Final answer:
Giles' claim through his disposition suggests a cautious approach to judgment in the absence of evidence. He follows a principle where if two parties are equal and no proof exists, the defendant should be favored. Giles is conflicted when this principle doesn't coincide with substantial evidence or a sense of fairness.
Step-by-step explanation:
The passages provided from various texts seem to discuss the principles of judgment, particularly in scenarios where evidence is limited or non-existent. Giles presents a claim through his disposition which seems to reflect a cautious approach to judgment when evidence is missing. The claim is rooted in the idea that when two disputing parties are equal in character and lack witnesses, the decision should lean towards the defendant. This principle originates from Marcus Cato's speech which suggests that if documentation or witnesses are not present to prove a claim, the standing of the individuals in question should be considered. The defendant who is being claimed against, and if found equal in standing to the claimant, should be believed, essentially giving them the benefit of the doubt. However, this assumes both parties are equal, which is not the case in all disputes.
One of the quotes from the texts states, "if a question at issue between two men could not be proved either by documents or witnesses, then the question should be raised before the judge who was trying the case which of the two was the better man". This highlights the idea that personal virtue could play a role in legal decisions. Yet, Giles seems to struggle with this principle when it doesn't align with clear-cut evidence or a sense of justice.