32.
[92]
Men are driven away in two ways, either without the employment of men collected together and
armed, or by means of them, and by violence. There are two separate interdicts for two
dissimilar cases. In the first and formal kind of violence, it is not enough for a man to be
able to prove that he was driven away, unless he is also able to show that he was driven away
when he was in possession. And even that is not enough, unless he can show that he was in
possession, having become so neither by violence, nor by underhand practices, nor by having
begged the property. Therefore, he who said that he had replaced him is often accustomed to
avow loudly that he drove him away by violence; but he adds this, “He was not in
possession.” Or again, when he has admitted even this, still he gains his cause if
he can prove that the man had obtained possession from him either by violence, or by underhand
practices, or by begging for it.
[93]
Do you not perceive how
many defensive pleas our ancestors allowed a man to be able to employ who had done this
violence without arms and without a multitude? But as for the man who, neglecting right, and
duty, and proper customs, has betaken himself to the sword, to arms, and to murder, him you
see naked and defenceless in the cause; so that the man who has contended in arms for the
possession, must clearly contend unarmed in the court of justice. Is there, then, any real
difference, O Piso, between these interdicts? Does it
make any difference whether the words “As Aulus Caecina was in possession”
be added, or not? Does the consideration of right,—does the dissimilarity of the
interdicts,—does the authority of your ancestors, at all influence you? If the
addition had been made, inquiry must have been made as to this point. The addition has not
been made. Must that inquiry still be instituted?
[94]
And in
this particular I do not defend Caecina. For, O judges, Caecina was in possession; and
although it is foreign to this cause, still I will briefly touch upon this point, to make you
as desirous to protect the man himself, as the common rights of all men. You do not deny that
Caesennia had a life interest in the farm. As the same farmer who rented it of Caesennia
continued to hold it on the same tenure, is there any doubt, that if Caesennia was the owner
while the farmer was tenant of the farm, so after her death her heir was the owner by the same
right? Afterwards Caecina, when he was going the round of his estates, came to that farm. He
received his accounts from the farmer. There is evidence to that point.
[95]
After that, why, O. Aebutius, did you give notice to Caecina to give up that
farm, rather than some others, if you could find any other, unless Caecina was in possession
of it? Moreover, why did Caecina consent to be ejected in a regular and formal manner? and why
did he make you the answer he did by the advice of his friends, and of Caius Aquillius
himself?
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.