If those delegated to them suspect them as prejudiced, they may proceed to raise a question of suspicion.
¶ We, wishing to oppose this disease with a swift remedy, determine by our authority that such letters found in your province, if they lack force, should be annulled. ¶ The same.

a J. de Arb. It has become known. ¶ The omission of all business was general, which is contrary to the custom of the Roman Curia, whose style should be observed, as in [the title] on the crime of forgery. When in a question of this kind all cases are committed to one person, unless it be under that form which is called [the title] "Pastoral." ¶ That generality restricts [the scope], as is said [in the title] on seats, and in the chapter "On the Meek," and it is not [as] Dec. Inno. [would have it]. Yet, a totality of cases is well committed [see the Digest, On Judges]. ¶ That was a stronger reason why the letters were not valid, because the judges were uncertain, for the omission of all business is understood in this way and from the letter itself. B. I believe that if the Pope granted such letters from certain knowledge, they would be valid, since he possesses the fullness of power, saving the right of recusal [see the title on the office of the delegate, on suspicion].

a Propitious. From where they could be recused; he will speak on recusal [in the title] on appeals, in the chapter "With Special."

b Famous. 13th Distinction, "May-day," and custom, and "rotten flesh should be cut away" [24th question]. 7th verse: "Resist the Prince, prepare medicine late, while evils gain strength through long delays." B.

To the hearing

It has come to our hearing that B. of Saint Stephen presented to you letters regarding his absolution in such a form as appeared to be true, but because it pertains to the obstruction of the truth, we do not wish for you to give credence to them.

**Clement III**

Furthermore

Furthermore, it has become known to us regarding the person of the church of Tarente that since the chapel of Empecon pertains by law to the aforementioned church of Tarente, O. the deacon, who currently holds the said chapel, removed the one appealing in the name of that same church, who was serving in it, by an appeal he himself made. When the aforementioned person had pursued this, and obtained letters for judges, the said O. did not take care to pursue his appeal, although he had been summoned to court by the authority of the aforementioned judges, claiming that he had prior letters, about which no mention was made afterward.

d To the hearing. Manifest: just as a vice in Latinity vitiates letters, so also if the Pope speaks to one in the plural, as if he called patriarchs or bishops "sons," then the letters are false [on forgery]. This is the argument that letters are not vitiated by bad Latinity [Digest, on the statutes of the blessed Emperor Pius, where he says that they are not vitiated by bad Latinity]. So: the scribe's error does not harm when the truth or the intent of the testator is otherwise established. The same should be said regarding the Pope's will if it were established. But it is true to say that it is one thing in testaments and another in the Lord Pope's letters. For a testament is committed to a notary whose writing or Latin no one corrects; hence, false Latinity does not vitiate a testament provided that the invention of the testator is established through it, as the learned laws say. Beyond the favor toward the testator, the reason is that there is nothing that should be observed more. The letters of the Lord Pope pass through many hands and are refined with great maturity, and thus they are said to contain no vice. Therefore, evidence is not to be admitted against this presumption.

e Pursued. After the appeal. It is not said here on what the appeal was made, perhaps after it was said that a sentence was passed against O. the deacon, from which he himself appealed, or on another article, as perhaps without any sentence, as used to be done.

f By himself made. Namely, O. Thus, he did not defer to the prior appeal, which he ought not to have done, since he should have deferred even to the appellant [in the title on appeals, "Whether it be," and the chapter "On the Constitutions"]. Perhaps he had appealed from the ordinary before whom he was dragging the chaplain into the case, namely, the person of the mother church. Rarely is it found elsewhere, as I believe, that someone did not defer to their own appeal. Hence the judge could proceed in the case, because he is seen to have renounced the appeal [on appeals, "Nothing new is to be innovated"].

g Pursued. Obtaining letters regarding the restitution of the church from which he had been despoiled by the appellant, by the spoiler. That he may proceed in the case, the frustrating appeal notwithstanding, is apparent from this, because the said O. did not take care to pursue them.

s His letters. Perhaps he indicated to the Pope that the rector of the mother church was acting unjustly toward him regarding that chapel, and thus obtained letters in common form, with no mention made of the appeal, which letters also do not impede restitution.

b Pursued. In the name of the church of Tarente, because it was the mother church.

h No mention. And therefore they were not valid. Because he who appeals must make mention of his appeal, and the adversary [is also bound] who in some way pursues his appeal. As is said here, you will not find elsewhere that someone is bound to make mention of their own appeal.

k Negligence. So.

l With two years. From the time of the appeal, he who does not pursue the appeal within a year, or for a cause [within] two years, the sentence remains ratified and he is feigned not to have appealed. Hence, this O. ought not to have been heard beyond the term of his appeal, but it is seen that this rector should not have been heard [to pursue the appeal]. If the actor and the re-actor use the same law regarding the appeal, I say the contrary. But since he who is appealed against is heard after two years, and not he who appealed, how is this well understood? Say that this rector was heard not by reason of his appeal, but rather by reason of the spoliation regarding which he obtained the letters, the appeal notwithstanding, as noted [in the word "pursued"]. For interdicts are perpetual as regards the pursuit of the thing, not as regards the penalty [Digest, on force and violence]. Hence, the petitioner for the restitution of the church is heard, which is much stronger, because the appellant despoiled the adversary who ought to have deferred to his own proper appeal. Moreover, it is given in favor of those appealed against.

**Celestinus III**

Licensed

You have requested from us through a petition sent [by a messenger] regarding that inability which is often accustomed to be included in our letters: that if two or three to whom the letters are directed cannot be present together to execute them, one or more to whom it is written may nevertheless execute them. We indeed feel that such inability should be judged both by law and by fact. By law, if it is established that some of them are detained by infamy or another legitimate impediment...
a year or two years for pursuing an appeal, and not in favor of the appellant. Hence the appellant can immediately pursue the appeal if a term is fixed for him, but the appellee not immediately.

m Which after appeals. That which is done after the appeal by himself or his adversary is to be declared void.

n In expenses. Because appeals... he who does not pursue his own [appeal], while the other pursues his, is to be condemned in expenses, as here. Or he who pursues it before the fixed time. But it is not seen that this O. should have been condemned in expenses, since the appellee did not pursue the appeal within two years. It is the same law for the appellant and the appellee, as is said in the note, and it will not be necessary for him to pursue the appeal, because by law the sentence remains ratified against him, if any were passed. Besides, say that he is condemned because the judge did not proceed beyond the appeal, and that O. after the appeal despoiled the appellee, and thus it is in the interest of the rector that O. be condemned to the adversary in expenses, and now after two years, because of the fraud and malice of the said O.

o Licensed. By petition, that is, through a legitimately appointed messenger.

p Inability. Someone says power is in many ways. Hence the verse: "Nature gives power to things, merit the office, divine will and the power of judges."

q Cannot be present. That they must be present together is held [in the title on the office of the delegate].

r Their own. Because such a judge cannot be, unless according to his own opinion, lest he conduct himself freely and be held to prejudice, in which case the sentence holds even if after it is passed it is discovered that at the time of the sentence he was prejudiced.

s Infamous. If he is made infamous by a penalty of judgment.