Title XXII: On the Credibility of Instruments

Latin source headnote: A copy of an instrument not taken with solemn formality does not create faith without the original. This it says according to its meaning.

Gregory.

If we do not see the authentic writing, we can do nothing upon the copies. [But to the Florentine, etc.]

Latin source headnote: An instrument falls if the subscribed witnesses have died, unless it has an authentic seal or was drawn up by a notary.

Alexander III.

Authentic writings, indeed, if the subscribed witnesses have died, unless perhaps they were made by a public hand in such a way that they appear public, or have an authentic seal by which they can be proved, do not appear to us to possess the strength of any firmness.

Latin source headnote: An apostolic rescript is not judged defective because of an erasure in a place not open to suspicion. This it says according to its meaning.

The same.

We have clearly learned from your letters that, when you undertook by our mandate to terminate the cause being conducted between Master A. of Hillesdale and R. of Haute Rive concerning the chapel of Ambitoria, and caused our letters to be read in a public hearing, the aforesaid R. petitioned that a copy of the letters be made for him. When, after diligently inspecting the letters, he accused them of falsity, for this reason, namely, that they were erased in the narrative of the fact where “parochial rights” is written, [asserting that he would prove in our presence that such letters had not emanated from our chancery; but you, seeing that the form of the letters deviated in no respect from the path of reason, were unwilling to desist from the execution of the cause, tendering to the aforesaid R. an oath that he had not alleged this for the purpose of evasion or delay, but because he believed it to be so. The oath, however, not having been furnished on the appointed day, you adjudged that the aforementioned H. be placed in possession for the purpose of preserving the thing; and because a certain lay servant of the same R. resisted your judgment, he was excommunicated and excluded from the church under interdict. The aforesaid R., approaching us and concealing, as is said, that appeal had been prohibited in the commission, and making no mention of the erasure of the letters, or of the oath tendered to him and not furnished, or of the sentence placing [H.] in possession for the purpose of preserving the thing, obtained letters to the Bishops of London and Norwich in this form: that, if anything had been done to the prejudice of the aforementioned R. by occasion of the former commission, it should be recalled as void by our authority. And when the aforesaid H., cited by the Bishop of Norwich, who was discharging his own office and that of the Bishop of London, said before him that the letters had been obtained with the truth suppressed, fearing that the sentence would be executed and holding the Bishop of Norwich suspect—since the aforesaid R. was joined to him by great familiarity, as one who was the nephew of the Bishop of London and is said to eat his bread daily—he appealed to us. Hence, because one’s own fraud ought to benefit no one or furnish protection,] we, inspecting our letters, say that they cannot be judged false because of that erasure, nor even held suspect, especially since privileges may be erased in [the descriptions of] possessions, and letters may without hesitation be erased in the narrative of fact if an error has been made.

Latin source headnote: For one who challenges a privilege as false, the judge shall cause it to be exhibited before the judge and a few persons, in a suitable and secure place; and in the meantime the sentence rendered through it shall be observed.

The same, to the Archbishop of York.

We have received the letters that our beloved son R., Abbot of Saint Augustine, sent against our venerable brother the Archbishop of Canterbury, legate of the Apostolic See. (And below:) We therefore, considering that the time prescribed for prosecuting the appeal is by no means to be awaited, since privileges that have not been inspected cannot be accused of falsity, and it is difficult and dangerous for them to be exhibited at the Apostolic See, command, [by the common counsel of our brothers,] that either the privileges be exhibited to the same archbishop in the cloister of the aforesaid brothers, or in another place suitable to them and secure for him, according to your judgment, by the next feast of the Nativity of Saint John the Baptist. [We do not, however, will that all be exhibited together; but, when one has been exhibited and an opportunity to inspect and copy it, if necessary, has been furnished to them, let it be returned to the brothers themselves and another presented. Then, by the feast of the Purification of the Blessed Mary in the following year, the archbishop, sufficiently instructed to challenge the aforesaid privileges, shall approach the Apostolic See by himself or through a sufficient representative.] But if he shall neither come nor send a sufficient representative, you shall impose perpetual silence upon him and his successors from challenging those [privileges] further. Meanwhile, however, we do not will those privileges to waver, but command that the sentence rendered in reliance upon them concerning the status of the monastery be inviolably observed. [We also command that a sentence against the clerics of the same monastery or its churches be publicly declared not to bind, appeal removed. And those who prohibited obedience to or reception of the apostolic letters, having been suspended, shall be compelled to labor their way to the Apostolic See. Therefore, because the more we trust in your prudence and integrity, the more studiously and faithfully it befits you to examine the matter committed to your experience, we order and command your discretion that, every favor and fear set aside and the evasion of appeal removed, you shall proceed in the fact according to the form that we have prescribed; and on the prescribed feast of the Purification you shall transmit to us, enclosed under your seals, the transcripts of the privileges that shall have been exhibited to you, together with your letters containing the truth of the matter. But lest contention arise from the multitude,] we also order that you shall cause the archbishop to be content with the number of twelve persons in the inspection of the privileges. Any sentence that you find to have been pronounced against the clerics and churches of the monastery after the appeal was interposed, you shall also publicly declare not to bind, notwithstanding any appeal.

