Title XIX: On Proofs

Latin source headnote: A defendant is not bound to produce his own instruments for his plaintiff. It is commonly summarized thus.

Gregory, to King Tancred of Winchester.

From the words of the letter—(And below:) Your Excellency petitioned that I write to the [most pious] emperor that he should seek in the archive the agreements which were formerly issued between the Emperor Justinian of pious memory and your predecessors, so that from them he might gather what he ought to observe toward you. But this strongly prevented me from doing this: that no one is to be told, “You ought to seek among your own things the documents which are against you and bring them forward into the midst.” [From this matter, etc.]

Latin source headnote: A plaintiff who has proved fully ought not to be compelled to swear.

Alexander III.

Just as no praiseworthy custom ought to be torn down by any novelty, so that which is known to have been introduced by usage contrary to law ought, when contrary reason meets it, to be dissolved. Indeed, because we have learned that it is customary among you that, when someone has established his contention by instruments or introduced witnesses, an oath is nevertheless tendered to him, and, if he is unwilling to undertake it, faith is not given to the proofs produced—which, since it is supported by no reason but manifestly opposes the laws—we reprove such a custom, since only then is recourse to be had to aid of this kind when other lawful proofs are known to be lacking, and we decree that it shall henceforth possess no validity.

Latin source headnote: In a common judgment both plaintiff and defendant prove; and if they prove equally, the defendant is absolved, unless the plaintiff supports a favored cause.

Lucius III, to the Bishop of Chichester.

We have understood from your letters that you and the archdeacon have adjoining prebends in the villages which you each possess individually, and that a controversy is conducted between you under pretext of their boundaries because you say that he has passed beyond the ancient bounds and occupied part of your land, while he asserts to the contrary that he has possessed the same part of the land undisturbed for the space of forty years. But you affirm that you have possessed it peacefully for the same time, and therefore you asked whether proof lies upon the claimant or the possessor.

To this you ought to know that a judgment for regulating boundaries is of such a kind that in it each person holds the places of two persons, namely of plaintiff and defendant. Hence witnesses can be duly produced on each side to instruct the judge’s cognizance; when they have been examined, the judge shall admit for creating faith for himself those whom he understands to excel. But if perhaps the witnesses of both parties are equally suitable, the possessor’s witnesses shall be preferred, since the laws are more ready to absolve than to condemn, except in a cause concerning liberty, in which, if the witnesses of each party perhaps are equal, sentence shall nevertheless always be rendered in favor of liberty. For it is manifest law that proof is sometimes given to the possessor, since it is thus provided by law that one who has objected a prescription of the longest time—which no one rightly objects unless he possesses—and has proved it ought to prevail in the cause.

Latin source headnote: Credence is not given to a husband asserting, even with an oath, that he has known his wife carnally if the wife proves the contrary through matrons attesting by inspection of her body.

Gregory VIII, to the Provost of Saint Cataldus.

You proposed to us, beloved son provost, that the matrimonial cause conducted between our beloved son O. of Casanova and the woman S., daughter of O. of Pisco, was delegated to you by apostolic mandate. And when the parties were established in your presence, the woman proposed that she had neither been known carnally by the man nor could have been known, which she proved both by her own oath and by the testimony of seven women, who affirm by inspection of her body that she is a virgin; while the man, however, asserted the contrary through his oath, you were by no means willing to proceed in the business until you had our counsel concerning this. It therefore appears to us that faith is rather to be given to the oath of the girl and the testimony of those seven women, who affirm from experience that she is a virgin.

Latin source headnote: Individual members of a corporate body can, for the advantage of the corporate body, disprove an instrument falsely drawn up in the name of the corporate body.

Clement III.

In the third place, indeed, we were asked as follows: Behold, a certain regular, using the seal of the chapter, sealed a certain instrument for a friend of his, in which is contained an alienation to him of certain immovable things of the church. When this was produced in judgment, the proctor of the corporate body asserted that it had not been drawn up with the assent of the convent and that the seal was adulterated or stolen. And when, wishing to reveal the falsehood civilly, he produced the regular brothers to give testimony, they said under oath that, at the time at which the adversary alleged that the same instrument had been conferred upon him, whenever there was any mention of this among the brothers, the counsel of the whole convent and its voice were unanimous that they did not wish the alienation of those things, but wished the things of their house to remain whole and be preserved. But because the adverse party proved nothing against this, we answer that judgment is to be made solely according to the assertion of the witnesses.

