Very stringent rules were either enforced, or confirmed, in a subsequent reign for all cases in which a priest was called as warranter. The necessity of open dealing in all transactions connected with property was enforced upon the clergy by rendering it unlawful for a priest to receive gift or tithe except in the presence of “good and true men”--the _Witnesses_ probably of a bargain between laymen--and he could not be summoned as a warranter without the testimony of “three leal men,” evidently the witnesses in question. If he named the donor, when the gift was challenged, and produced his three witnesses, the responsibility was shifted upon the person named, who, in addition to any other penalties, was bound to make good the value of the gift to the priest; and if the latter stated that the claimed property was his own, or, if cattle, reared by himself, his assertion was to be corroborated by the oaths of “three leal men;” and to guard against all undue influence, their credibility was to be vouched for by the lord of the Vill. It was not from any suspicion of the ecclesiastical body that the law required their evidence to be thus corroborated on such occasions, but rather from a perfect appreciation of the practice, not confined to cattle-lifters, of compounding for a course of evil doing by dedicating a portion of ill-gotten gains to the church. Hence the necessity of the lord of the Vill vouching for the credibility of the witnesses, thus becoming responsible for the penalties of their perjury; for the priest who was capable of receiving stolen goods would have scarcely hesitated at exercising the influence of his sacred character amongst ignorant, or unscrupulous, parishioners in order to clear himself from the consequences of his offence.[294]