Case 3. A Tipster's Obligations

Titius explained to his confessor that he had gained a large sum of money by pretending to be skilled in horse races and, by written letters, giving advice for five shillings to all who sought it and wished to indulge in betting concerning the horse which would be victorious in coming races. He added that, on a certain occasion, he had by chance predicted the truth, whence reputation and profit had increased for him, and that he now knew entirely nothing of who had consulted him and paid money to him. But the confessor, since it is not established whether by natural or positive law debtors from a delict are bound to make restitution to uncertain owners, thinking that he certainly was not bound by positive English law, excused him from making restitution. Hence it is asked:

1. What are the roots of restitution?

2. To whom must restitution be made? Does ecclesiastical law establish anything concerning this matter?

3. In what matter are ecclesiastical law and civil law respectively competent?

4. What is to be said of the case?

1. What are the roots of restitution?

The roots of restitution are the causes which impose the obligation of making restitution, and they may be reduced to the possession of what belongs to another, and the doing of unjust damage to another.¹

1 Manual of Moral Theology, vol. i, p. 399.

2. To whom must restitution be made? Does ecclesiastical law lay down anything on this head?

In general, restitution must be made to those who suffered the injury. If these are unknown, ecclesiastical law lays down that at any rate, in the case of usury and simony, restitution should be made to the poor or to pious causes. More probably this is a determination of the natural law by the Church.¹

1 Manual of Moral Theology, vol. i, p. 424.

3. In what matter is ecclesiastical and civil law respectively competent ?

This question is answered by Leo XIII in his Constitution Immortale Dei, Nov. 1, 1885: "Whatever therefore in things human is of a sacred character, whatever belongs either of its own nature or by reason of the end to which it is referred to the salvation of souls, or to the worship of God, is subject to the power and judgment of the Church. Whatever is to be ranged under the civil and political order is rightly subject to the civil authority."

4. The case. On the supposition that Titius got the money by fraudulently holding himself out as an expert in horses that were likely to win races, he had no right to keep the money, and was bound to make restitution to charitable or religious purposes, as the real owners were unknown. However, in practice, tipsters are guided, if not by their own knowledge of the chances, at any rate by the course of betting published in the papers, and other probable indications of the chances of success. Moreover, those who consult them know that certain information can not be had from the nature of the case. They consult a tipster because they are not able to make up their own minds as to the placing of their bet. He helps them to make up their minds, and payment is made for that as much as for anything else. Titius should be told to seek a livelihood in some other way, but as far as the past is concerned it would seem, in general, that such as he may be excused from making restitution on the grounds that have just been indicated. So that the confessor’s decision was not practically wrong, though he rested it on wrong grounds.