8
And yet for the computation of the sums of which I had been robbed, I relied not so much on this man’s testimony, for there was no mention of money in it, but on the several statements of the others, against whom the plaintiff has made no charges. Therefore the jurymen who at that time heard my plea, not only found him guilty, but fixed the damages at the full amount stated in my complaint. Why was it, then, that he passed over the other witnesses and sued the defendant alone? I will tell you.
9
In regard to all the witnesses who testified that he had received the money, he knew that the more discussion there should be over each separate point, the more convincingly would he be convicted of possessing it, and this was bound to be the case in a trial for false witness; for the accusations which I then made along with all the others in a small part of the time allotted me, I should now discuss severally and in detail in the time of an entire speech;
10
whereas, if he attacked an answer given, he thought that as he had made an admission before, so now it would be in his power to make a denial.That is, in attacking the testimony of the deponent he would deny his own previous admissions. That is the reason why he attacks the testimony of this witness, the truth of whose testimony I mean to prove conclusively to you all, not on the basis of probabilities, or of arguments made up to fit the occasion, but by reasoning which, I am sure, will approve itself to you all as just and fair. Listen, and judge.
