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."