Latin source headnote: Where proceedings concern contracting a marriage, after an impediment has been proved and the attestations published, other witnesses concerning the absence of the impediment are not to be admitted.

The same.

A certain man swore, as you assert, that he would take a certain woman as his lawful wife. When he wished to convey her [to his house], certain persons, after furnishing oaths according to custom, lawfully proved that they were related to each other in the fifth degree of consanguinity. But because you asked us what is to be done when another person wishes to prove, against the aforesaid proof made by canonical oaths and published to the parties, that no degree of consanguinity touches them, we answer your fraternity in the present matter that the former proof is to be upheld. Nor is heed to be paid to the testimony of only one person. Nor does the fact that the groom and bride propose with steadfast assertion that they have known one another carnally persuade that the marriage should remain, since carnal intercourse between persons who are not lawful cannot by law make a marriage.

Latin source headnote: If it is proved by letters of the ordinary that someone is excommunicated, he will be repelled from acting as proctor. This is what it says; and this summary agrees with the text and title, admits no objection, and therefore hold it.

Innocent III, to the Archdeacon of Paris.

After the resignation [*of the beloved son, formerly Abbot of Saint Martin of Troyes, when the votes of the canons of that church were divided in the election, some of them elected the beloved son Manasses, canon of the Church of Saint Lupus, while others transferred their votes to the beloved son P., chaplain of our venerable brother [...], Archbishop of Sens. For this reason we committed the cause for determination to our venerable brother [...], Bishop of Chalon, and the beloved son [...], Abbot of Cluny, under this form: that, inquiring into the rights of each election and the merits of those elected, they should confirm by apostolic authority the election which they found canonically celebrated concerning a suitable person. But if they found neither canonical, after both elections had been quashed they should cause provision to be made for that church concerning a suitable person.

They, summoning the parties to their presence and solemnly taking cognizance of the cause, received very many witnesses both concerning the deed of the electors and against the persons; and, when they had proceeded as far as publication of the witnesses, [...], the proctor of the said chaplain P., appealed to the Apostolic See. But the judges, because one of them—namely, the Abbot of Cluny—was occupied with greater affairs and could not attend cognizance of the cause, deferred to an appeal of this kind on the counsel of prudent men, enjoining upon the parties that they should hasten to our presence with the attestations received, to receive from us a definitive sentence concerning the cause itself.

Therefore, when the acts of the judgment had been received by each party, certain of the aforesaid canons constituted V., their fellow canon, as proctor in the presence of the aforesaid bishop, as we perceived was contained in that bishop’s letters. But while the same V. was on the journey to come to the Apostolic See, when in the meantime the said Archbishop of Sens was traveling through the diocese of Nevers for the purpose of visitation, the messengers of the aforesaid church approached him, intimating to him that all the canons, except a few who, although they did not contradict, nevertheless did not expressly consent, had conferred their votes upon P., his chaplain; and they entreated the archbishop himself to hasten to the place as quickly as possible to provide for the church. When he approached it because of their urgency, all who had formerly refused to express their consent, except Vitalis alone, who was absent, returned to agreement with the others and voluntarily consented to the aforesaid chaplain, seeking pardon for their former dissent. And thus it happened that, at the petition of all, on the feast of the Apostles Peter and Paul, in the greater Church of Troyes, the same P. received the office of benediction from the aforesaid metropolitan; and afterward, solemnly introduced into the Church of Saint Martin with the exultation of all and general joy, and installed as is customary by the beloved son [...], Dean of Troyes, he publicly received in the chapter of the same church the professions of each.

But the said Vitalis, coming to our presence, presented to us the acts of the judges, solicitously petitioning that we deign to dispatch him as quickly as possible. While he waited for some time, the proctor of the said chaplain P. arrived in the meantime. When they were established in our presence, the said proctor humbly petitioned that we deign to approve what had been done concerning the said chaplain by the archbishop and that we should not hear the often-mentioned V. at all, since he was excommunicated. For he asserted that the same V. had beaten L., formerly Abbot of Saint Martin, to the shedding of blood; had also scourged John, a priest of that church, with such grave blows that all his companions despaired of his life; and had afflicted with such hard blows a certain priest of that church who had recently returned from the Apostolic See that his battered face appeared exceedingly frightful. For these excesses and others—concerning which, although cited and admonished by the said metropolitan, he was unwilling either to make satisfaction or even to appear—he was bound by the bond of excommunication. To prove this, the same proctor produced letters both of the said Archbishop of Sens and of the Dean of Troyes.

