Case XLVI: A Case of Restitution

A workingman, named Caius, went one evening with some companions for a walk in the outskirts of the city. Suddenly he was set upon by an exasperated enemy, Gracchus, who had been lying in wait for him, and who threw him from the roadway down into the ditch. The violent fall from considerable height might have caused serious injuries, even fatal ones; as a matter of fact, however, Caius was not hurt. Nevertheless he pretended to be injured, and had his friends carry him home. Subsequently he brought suit for assault, in consequence of which Gracchus was sentenced to a term in prison, also to pay Caius damages to the amount of fifty dollars; furthermore Gracchus had to pay costs, and suffered in consequence of his imprisonment a lapse in wages, so that his financial loss amounted in all to about one hundred dollars. Caius wishes to know whether he must make restitution to Gracchus.

Answer. 1. Caius by his false accusations against Gracchus has formally violated justice, and is therefore obliged to restitution, for he biased the court, and the measure of punishment, in an effective manner, as the nature of the complaint is the basis upon which jury and judge find according to law. For this reason, presuming the law and the court are just, sentence and punishment in their moral justification depend entirely upon the complaint. If this is false and unjust, so are sentence and punishment. This is plain and therefore Caius can not be exonerated on account of lack of intention. Indeed we may safely say: he intentionally misstated the complaint so that Gracchus’ punishment might be heavier; for nemo gratis mendax. Hence it is immaterial for our case what particular motive induced him to lie in court, whether hatred, greed, or what else. All conditions are therefore present that constitute the obligation of restitution in the forum of morals, namely an unjust action which is a per se effective and theologically culpable cause of the harm. Caius for this reason is obliged to restitution, and he alone, provided the court was fair, as may be presumed.

2. The question is then, to what extent is he to make restitution? To the extent of the difference, the increase, caused by the false complaint. For it was Caius’ right to sue, though the charge was properly not that of corporal injury, but that of an attempted crime, which would not have included indemnification for Caius in the sentence, as only actual injury, not the attempt at it, entitles to such. For this reason Caius must, first of all, make restitution of the fifty dollars. As regards the rest: costs and loss of wages, we may suppose that the delinquent would also have been condemned to pay costs to about the same sum, had the complaint been according to facts, while the term of imprisonment would have been shorter. Strictly speaking, therefore, Caius has to refund what money value corresponds to the increase of the imprisonment due to the false charge. On the other hand, he may now, when it comes to the consideration of restitution, compensate himself for all the disagreeable vexation which the affair has occasioned him without his fault. Both matters in their moral valuation might be considered as about equivalent and so there would be little or nothing of the one hundred dollars remain for restitution to Gracchus. As a matter of fact, a hundred dollars is not too heavy a fine for an offense that might have easily caused serious injury, even death.

Alb. Krapoll, S.J.