[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.
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.