To these things it was answered to the contrary on behalf of the said Vitalis that he ought not to be impeded in any respect by the objection of an excommunication of this kind. For the canons themselves, not avoiding him up to that time, had by no means declined communion with him either in offices or in judgment; indeed, rather, when he was constituted proctor in the presence of the said Bishop of Chalon, they admitted him without any contradiction. Nor had the archbishop announced to the judges or his fellow brothers that he was subject to excommunication. Therefore, he proposed that he ought to be admitted in judgment like any other, notwithstanding an exception of this kind.

Against this the proctor of the other party replied that, if at any time the same V. attended divine services with his canons, this displeased them altogether; but he, although prohibited, thrust himself into divine offices while they grieved, as is manifestly gathered from the letters of the aforesaid dean. Nor did they communicate with him in judgment, because, although he was of the number of those who opposed the election of the aforesaid chaplain, faith was nevertheless not made in the judgment that the same V. was a proctor or witness in that judgment, or that the often-mentioned canons otherwise communicated with him. He also added that the fact that the same V. was not excluded as an excommunicated person when he was constituted proctor before the aforesaid bishop could not generate prejudice, because this was done in their absence. He further added that, if the archbishop did not announce in that judgment that he was subject to excommunication, this was because he did not know that he was litigating in that judgment; nevertheless, after he had announced him excommunicated by letters fortified with his seal, he was to be avoided by all as excommunicated.*]

Therefore, when debate concerning this had been conducted before us, because it was established to us by the letters of the ordinary judge—which are to be upheld until the contrary is proved—that V. was excommunicated at the time when he assumed the office of proctor, we considered that he was not to be admitted as proctor. [But, etc. Given at the Lateran on the fourth day before the Nones of October, in the ninth year [of our pontificate]. 1206.]

Latin source headnote: If one who was requested to restore the whole inheritance in the event that he died without children enters a monastery, the fideicommissum vanishes and the inheritance is applied to the monastery; nor, to invalidate his entrance, is it sufficient to prove minority of age at the time of entrance if a twofold entrance is proved on the other side. This is what it says, with the understanding that the substitution was fideicommissary. But if it was direct, summarize it thus: A substitution made for a son in the event that he dies without children vanishes through his entrance into a monastery. And then add what is in the first summary at the words “nor, to invalidate,” etc., to the end; and each understanding is true in itself. I say, nevertheless, that the first is truer, because here there was a fideicommissary substitution, although Lord Antonius says here that it was compendious.

The same, to the Abbot and Convent of Casamari.

In the presence of our beloved son G., cardinal deacon of Saint Adrian, G., a subdeacon, and B., a woman, his sister, siblings of Veroli, caused it to be proposed before him, when they were established with your syndic, that, when the late A., their brother, made his testament, he instituted M., his son, as his heir and directed that, if he perhaps died without children, his goods should devolve upon G. and B. Hence they petitioned that the things which your monastery detained from his goods be restored to them, and sought that you be restrained from troubling them concerning this.

But the syndic proposed to the contrary that the aforesaid M. had offered himself and his property to your monastery, wherefore everything which he had possessed had devolved upon the monastery. He therefore petitioned that everything which they had invaded from his goods be restored to your monastery and that silence concerning the remainder be imposed upon them. To these things, however, the other party replied that the said M. was a minor in years at the time of his offering, as it lawfully proved through witnesses, and that, repenting of the vow made, he revoked after recovery that which he had done in the fervor of illness. Hence, both because Milo offered himself and his property to the monastery of Casamari below lawful age and because he afterward revoked what he had done without deliberation, his offering was not valid. Therefore, since he died without children, under the testament of his father his inheritance had devolved upon them.

But to these things the syndic took care to answer that, although the said M. had departed from that monastery with your permission, son abbot, afterward, approaching your presence with his grandfather, who was his proctor, when you had gone to Veroli, he humbly and devoutly offered himself and his property to it, and confirmed by oath that he would no further proceed against his offering and donation, as the public instrument contains. Therefore, since it is established from these things that the same M. twice conferred himself and his property upon your monastery, and it is not proved on the other side that M. was a minor in years at the time of each offering, the proof of an exception of this kind does not destroy your proof, since, even if he was a minor in years at the time of the first offering, he could nevertheless have been of age at the second.

Furthermore, since the phrase “a minor in years” could be understood in two ways—for both one who is younger than fourteen years and one who is younger than twenty-five years is customarily called a minor in years—the doubtful phrase did not harm your contention, since a donation made under twenty-five years, especially one confirmed by oath, was valid. But even if what had been done by the said A. were valid, since one who instituted a monastery as his heir was nevertheless not to be understood to die without an heir, this did not harm the monastery.

