Kitap 7
1.6
I therefore passed to the answer of the defence and considered it from the same standpoint: even there the point was sometimes one that was admitted. It was not until the parties ceased to agree that any question arose. 'fake for example the following case. You killed a man. Yes, I killed him. Agreed, I pass to the defence,
1.7
which has to produce the motive for the homicide. It is lawful, lie urges, to kill an adulterer with his paramour. Another admitted point, for there is no doubt about the law. We must look for a third point where the two parties are at variance. They were not adulterers, say the prosecution; They were, say the defence. Here then is the question at issue: there is a doubt as to the facts, and it is therefore a question of conjecure. i.e. a question as to facts. cv. VII. ii. Sometimes even the third point may be admitted;
1.8
it is granted that they were adulterers. But, says the accuser, you had no right to kill them, for you were an exile or had forfeited your civil rights. The question is now one of law. On the other hand, if when the prosecution says, You killed them, the defence at once replies, I did not, the issue is raised without more delay. If it requires some search to discover where the dispute really begins, we must consider what constitutes the first question. The charge may be simple,
