they sacrificed a calf.”  They are prosecuted.  The accusation is, “You sacrificed a calf to a god to whom it was unlawful to sacrifice a calf.”  The denial consists in the admission which has been already stated.  The reason is, “I was not aware that it was unlawful.”  The argument brought to invalidate that reason is, “Nevertheless, since you have done what was not lawful, you are according to the law deserving of punishment.”  The question for the decision of the judge is, “Whether, as he did what he ought not to have done, and was not aware that he ought not to have done so, he is worthy of punishment or not.”

But accident is introduced into the admission when it is proved that some power of fortune interfered with his intention; as in this case:—­“There was a law among the Lacedaemonians, that if the contractor failed to supply victims for a certain sacrifice, he should be accounted guilty of a capital offence; and accordingly, the man who had contracted to supply them, when the day of the sacrifice was at hand, began to drive in cattle from the country into the city.  It happened on a sudden that the river Eurotus, which flows by Lacedaemon, was raised by some violent storms, and became so great and furious that the victims could not by any possibility be conveyed across.  The contractor, for the sake of showing his own willingness, placed all the victims on the bank of the river, in order that every one on the other side of the river might be able to see them.  But though, everyone was aware that it was the unexpected rise of the river which hindered him from giving effect to his zeal, still some people prosecuted him on the capital charge.”  The charge was, “The victims which you were bound to furnish for the sacrifice were not furnished.”  The reply was an admission of the fact.  The reason alleged was, “For the river rose on a sudden, and on that account it was impossible to convey them across.”  The argument used to invalidate that reason was, “Nevertheless, since what the law enjoins was not done, you are deserving of punishment.”  The question for the decision of the judges was, “Whether, as in that respect the contractor did not comply with the law, being prevented by the unexpected rise of the river which hindered his giving effect to his zeal, he is deserving of punishment.”

XXXII.  But the plea of necessity is introduced when the accused person is defended as having done what he is accused of having done under the influence of compulsion.  In this way:—­“There is a law among the Rhodians, that if any vessel with a beak is caught in their harbour, it shall be confiscated.  There was a violent storm at sea; the violence of the winds compelled a vessel, against the will of her crew, to take refuge in the harbour of the Rhodians.  On this the quaestor claims the vessel for the people.  The captain of the ship declared that it was not just that it should be confiscated.”  The charge is, “A ship with a beak was caught in the harbour.”