And when the aforesaid cardinal reported in the hearing of us and our brothers the things proposed before him, we considered that the beloved son H., cardinal deacon of Saint Eustace, should be appointed to advise. Therefore the same beloved son H., cardinal of Saint Eustace, having more fully understood the merits of the cause, considering that your syndic had fully established his contention and that nothing had been sufficiently proved on the opposite side—since, even if it had been shown through witnesses that M. was a minor in years at the time of his offering, it had not been expressed whether he was a minor at the time of the first or second offering, nor by how many years he was a minor—rendered sentence by our mandate. Imposing silence upon the aforesaid G. and B. concerning the things which they sought from the monastery, he condemned them to restitution of those things which by their own temerity they had invaded from the goods of the aforesaid M. We therefore confirm that sentence by apostolic authority.

Latin source headnote: If plaintiff and defendant prove in the interdict for retaining possession, the one prevails who proves the older possession, especially one justified by title, or has adduced better proofs with respect to possession. This is what it says notably; and the summary is sufficiently proved at the verse “from the foregoing,” when the verse “especially” is weighed.

The same.

Although the cause which is conducted between the Church of Ravenna and the commune of Faenza concerning jurisdiction, honors, and district in the village of Luci, Saint P., and the castle of Ariolo, which the said church proposed pertained to it by right—(And below:) But because it was very burdensome to each party to produce witnesses before us, we commanded the Bishop of Piacenza that within three months, appeal being removed, he should receive the witnesses whom each party should determine to produce both concerning the principal business and against the persons of the witnesses, in such a way, namely, that, restraining an unbridled multitude, he should by no means permit them on each side to exceed the number forty. (And below:) And thus afterward the proctors of both parties returned to our presence with the sealed attestations.

Furthermore, when the attestations had been solemnly published, the syndic of the people of Faenza proposed that he wished to object and prove certain things against the persons of the witnesses produced by the other party, while the steward of the church asserted that this ought not to be done. Concerning this, when debate had been conducted on each side for some time, finally we decreed by interlocutory judgment that he should by no means be heard concerning this, since he had not taken care to produce witnesses of this kind within the space of three months contained in our letters, within which term each party could introduce witnesses both against the persons of witnesses and concerning the principal business.

After this the same syndic objected against the aforesaid witnesses that, having been corrupted, they had spoken falsely, and petitioned that the faculty of proving the complaint of falsehood be granted to him. Hence, because such an exception can be interposed not only before but even after sentence according to lawful sanctions, although some believed that the party of Faenza had interposed an exception of this kind through calculated malice to impede the course of the business, nevertheless, because we are unwilling to deviate from the path of law, we commanded the beloved sons Masters G. and T., dwelling at Bologna, through our writings that, having summoned the parties, they should take care within a month to receive and examine the witnesses whom the proctor of Faenza should determine to produce concerning this exception, subtly inquiring into the individual circumstances and faithfully reducing their depositions to writing. Another month was thereupon granted to the proctor of the aforesaid church, within which, if he wished, he might produce witnesses before them for the reprobation of those witnesses; and, faithfully writing down their statements, they should appoint to each party a term of twenty days, within which they should present themselves before us with the attestations to receive sentence. Therefore, when the parties again appeared before us and attestations of this kind had been published, we heard whatever they wished to propose.

Although the party of Faenza produced many witnesses concerning the principal business, to prove that from long-past times the men of the aforesaid places had furnished them services in bans, pleas, ditches, collections, military expeditions, and certain other matters pertaining to the district, nevertheless, scarcely six only of them remained concordant, since many others contradicted themselves in the course of their testimony, and certain others were singular in the statement of their testimony. Although certain witnesses were introduced on behalf of Faenza to disprove some of the witnesses of the Church of Ravenna, nevertheless most of them are rejected because they very clearly contradict one another. Certain few others, although they are not expressly rejected, are nevertheless of such bad reputation and slight standing, as was proved through the attestations produced, that no or little faith is to be given to their statements.

The same witnesses of Faenza are also generally repelled because they do not prove that for the proving of which their syndic bound himself, namely, that, having been corrupted, they had spoken falsely; for, even if they appear to say something about corruption, they say nothing at all about falsehood. But it was manifestly proved through many witnesses of the Church of Ravenna, greater than every exception, that the Church of Ravenna had possessed the village of Luci, Saint Potitus, and the castle of Aureolo from the longest time with every honor, district, and jurisdiction, all the articles expressing jurisdiction, honor, and district having been individually specified.

