4
Such are the facts. But our cause presents difficulties. For Nicias, both when he was depositing the money and when he tried to get it back, had no one with him, either freeman or slaveTransactions with a banker were generally conducted without witnesses; see Isoc. 17.2.; thus it is impossible either by torture of slaves or by testimony to get at the facts, but it is by circumstantial evidence that we must plead and you must judge which side speaks the truth.
5
I think that you all know that malicious prosecution is most generally attempted by those who are clever speakers but possess nothing, whereas the defendants lack skill in speaking but are able to pay money. Well, Nicias is better off than Euthynus, but has less ability as a speaker; so that there is no reason why he should have proceeded against Euthynus unjustly.
6
No indeed, but from the very facts in the case anyone can see that it is far more probable that Euthynus received the money and then denied having done so than that Nicias did not entrust it to him and then entered his complaint. For it is self-evident that it is always for the sake of gain that men do wrong. Now those who defraud others are in possession of the fruit of their crimes, but their accusers do not even know if they shall get back anything.
7
Besides, when conditions in the city were unsettled and the courts were suspended, it was useless for Nicias to sue Euthynus and the latter had no cause for fear though guilty of the fraud. It was not surprising, therefore, at a time when those who had borrowed money even in the presence of witnesses denied it, that Euthynus should have robbed him of what he had received from him when neither was accompanied by witnesses. And it is not probable that at a time when not even those to whom money was justly owed could recover it, Nicias should have believed that he could obtain anything by an unjust accusation.
