_Against Eubulides_, 345 B.C. Euxitheus, who has been ‘objected to’ at the revision of the list of citizens, claims that he is a citizen by rights, but has been removed from the roll maliciously by Eubulides. The present case is his appeal (ἔφεσις) to the court against the decision. The remaining private speeches were quite possibly not composed by Demosthenes, though proof is generally impossible. They seem, however, to be genuine speeches, composed for delivery by some author or authors of the Demosthenic period, and are of extreme interest and importance to all students of private life at Athens. _Against Callippus_, 369 B.C. An ἔφεσις or appeal to a court from an arbitration which, according to the plaintiff Apollodorus, Pasion’s son, was informal, as the arbitrator had not taken the oath. The case arises from a claim made by Callippus for money deposited with the banker Pasion, and by him paid out to one Cephisiades. _Against Nicostratus_, 368-365 B.C. Apollodorus had declared that Arethusius, a debtor to the State, possessed two slaves, who were liable to be confiscated in payment of the debt. Nicostratus, brother of Arethusius, declared that the slaves were his. Apollodorus in this speech has to prove that the claim is false. _Against Timotheus_, 362 B.C. Apollodorus claims from Timotheus money which, he affirms, the latter borrowed from Pasion. _Against Polycles_, 358 B.C. Apollodorus was forced to act at trierarch beyond the appointed time, as Polycles, his successor, was not ready to take over the duty. The former claims damages. _Against Stephanus_, ii. See _Against Stephanus_, i., to which this is a supplement. _Against Euergus and Mnesibulus_, 356-353 B.C. A prosecution for perjury of witnesses in a case of ex-trierarchs who are state-debtors. _Against Zenothemis_, date unknown. An intricate story of fraud and collusion in connexion with money borrowed on the security of a ship and an attempt to scuttle the ship. _Against Boeotus_, ii., 348-346 B.C. (see the first speech _Against Boeotus_). Mantitheus claims from his brothers the payment of his mother’s dowry in addition to his share of his father’s inheritance. _Against Macartatus_, _c._ 341 B.C. A case dealing with a forged will and conflicting claims to an inheritance. _Against Olympiodorus_, _c._ 341 B.C. Olympiodorus and Callistratus, brothers-in-law, obtained the inheritance of Conon. Their title being questioned, judgment went against them by default. They brought a fresh action, Olympiodorus claiming the whole and Callistratus half, but they had secretly agreed to divide the booty equally. Olympiodorus was awarded the whole, and kept it, so Callistratus brought an action on the ground of their agreement. _Against Lacritus_, date unknown. Lacritus disclaims responsibility for the debts of his brother Artemon, whose property he has inherited.