own precise language; and that the law with a contrary sense should appear to be introduced with a doubtful interpretation, or by some ratiocination or definition, in order that that law which is expressed in plain language may appear to be the more solemn and efficient.  After that it will be well to add the meaning of the law which is on one’s own side according to the strict letter of it; and also to explain the opposite law so as to make it appear to have another meaning, in order that, if possible, they may not seem to be inconsistent with one another.  And, last of all, it will be a good thing, if the cause shall afford any opportunity for so doing, to take care that on our principles both the laws may seem to be upheld, but that on the principle contended for by our adversaries one of them must be put aside.  It will be well also to consider all the common topics and those which the cause itself furnishes, and to take them from the most highly esteemed divisions of the subjects of expediency and honour, showing by means of amplification which law it is most desirable to adhere to.

L. From ratiocination there arises a controversy when, from what is written somewhere or other, one arrives at what is not written anywhere; in this way:—­“If a man is mad, let those of his family and his next of kin have the regulation of himself and of his property.”  And there is another law—­“In whatever manner a head of a family has made his will respecting his family and his property, so let it be.”  And another law—­“If a head of a family dies intestate, his family and property shall belong to his relations and to his next of kin.”  A certain man was convicted of having murdered his father.  Immediately, because he was not able to escape, wooden shoes were put upon his feet, and his mouth was covered with a leathern bag, and bound fast, then he was led away to prison, that he might remain there while a bag was got ready for him to be put into and thrown into a river.  In the meantime some of his friends bring tablets to the prison, and introduce witnesses also; they put down those men as his heirs whom he himself desires; the will is sealed; the man is afterwards executed.  There is a dispute between those who are set down as his heirs in the will, and his next of kin, about his inheritance.  In this instance there is no positive law alleged which takes away the power of making a will from people who are in such a situation.  But from other laws, both those which inflict a punishment of this character on a man guilty of such a crime, and those, too, which relate to a man’s power of making a will, it is possible to come by means of ratiocination to a conclusion of this sort, that it is proper to inquire whether he had the power of making a will.