[3] Suspicion was chiefly aroused by the sight of a servant of Cassius Sabaco inside the palings among the voters; for Sabaco was an especial friend of Marius. Sabaco was therefore summoned before the court, and testified that the heat had made him so thirsty that he had called for cold water, and that his servant had come in to him with a cup, and had then at once gone away after his master had drunk. [4] Sabaco, however, was expelled from the senate by the censors of the next year, and it was thought that he deserved this punishment, either because he had given false testimony, or because of his intemperance. But Caius Herennius also was brought in as a witness against Marius, and pleaded that it was contrary to established usage for patrons (the Roman term for our representatives at law) to bear witness against clients, and that the law relieved them of this necessity; and not only the parents of Marius but Marius himself had originally been clients of the house of the Herennii. [5] The jurors accepted this plea in avoidance of testimony, but Marius himself contradicted Herennius, declaring that as soon as he had been elected to his magistracy he had ceased to be a client; which was not altogether true. For it is not every magistracy that frees its occupants (as well as their posterity) from their relations to a patron, but only that to which the law assigns the curule chair. However, although during the first days of the trial Marius fared badly and found the jurors severe towards him, on the last day, contrary to all expectation, there was a tie vote and he was acquitted.
