votes for what seems to you to be a just verdict.