tion of presents, except of certain provision for eating and drinking which may be consumed in a few days.-(Pars II. Tr. 2. c. 31.)

BUSEMBAUM & LACROIX.

Theologia Moralis, nunc pluribus partibus aucta à R. P. Claudio Lacroix, Societatis Jesu. Coloniæ, 1757. (Coloniæ Agrippinæ, 1733. Ed. Mus. Brit.)

Is a judge bound to restore the bribe which he has received for pronouncing judgment?

Answ.--If he has received it for a just sentence he is bound to restore it, because it was otherwise due to the pleader, and he has therefore received no benefit for his money.

If the judge has received it for an unjust sentence, he is not bound by natural right to make restitution, as Bannez, Sanchez, &c. teach, because he was not obliged to pronounce that unjust sentence. But this action is useful to the pleader, and the unjust judge exposes himself to great danger by it, especially in his reputation, if he should be convicted of injustice. Now the exposure to such danger in the service of another may be valued at a price."

21

21" Hæc autem actio est utilis litiganti, et injustus judex ratione illius subit magnum periculum, præsertim famæ, si de injustitiâ convincatur. Subire autem pro altero tale periculum ad causandum ei utilitatem, est pretio æstimabile."— Tom. IV. Lib. iv. de Judice, c. 3. Dub. 2. Art. 4. Quæst. 268. n. 1498.

SECT. XIII.

THEFT AND SECRET COMPENSATION.

EMMANUEL SA.

Aphorismi Confessariorum. Coloniæ, 1590. (Coloniæ, 1615. Ed. Coll. Sion.)

It is not a mortal sin to take secretly from him who would give if he were asked, although he may be unwilling that it should be taken secretly; and it is not necessary to restore.

It is not theft to take a small thing secretly from a husband or a father: but if it be considerable it must be restored.

If you have taken any thing which you doubt to have been your own, some say that you ought to restore it, others deny it; because, in the doubt, the condition of the possessor is the better.22

He who has caused no loss in taking any thing which belonged to another, because the proprietor made no use of it, is not bound to restore it if it will not be of any future use to its owner.

He who from any urgent necessity, or without causing much loss, takes wood from another man's pile, is not obliged to restore it.

22 "Si accepisti quod dubitas an tuum esset, debere te restituere quidam aiunt, alii negant, quòd in dubio melior sit possidentis conditio."-Aphorismi, verbo Furtum, n. 7.

He who has stolen small things from any one at different times, is obliged to make restitution when they amount together to a considerable sum, although some persons deny it with probability.(Aphorismi, verbo Furtum, n. 3—8.)

FRANCIS TOLET.

Instructio Sacerdotum, ac de Septem Peccatis Mortalibus. Romæ, 1601. (Antverpiæ, 1603. Ed. Coll. Sion.)

A man cannot sell his wine at a fair price, either on account of the injustice of the judge, or through fraud of the purchasers who have agreed among themselves to be few in number in order to lower the price: then he may diminish his measure, or mix a little water with his wine, and sell it for pure wine of full measure, demanding the full price, provided only that he does not tell a lie which if he does, it will neither be a dangerous nor a mortal sin, neither will it oblige him to make restitution.--(De Septem Peccat. Mort. c. 49. n. 5.)

VALERIUS REGINALD.

Praxis Fori Pœnitentialis. Lugduni, 1620. (Tom. I. Coloniæ, 1622. Ed. Coll. Sion.)

Servants may not take the property of their masters secretly and by way of compensation, in pretence that their wages are not equitable;

unless it should in reality appear to be the case in the opinion of an experienced man.-(Tom. I. Praxis, Lib. x. c. 18. n. 258.)

Servants are excused both from sin and restitution if they only take in equitable compensation; that is, when they are not furnished with such things necessary for food and clothing as are usual in other houses, and which ought to be provided for similar servants, they only take so much of their masters' property as will compensate for such an injustice, and no more Among the conditions of a lawful compensation this is the chief, that the debt cannot be obtained by any other means. 23

JAMES GORDON.

Theologia Moralis Universa. Lutetiæ Parisiorum, 1634. (Ed. Bibl. Acad. Cant.)

Of what value the thing stolen ought to be, in order to render the theft a mortal sin compelling restitution.

23"Excusari autem famulos et à peccato, et à restitutione, si capiant in compensationem justam; nempè, qua, cùm non administrentur ipsis ad victum et vestitum necessaria, qualia in aliis domibus communiter solent ac debent similibus famulis subministrari; tantum de bonis dominorum accipiant, quantum ad compensationem talis injuriæ requiritur, neque plus... Inter conditiones licita compensationis, illa una est; quòd res debita nequeat aliter quàm per eam obtineri."Lib. xxv. c. 44. n. 555. (Tom. II. Moguntiæ, 1622. Ed. Coll. Sion.)

Some think that the value cannot be accurately defined, but that it must rest upon the opinion of a prudent man depending upon the circumstances of time and place, and on the manner in which the theft has been committed, the injury which has resulted from it, and the quality of the persons, whether they are princes, rich men, persons in the middle rank of life, or poor.-(Tom. I. Lib. v. Qu. 3. c. 2. § 1.)

A son is sometimes, and even often, to be accounted free from deadly sin and from the necessity of restitution, when he robs his father: and sometimes he is reckoned to sin grievously. A son is not accounted to sin mortally, 1. when he has a probable reason for believing, that if his father were asked, he would grant him (what he steals) without reluctance; for then the owner is not averse to the matter, but to the manner of the transaction. 2. If the amount is not thought considerable in respect to his condition. 3. If he steals with the intent to give alms to one who is in great need; for then his parent is not reasonably averse to it. 4. If he robs his father to procure an innocent diversion suited to his rank... (Ibid. c. 4. § 1.)