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

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.