[Casus longi super V libros decretalium]

also, he who falsifies the letters of a judge ought to be deprived of that over which he litigates; on account of this, however, the right is not acquired by the other party.

Case: The Abbot of Saint-Etienne

The beloved son, whose name is given, was named visitor by the Apostolic See in the city and diocese of London. This Abbot B. removed the priests A. and A. from their churches on account of their manifest excesses and excommunicated them. And those same priests obtained letters from the Apostolic See in common form regarding their restitution, making no mention of the cause of their removal and the excommunication by which they were held bound. It was opposed to them before the Bishop of Imola, the executor of the business, that those letters are not valid because they did not make mention of the cause of their removal nor of their excommunication. The Pope answers, saying that if it is so, the letters are not valid, as obtained through surreptition, and that this bishop should decree that they lack rights.

Note that an excommunicated person cannot obtain letters to act, because these priests obtained them simply, as if they were despoiled, to seek restitution, whence also etc., in common form.

Case: Someone was a perpetual vicar in

You asked a certain church, having also temporal revenues from which he could be comfortably sustained. This vicar obtained letters against the bishop who ordained him according to that common form. When, according to the Apostle, this bishop asked the Pope whether he is held to provide for him in an ecclesiastical benefice according to that form, he answers that by that form, the Apostolic See is accustomed to provide for poor clerics who have no benefice. And therefore, a perpetual vicar will lack the benefit of such letters unless he made mention of his vicarage, as obtained with the truth silenced. For he who has a sufficient income from a perpetual vicarage should not lack a benefice. And for one who has a competent benefice, the Pope does not write lightly, by certain knowledge, regarding obtaining another benefice when he makes mention of it the first one.

Note that a perpetual vicar is considered beneficed. ¶ Also, mention must always be made of the prior benefice, otherwise the letters are not valid, like this one, etc.

Case: Some were abusing the grace of the See

Many obtaining apostolic letters to remote judges, so that the defendant, exhausted by labors and expenses, would yield to the lawsuit or at least redeem his vexation. And because injury ought not to be done through judgment, the general council decreed that no one may be drawn beyond two days' journey outside his own diocese by apostolic letters unless they were obtained by the assent of the parties, or unless they made mention of this constitution. In the second part, etc., that there were others who were exercising a new kind of trade regarding apostolic letters, so that they would stir up finished lawsuits or invent new questions. For they invent causes, and regarding them, they obtain letters without the mandate of the lords, and they expose those letters for sale: sometimes to the defendant, so that he is not exhausted by the plaintiff; sometimes to the plaintiff, so that he may unduly harass the defendant. But because lawsuits are rather to be restricted than amplified, the general council decreed that if anyone hereafter obtains letters regarding any question without a special mandate of the Lord, those letters are not valid, and he should be punished by law as a forger, unless perhaps he is the petitioner of the mandate.

Note that in law, injury is to be done to no one in his right. ¶ Also, no one can be drawn beyond two days' journey outside his diocese by apostolic letters. ¶ Also, letters obtained without a mandate are not valid.