[Casus longi super V libros decretalium]

he has [the duty] to make mention of the same.

Case: Someone obtained letters against his adversary regarding a certain cause. Afterwards, his adversary obtained letters for the same cause to other judges in which no mention was made of the former letters, and he began to convene his adversary. The one who had obtained the previous letters excepted before the judges that his adversary was already holding letters regarding which no mention was made in the subsequent ones. It is asked what the law is. Response: If the petitioner, through deceit or negligence, did not use his letters, he may be convened by the subsequent letters. If, however, he could not have a copy of the delegate judge, he cannot be convened by subsequent letters.

If however

Note that deceit and negligence are not imputed to me. Also, if it does not stand through me that I do not do this through a judge, it is not imputed to me.

To this

Case: Certain people obtained letters from the Apostolic See by which all their business was left to the judgment of one judge or many whom they wished to choose for themselves. Thus, if they wanted to convene someone, they dragged them to judges friendly to themselves and suspect to the adversary, not regarding the judgment of their ordinary. The Pope says: "We, wishing to obstruct this disease with a swift remedy, command the diocesan bishop that if he finds such letters in his province, he should declare that those letters have no force." Others posit the case and say that specific judges had been given and that because all the business of those petitioners was omitted, they were not valid by those letters. Here, note that according to the first case, a specific judge must be present and that all the business of someone should not be left to one delegate, because through this the jurisdiction of the ordinary is removed, which should not be.

To the hearing, etc.

Case: Someone was excommunicated perhaps by an ordinary.

He approached the court of the Lord Pope and obtained letters regarding his absolution. The ordinary, to whom the letters were presented, found in them a mistake in the construction original: "in ostructione". The ordinary doubted whether faith should be granted to those letters and consulted the Pope on this. The Pope replies that one should not grant faith to such letters. We must understand here that in the letters of the Lord Pope there should be no defect of Latinity.

Case: The chapel of Sempētona is subject to the mother church of Tarente. A certain deacon, O., began to convene the chaplain of that chapel serving in it in the name of the rector of the mother church. He appealed to the Apostolic See, and after the appeal made by him, he expelled the chaplain from the chapel. The rector of the mother church followed up that appeal which O. had made, but O. did not care to follow up his own appeal. And when O. had been summoned to judgment, he objected that he held previous letters regarding which no mention was made in the subsequent ones, which he suppressed until the third citation and through deceit or negligence postponed using them, which will appear from the length of time, from the fact that two years had elapsed from the time of the obtaining, and no mention of his appeal was made in his letters. The Pope, consulted on this, commands that if it be shown that this is so, whatever was done after the appeal of O. must be revoked to the former state, and he shall restore that chaplaincy to the mother church, condemning the same O. in expenses if it is established that O. did not pursue his appeal.

From the part, etc.

Note that a major mother church can defend and act for its chapels. Note if someone intends to defer to his appeal just as his adversary. Also from the length of time or negligence.