“TYING UP” THE INTRODUCTION

As often as we use an exordium, whether we pass next to the narration, or immediately to the proofs, we ought always to preserve a connection between what follows and what goes before.  To proceed from one part to another, by some ingenious thought which disguises the transition, and to seek applause from such a studied exertion of wit, is quite of a piece with the cold and childish affectation of our declaimers.  If a long and intricate narration must follow, the judge ought naturally to be prepared for it.  This Cicero often does, as in this passage:  “I must proceed pretty high to clear up this matter to you, which I hope, gentlemen, you will not be displeased at, because its origin being known will make you thoroughly acquainted with the particulars proceeding from it.”

THE NARRATION

There are causes so short as to require rather to be proposed than told.  It is sometimes the case with two contending sides, either that they have no exposition to make, or that agreeing on the fact, they contest only the right.  Sometimes one of the contending parties, most commonly the plaintiff, need only propose the matter, as most to his advantage, and then it will be enough for him to say:  “I ask for a certain sum of money due to me according to agreement; I ask for what was bequeathed to me by will.”  It is the defendant’s business to show that he has no right to such a debt or legacy.  On other occasions it is enough, and more advisable, for the plaintiff to point out merely the fact:  “I say that Horatius killed his sister.”  This simple proposition makes known the whole crime, but the details and the cause of the fact will suit better the defendant.  Let it be supposed, on the other hand, that the fact can not be denied or excused; then the defendant, instead of narrating, will best abide by the question of right.  Some one is accused of sacrilege for stealing the money of a private person out of a temple.  The pleader of the cause had better confess the fact than give an account of it.  “We do not deny that this money was taken out of the temple.  It was the money of a private person, and not set apart for any religious use.  But the plaintiff calumniates us by an action for sacrilege.  It is, therefore, your business, gentlemen, to decide whether it can properly be specified as sacrilege.”

THE TWO KINDS OF NARRATION

There are two kinds of narration in judicial matters, the one for the cause, the other for things belonging to it.  “I have not killed that man.”  This needs no narration.  I admit it does not; but there may be a narration, and even somewhat long, concerning the probable causes of innocence in the accused, as his former integrity of life, the opponent’s motives for endangering the life of a guiltless person, and other circumstances arguing the incredibility