6
When these transactions had been completed in the month of Elaphebolion in the archonship of Theophilus,That is, in March 347 B.C. I at once sailed away for Pontus, but the plaintiff and Evergus remained here. What transactions they had with one another while I was away, I cannot state, for they do not tell the same story, nor is the plaintiff always consistent with himself; sometimes he says that he was forcibly ousted from his leasehold by Evergus in violation of the agreement; sometimes that Evergus was the cause of his being inscribed as a debtor to the state;See note on Dem. 37.2 and the Introduction. sometimes anything else that he chooses to say.
7
But Evergus tells a plain and consistent story, that since he was not receiving his interest, and the plaintiff was not performing any of the other things stipulated in the agreement, he went and took from the plaintiff, with the latter’s consent, what was his own, and kept it; that after this the plaintiff went away, but came back bringing men to make claim to the property; that he on his own part did not give way in their favour, but made no objection to the plaintiff’s holding that for which he had given a lease, provided he should observe the terms of the agreement. From these men, then, I hear stories of this sort.
8
This, however, I know well, that, if the plaintiff speaks the truth, and has been outrageously treated, as he says, by Evergus, he has had satisfaction to the amount at which he himself assessed his damages; for he came into your court and won his suit against him; and surely he has no right to obtain damages for the same wrongs both from the one who committed them and from me, who was not even in Athens. But, if it is Evergus who speaks the truth, he has been made the object, it appears, of a baseless and malicious charge; but even so there is no ground for my being sued on the same charge.
