If you were about to decide a court case over even a tiny amount of money, you wouldn't accept anything as fact without a witness. And you wouldn't trust a witness unless they swore an oath. You would listen to both sides. You would give them time. You wouldn't rush through it in one session, because the more you examine something, the clearer the truth becomes. So why do you condemn your friend immediately? Why are you angry with him before you hear his side, before you question him, before he even knows who accused him or what he's charged with? Just now, in that case you tried, didn't you listen to what both sides had to say?
If you were about to give sentence in court about ever so small a sum of money, you would take nothing as proved without a witness, and a witness would count for nothing except on his oath. You would allow both sides to be heard: you would allow them time: you would not despatch the matter at one sitting, because the oftener it is handled the more distinctly the truth appears. And do you condemn your friend off-hand? Are you angry with him before you hear his story, before you have cross-examined him, before he can know either who is his accuser or with what he is charged. Why then, just now, in the case which you just tried, did you hear what was said on both sides?