28
If certain people have remitted anything in your favor, and have been induced on one ground or another to accept interest only as far as Rhodes, does it follow that you are doing no wrong to us, your agreement with whom you have broken in having your ship put into Rhodes? I do not think so. For this jury is not now deciding upon concessions made to you by others, but upon an agreement entered into by you yourself with us. For that the remission of the interest, supposing that it actually took place, as these men allege, was to the advantage of the creditors, is plain to every one of you.
29
For those who lent their money to these men for the outward voyage from Egypt to Athens, when they reached Rhodes and this man put into that port, suffered no loss, I take it, by remitting the interest and receiving the amount of their loan at Rhodes, and then putting the money to work again for a voyage to Egypt. No; this was more to their advantage than to continue the voyage to this port.
30
For voyaging from Rhodes to Egypt is uninterrupted, and they could put the same money to work two or three times, whereas here they would have had to pass the winter and to await the season for sailing. These creditors therefore have reaped an additional profit, and have not remitted anything to these men. With us, however, it is not a question of the interest merely, but we are unable to recover even our principal.
31
Do not, then, listen to him, when he seeks to hoodwink you, and brings before you his transactions with other creditors, but refer him to the agreement and to the rights growing out of it. It remains for me to interpret this matter for you, and the defendant insists upon this very thing, stating that the agreement requires him to repay the loan only if the ship arrives safe. We also maintain that this should be so.
