[91]
Why, then, in that interdict
which is of almost daily occurrence, “whence he drove me by violence,” is
this added, “when I was in possession,” if no one can be driven away who
is not in possession; or why is not the same addition made to the interdict “about
armed men,” if inquiry ought to be made whether a man was the owner or no? You say
that no man can be driven away, but one who is the owner. I assert that, if any one be driven
away without men being collected and armed, then he who confesses that he has driven him away
must gain his cause, if he can show that he was not the owner. You say that a man cannot be
driven away unless he is the owner. I prove from this interdict “about armed
men,” that he, who can prove that the man who has been driven away was not the
owner, still must inevitably lose his cause, if he confesses that he was driven away at all.
This text is part of:
Search the Perseus Catalog for:
M. Tullius Cicero. The Orations of Marcus Tullius Cicero, literally translated by C. D. Yonge, B. A. London. Henry G. Bohn, York Street, Covent Garden. 1856.
The National Endowment for the Humanities provided support for entering this text.
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.