12
Many proofs might one advance and set forth to show that the plaintiff’s claim to a sum of banking capital is malicious and baseless. But the strongest proof of all that Phormio received no capital is, I think, this: that Pasio is set down in the lease as debtor to the bank, not as having given banking capital to the defendant. The second proof is that the plaintiff is shown to have made no demands at the time of the distribution of the property. The third is that when he subsequently leased the same business to others for the same sum, he will be shown not to have leased any private capital of his own along with it.
13
And yet, if he had been defrauded by the defendant of capital which his father left, he would himself on that assumption have had to provide it from some other source and given it to the new lessees.If it were true that Apollodorus had been defrauded by Phormio of capital which Pasio had invested in the bank, then, when the bank was let to new lessees on the same terms as before, Apollodorus would have had to make up the missing capital from some other source.
13
To prove that I speak the truth in this, and that Apollodorus subsequently leased the bank to Xeno and Euphraeus, and Euphro, and Callistratus, and that he delivered no private capital to them either, but that they leased only the deposits and the right to the profits accruing from them, take, please, the deposition which proves these matters, and proves also that he chose the shield-factory.
13
The Deposition
