[29]
What shall I say against him except that which he cannot
deny?—that he came on the bench during a criminal trial, though he was not a member
of that tribunal; and that, while sitting on that bench, though he had not heard a word of the
cause, and though there was an opportunity of adjourning the decision, he still gave his
sentence, “ that the case was proved;” that as he chose to decide without
having inquired into the matter, he preferred condemning to acquitting; and that, inasmuch as,
if there had been one damnatory vote fewer, the defendant could not have been condemned, he
came forward, not so much for the purpose of investigating the case, as of insuring a
conviction. Can anything worse be said against any man, than that he was induced by a bribe to
condemn a man whom he had never seen nor even heard of? Or, can any allegation be made against
a man on more certain grounds than one which even he, against whom it is made, cannot attempt
to invalidate, not even by signs?
This text is part of:
Search the Perseus Catalog for:
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.