32
For when Leocrates died, and his funeral had taken place, and we went to take possession of his property, since he had died without issue and unmarried, Leostratus here ejected us, declaring that it belonged to him. Now his preventing us from performing any of the proper rites for the deceased is perhaps to be excused, seeing that he was his father, although the act was contrary to law; for it is proper that the care of the funeral should be committed to the natural father, but, next after him, also to us the members of the family to whom the deceased was related by virtue of the adoption.
33
But after the funeral rites were finished, what law will be found to justify him, when the family was extinct, in driving us, the nearest of kin, from the estate of the deceased? Because, they will say, he was father to the dead man. Yes, but he had returned to the family of his fathers, and was no longer master of the estate over which he had left his son in charge. Otherwise what is the use of the laws?
34
Well, after our ejectment had taken place (to omit most of the details) we brought suit for the inheritance before the archon, inasmuch as the deceased had no son, as I stated, and had not adopted any according to the laws. After this, Leostratus here made a deposit for costs, as being the son of the aforesaid Archiades, not taking into account that he had returned to the Eleusinians, or that adopted children are made such, not by themselves but by those who adopt them.
