and educated with my brother, to be stripped of my fortune by this Cleon. I fupplicate, therefore, and implore you, judges, to decide the cause in my favour; for thus will you give fatisfaction to the departed fpirit of Aftyphilus, and will defend me from a flagrant injury.

SPEECH THE NINTH.

ON THE ESTATE OF ARISTARCHUS.

THE ARGUMENT.

ARISTARCHUS having two sons, Cyronides and Demochares, and two daughters, one of whom was the mother of the complainant, emancipated Cyronides, and caused him to be appointed representative of his maternal grandfather Xenænetus; leaving his other children to inherit his own estate. Demochares died without issue, and one of his daughters also died childless; so that the whole fortune of Aristarchus came by law to the complainant's mother, who was the surviving daughter.

After the death of Aristarchus, his brother Aristomenes, who was lawful guardian to his children, gave his own daughter in marriage to Cyronides, and engaged to support his claim to all the possessions of his father, by whom he had been emancipated. Cyronides had a son, who was named Aristarchus, and was admitted by Aristomenes to the house and property of his grandfather, as if this had been conformable to the will of the deceased. This grandson died young, having by will left the

225

fortune to a brother of his, named Xenænetus.

While these things were transacted, and the younger Xenæenetus possessed the estate of the elder Aristarchus, the son of the surviving daughter before-mentioned brought his bill of complaint, insisting that he alone ought justly to take the inheritance; that Cyronides was wholly excluded by his emancipation; that the deceased, having a legitimate son, Demochares, could not legally have adopted another by his will; and that Demochares himself, being under age, was disabled, as well as his sister who died, from introducing a son by adoption to their father's family: so that the admission of the younger Aristarchus to the possessions of the elder being illegal, the will of the person so admitted was invalid; since he could not transfer to another what he had not légally obtained. Isæus contends, therefore, that this last-mentioned will being set aside, the property devolves of course to the complainant, who represents the legitimate daughter of the elder Aristarchus. The speech is argumentative; and the cause turns upon the validity of such a will, and the comparative merits of both claimants.