[102]
When the Cominii did the same thing
that I have done throughout the whole of this cause, people approved of them. Wherefore, if by
the condemnation of Stalenus it was decided that Oppianicus had desired to corrupt the
judges,—that Oppianicus had given one of the judges money to purchase the votes of
the other judges, (since it has been already settled that either Cluentius is guilty of that
offence, or else Oppianicus, but that no trace whatever is found of any money belonging to
Cluentius having been ever given to any judge, while money belonging to Oppianicus was taken
away, after the trial was over, from a judge,)—can it be doubtful that that
conviction of Stalenus does not only not make against Cluentius, but is the greatest possible
confirmation of our cause and of our defence?
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.