Question — Bontempi, Palladium Theologicum V · from Schola Thomistica
Question III: Whether an accused, defamed for one crime, can be questioned about others also
They AFFIRM: Tabiena, v. accusatio, num. 20. dub. ult.; D. Anton., 3. p. tit. 9. cap. 7. §. 3. v. Inquisitio, 1. quaestione 3.; Palud., 4. dist. 19. quaest. 4. in fine.
An REUS, in uno crimine infamatus, possit de aliis etiam interrogari.
AFFIRMANT Tabiena v. accusatio, num. 20. dub. ult. D. Anton. 3. p. tit. 9. cap. 7. §. 3. v. Inquisitio, 1. quaestione 3. Palud. 4. dist. 19. quaest. 4. in fine.
The SECOND denies that it is lawful, and indeed asserts that the Accused is not bound to answer such a questioning. So the Doctors commonly: D. Thom., 2. 2. quaest. 69. art. 2. et quaest. 8. art. 1., where he speaks of witnesses, "and much less will the Accused be bound." They follow Tolet., l. 5. summae, cap. 58.; Salon, 2. 2. quaest. 69. art. 2. cont. 8.; Aragon., ibidem, et; Bannes, disp. 1. concl. 3.; Navar., C. inter verba, 11. conclus. 6. quaest. 3. coroll. 51. num. 588.; Valentia, disp. 5. quaest. 23. punct. 2.; Petrus Navar., l. 2. de restit. cap. 5. p. 2. dub. 5. num. 170.; Caiet., 2. 2. quaest. 69. art. 2.; Soto, l. 5. de Iust. quaest. 6. concl. 5. et de reg. secr. membr. 2. quaest. 6. disp. 5.; Angelus, v. Inquisitio, §. 11.; Sayrus, l. 11. cap. 16.; Fagundez, l. 8. cap. 34. constit. 58. pro statu Ecclesiae, as Bictus reports, quaest. 80. num. 28. So also Baffaeus, v. Reus, num. 6.
SECUNDA negat licere, atque adeo asserit, non teneri Reum ad eam interrogationem respondere: Ita communiter DD. D. Thom. 2. 2. quaest. 69. art. 2. et quaest. 8. art. 1. ubi de testibus, et multo minus tenebitur Reus. Sequuntur Tolet. l. 5. summae, cap. 58. Salon 2. 2. quaest. 69. art. 2. cont. 8. Aragon. ibidem, et Bannes disp. 1. concl. 3. Navar. C. inter verba, 11. conclus. 6. quaest. 3. coroll. 51. num. 588. Valentia disp. 5. quaest. 23. punct. 2. Petrus Navar. l. 2. de restit. cap. 5. p. 2. dub. 5. num. 170. Caiet. 2. 2. quaest. 69. art. 2. Soto l. 5. de Iust. quaest. 6. concl. 5. et de reg. secr. membr. 2. quaest. 6. disp. 5. Angelus v. Inquisitio, §. 11. Sayrus l. 11. cap. 16. Fagundez l. 8. cap. 34. constit. 58. pro statu Ecclesiae, ut refert Bictus quaest. 80. num. 28. Sic et Baffaeus v. Reus, num. 6.
Yet make an exception: if one defamed of one crime has another connected with it, or indications toward it; thus a woman defamed of adultery, if her husband is presently found slain, can be questioned about this. The Holy Doctor seems to prove this, in Confessionali cap. 2. part. 1., by that text of Deuter 24. Cum repetes a proximo tuo rem aliquam; quam debet tibi, non ingredieris domum eius (When thou shalt demand from thy neighbor any thing that he oweth thee, thou shalt not go into his house).
EXCIPE tamen, si infamatus de uno sit, quod habeat aliud connexum, vel indicia ad illud; sic infamata de adulterio, si mox invenitur maritus eius occisus, potest de hoc interrogari. Id probare videtur S. Doctor in Confessionali cap. 2. part. 1. illo Deuter 24. Cum repetes a proximo tuo rem aliquam; quam debet tibi, non ingredieris domum eius.
The opinion of Bruno pleases me, de indiciis, secunda parte, quaest. 5. num. 66.: that this is true when he is of that kind of evil fame, as a robber, a highwayman. Bictus subscribes, quaest. 80. num. 27.
MIHI placet sententia Bruni de indiciis, secunda parte, quaest. 5. num. 66. Id verum esse, quando in eo genere est malae famae, ut latro, viarum grassator. Subscribit Bictus quaest. 80. num. 27.