From the foregoing, therefore, it appears sufficiently clearly that the Church of Ravenna, through witnesses more numerous in number, whom the light of truth assists more fully and who also expressed in their testimony things more fitting to the business and nearer to the truth, sufficiently showed that it possessed the aforesaid places from sixty years ago and thereafter with every jurisdiction, honor, and district. Through this it is evident that, if the commune of Faenza received any services in the aforesaid places from fifty years ago and thereafter, as their witnesses appear to depose, they undoubtedly began to receive them without just title, since two persons cannot simultaneously possess the same thing wholly and in the same manner, especially since the same people of Faenza do not show a just title of possession, and it is very clearly gathered from the privileges of the emperors and Roman Pontiffs granted to the Church of Ravenna that the possession of that church in the aforesaid places was just.

Therefore, since it is established that the people of Faenza, from the time from which they strive to prove that they possessed, less justly and without title occupied certain things in the aforesaid places by their own temerity, and in the course of time extorted them through violence, as is manifestly proved through many witnesses of the Church of Ravenna, and since the steward of the same church petitioned before us that the commune of Faenza be prohibited from disturbing or disquieting force concerning the aforesaid matters, we, recognizing that in this case the interdict Uti possidetis does not have place in such a way that we ought to say, “As you possess, so shall you possess,” since the proofs of the church are far stronger and it is therefore superior in the interdict, by the counsel of our brothers condemn the commune of Faenza to [submit] to it. With respect to the possessory judgment, concerning which alone proceedings were conducted, we impose perpetual silence upon the commune concerning jurisdiction, honor, district, and other things generally pertaining to this in the aforesaid places; and we prohibit it from presuming, either personally or through others, to trouble the Church of Ravenna or the inhabitants of the aforesaid places in any respect concerning these matters.

Latin source headnote: If persons name someone as a son, and he is commonly reputed to be so, credence is not afterward given to one of them swearing the contrary.

The same.

You informed us through your letters that, when T., a citizen of Tivoli, had kept a certain woman as a concubine for seven years and had meanwhile received no offspring from her, and when she afterward departed from him but returned to him not long afterward, she asserted that the son whom, after returning, she bore in his house had been received by her from him. Although he said at first that this boy was by no means his son, since that woman, living with him for seven years, had not conceived from him, finally, overcome by the insistence of the woman and others, he acknowledged him as his own son, calling him by the name Rainaldus. And when the same R. reached manly age and frequented the house of Saturnella, the sister of T. himself, who publicly named him as her nephew, he betrothed and carnally knew Sophia, the daughter of Saturnella herself, with whom he had had daily association. When this came to the knowledge of Saturnella, she harshly reproved them both and, retaining her daughter with herself, removed the aforesaid R. from the house. And when the mother of Rainaldus himself learned that the father of the same Sophia gravely threatened R., she publicly swore before many persons in the square of the city that Rainaldus was by no line of relationship related to the aforesaid Sophia, affirming under the force of the oath furnished that she had received Rainaldus from someone other than the aforesaid T.

But because that woman at first steadfastly asserted that she had received R., concerning whom proceedings are conducted, from the said T., and the same T., overcome especially by the insistence of the aforesaid woman, publicly acknowledged him as his own son, and because he was commonly named and held as the son of them both, the oath of the same woman afterward furnished to the contrary is not to be upheld, since according to lawful sanctions it is exceedingly unworthy that what anyone has clearly attested by his own voice, that he should be able in the same case to weaken by his own testimony. Hence it consequently appears that the aforesaid R. cannot in any respect have as wife the aforesaid Sophia, granddaughter of the aforesaid T., whose first cousin he is presumed at first sight to be. [Given at the Lateran on the fifth day before the Kalends of December, in the thirteenth year of our pontificate. 1210.]

Latin source headnote: A judge ought to have a notary or two suitable men who write the acts of the judgment; otherwise, if any difficulty arises, he will be punished by his superior, nor is he believed concerning the proceeding except insofar as it is established by the acts or otherwise by lawful documents.

The same, in the General Council.

