32
That is what he said; but it is worth your while to learn the abominable wickedness of these men, and their mendacity. Concerning the vessel which was wrecked they had no contract,The speaker’s contention is that even if the ship was wrecked, that fact does not release Lacritus from his obligation; for the loan made by Androcles was secured not by the ship, which appears to have been mortgaged to Antipater, but upon the cargo of Mendaean wine and the return cargo which was to have been brought from Pontus. The wares lost (by jettison when the ship was damaged) were not, the speaker holds, the return cargo. That the ship was not actually lost seems a necessary inference from Dem. 35.28, where it is stated that she returned to Athens. but it was another man who had lent from Athens upon the freight to Pontus, and on the vessel itself. (Antipater was the lender’s name; he was a CitianCitium is a port in Cyprus. by birth.) The Coan wine (eighty jars of wine that had turned sour) and the salt fish were being transported in the vessel for a certain farmer from Panticapaeum to Theodosia for the use of the laborers on his farm. Why, then, do they keep alleging these excuses? It is in no wise fitting.
33
Now please take the deposition first that of Apollonides, showing that it was Antipater who lent money upon the vessel, and that these men were in no wise affected by the shipwreck; and then that of Erasicles and that of Hippias, showing that only eighty jars were being transported in the vessel.
33
The Depositions
