Actions on the formula, “What has become of that money,” are usually decided, not by any proceeding taken especially with reference to them, but by those which were adopted in the case of the original defendant. Therefore, if Gabinius had either given sureties, or if the people had got as large a sum out of his property as the damages amounted to, then, however large a sum had been obtained from him by Postumus, none would have been demanded back again. So that it may easily be seen, that in a case of this sort, the money is only demanded back again from any one who has been clearly proved in the former action to have become possessed of it. But at present what is the question under discussion? Where in the world are we? What can be either said or imagined so unprecedented, so unsuitable, so preposterous as this?
This text is part of:
Table of Contents:
THE SPEECH OF M. T. CICERO AGAINST PUBLIUS VATINIUS; CALLED ALSO, THE EXAMINATION OF PUBLIUS VATINIUS.
THE SPEECH OF M. T. CICERO IN DEFENCE OF CAIUS RABIRIUS POSTUMUS.
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.