Because an innocent litigant sometimes cannot prove a true denial against the false assertion of an iniquitous judge, since by the nature of things there is no direct proof of the act of one denying, lest falsehood prejudice truth or iniquity prevail over equity, we establish that, both in an ordinary and an extraordinary judgment, the judge shall always employ either a public person, if he can have one, or two suitable men who shall faithfully write down all the acts of the judgment: namely, citations and delays, recusations and exceptions, petitions and answers, interrogations and confessions, depositions of witnesses and productions of instruments, interlocutory judgments and appeals, renunciations, conclusions, and the other things which arise and are to be written down in fitting order, designating places, times, and persons.

And all things thus written shall be delivered to the parties in such a way that the originals remain with the scribes, so that, if a contention arises concerning the judge’s proceeding, the truth can be declared through this; to the end that, when this safeguard has been employed, deference may be given to honorable and discerning judges in such a way that the justice of innocent persons is not injured by improvident and iniquitous judges. But a judge who neglects to observe this constitution, if any difficulty arises because of his negligence, shall be chastised by the superior judge with due correction; nor shall a presumption be made in favor of his proceeding except insofar as it is established in the cause by lawful documents.

Latin source headnote: If it can be proved that a defendant committed an offense, his proof that he did not commit the offense is not to be admitted.

Honorius III, to the Archbishop of Lund and His Suffragans.

You should know that it has reached our hearing that the priests and clerics of Denmark, rashly relying against the canons and lawful sanctions upon the law of the kingdom through which a negative is proved, are reputed innocent of crimes which can lawfully be proved against them by witnesses worthy of faith if they can purge themselves concerning them in any manner. Hence it happens that sometimes they adduce criminals like themselves for their purgation, so that those persons ought in similar circumstances to respond to them at the opportune time, and many crimes are committed more boldly by the same persons.

Therefore, wishing that this pest contrary to every law be entirely uprooted from the clergy, [by commanding through apostolic writings] we order your fraternity that in a proof of a negative of this kind, provided that the affirmative can be proved on the opposite side, you shall hear no one against the canonical sanctions in the ecclesiastical forum. Rather, admitting canonically in purgations only men of good reputation, you shall know that a person who is stained with the mark of infamy concerning a similar fault is less suitable to purge any crime. [Given at Rome on the fifth day before the Kalends of January, in the second year [of our pontificate]. 1218.]

Latin source headnote: The boundaries of dioceses are proved through ancient books, supporting evidence, witnesses, and reputation.

The same, to the Bishops of Orense and Lamego.

Since we have considered that the cause conducted between our venerable brothers, the Bishops of Coimbra and Idanha, concerning the delimitation of their dioceses, should be committed to you, we command your discretion that, when you come to the principal matter in the aforesaid cause, you shall proceed in the business committed to you, having God before your eyes, according to the divisions which are better proved through ancient books or in another manner, and also according to witnesses, reputation, and any other supporting evidence.

Latin source headnote: The matrons through whom virginity is proved can be discredited.

The same, to the Bishop and Archdeacon of Sens.

The matrimonial cause which is known to be conducted between V., a young man, and G., a girl of Sens who professes herself a virgin and a nun, because you, brother bishop, did not send it so instructed that we could freely proceed in it as far as the decision of a definitive sentence, we remit to you to be more fully instructed. We command your discretion that meanwhile, by apostolic authority, you place that girl in the monastery which she entered, so that she may dwell there safely until it is decreed by judicial sentence what ought to be done. Afterward, as justice shall dictate, you shall receive not only the man’s proofs, as he had protested, which he wishes to introduce against those women who were introduced on behalf of the girl to investigate the signs of virginity, but also the other proofs touching this business which either party should determine to produce. And because, as the canon says, the hand and eye of midwives are often deceived, we will and command that you shall take care to appoint still other honorable, provident, and prudent matrons to inquire whether the said girl is fortified with the privilege of virginity, and shall remit the cause to us more fully instructed under your seals.

Latin source headnote: Acts ordering the litigation, even when done before the first judges, create faith before the second judges.

Gregory IX, to the Provost of Saint Mary of Magdeburg and the Dean of Meissen.

When, of good memory—(And below:) Since the original acts are said to have remained with the former judges, we command that, seeking them with every diligence, you shall remit to our presence the acts themselves, if they can be found, together with whatever the parties shall determine lawfully to propose, reduced to writing. Otherwise, since no doubt is raised concerning the joinder of issue over the status of the monastery of Pigam and certain spoliations committed against its abbot by the Bishop of Merseburg, you shall receive the proofs of the parties anew; and, hearing a discussion of settlement if the parties wish to hear it, you shall take care to remit to us both what you shall find concerning this and the sufficiently instructed cause.