Pro A. Caecina

Sections

– 1 – 1 2 – 2 3 – 3 4 – 4 5 – 5 6 – 6 7 – 7 8 – 8 9 – 9 10 – 10 11 – 12 13 – 14 15 – 15 16 – 16 17 – 17 18 – 19 20 – 20 21 – 21 22 – 22 23 – 23 24 – 24 25 – 26 27 – 27 28 – 28 29 – 29 30 – 30 31 – 31 32 – 32 33 – 33 34 – 34 35 – 35 36 – 36 37 – 37 38 – 38 39 – 39 40 – 40 41 – 41 42 – 42 43 – 43 44 – 44 45 – 45 46 – 46 47 – 48 49 – 49 50 – 50 51 – 52 53 – 53 54 – 54 55 – 55 56 – 56 57 – 57 58 – 58 59 – 59 60 – 60 61 – 62 63 – 63 64 – 64 65 – 65 66 – 66 67 – 67 68 – 68 69 – 69 70 – 70 71 – 72 73 – 73 74 – 74 75 – 75 76 – 76 77 – 77 78 – 78 79 – 79 80 – 80 81 – 81 82 – 82 83 – 83 84 – 84 85 – 85 86 – 86 87 – 87 88 – 88 89 – 89 90 – 90 91 – 91 92 – 92 93 – 93 94 – 94 95 – 95 96 – 96 97 – 97 98 – 98 99 – 99 100 – 100 101 – 101 102 – 102 103 – 103 104 – 104

İngilizce Latince

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.