Latin source headnote: An instrument or privilege that someone uses before a judge ought not to be read in full to the adversary, but only the chapter at issue ought to be produced.

Celestine III, to the Abbot of Saint Secundus.

It happens sometimes, as you say, that whenever you have litigation in causes with someone and are compelled to exhibit your privilege more fully to the adverse party, it results that perhaps, by occasion of the one chapter concerning which you are convened, very many disputes are stirred up, and thus rivals receive grounds for many cavils by which they assail your peace and tranquillity. Therefore, because it is our concern to oppose disputes that may be stirred up and to decide those already stirred up, we respond to your consultation, since you proposed concerning this, in this way, and we will that, whenever you shall have been required to exhibit a privilege, indulgence, or instrument, in the presence of the judge or of certain prudent men appointed by the judge himself, while the contrary party hears, it shall only be recited in such a way that the privilege is in no manner handed over for transcription; but if there is a question concerning only one chapter of the privilege, that chapter alone shall be copied, and a copy thereof shall be made for the adverse party.

Latin source headnote: An instrument not drawn up by a public hand, bearing a seal whose letters are not legible or whose writing is erased, or which suffers an enormous fracture, does not prove. This it says insofar as it pertains more closely to the title. And it is an everyday and notable case concerning those ancient seals. Panormitanus.

Innocent III, to the Archbishop of Milan.

Between the beloved sons G., Abbot of Saint Donatus of Scozula, on one side in the name of the monastery, and W. B., Canon of Milan, your proctor on the other in the name of the Archbishopric of Milan, litigation was conducted for a long time in our auditorium concerning the articles set forth below. For the said abbot, in the name of his monastery, sought from your aforesaid proctor, in the name of the Church of Milan, restitution to the aforementioned monastery of the port of Scozula or Sesto, together with the lordship, district, and jurisdiction of the aforesaid place and castellany, saying that all these belonged to the monastery; and he said the same concerning the people who dwell in the court of Beruno and hold property of the aforementioned monastery, namely, in Gralia, Carpuneno, Vesterpeno, Cadempleno, and Baveno [and Isola Superiore, Belgirate, and Lesa. He also sought that the Archbishop of Milan cease from troubling the people who dwell in the place of Baveno] concerning a manse of the court, respecting whom the monastery had prevailed in a possessory judgment by the sentence of the Bishop of Verona. [Likewise, that he cease from troubling the vicars, that is, the communes and lands situated in the territory of Sesto or Scozula and in its castellany, and also from troubling the lodging-service of the aforesaid place of Scozula or Sesto and also of that castellany. Again, that he not trouble the aforesaid monastery in possession or quasi-possession of the fishery of the whole water of the Ticino as far as the ravine of Castelletto or Pigarolo. And] he sought all these things together with all fruits received from them, saving in all things the right to add or diminish, striving in many ways to prove that all the foregoing belonged to his monastery. First, through the privilege of Count Luitard, formerly Bishop of Lucca, who had founded the monastery itself and had given it all the foregoing. Second, through the instrument of the sentence of Aspert, formerly Archbishop of Milan, which he rendered concerning these matters by delegation of Emperor Louis, for the often-mentioned monastery against A., nephew of the aforesaid Luitard, who was troubling the monastery concerning them. Third, through the privileges of the Roman emperors, and especially of Henry, who confirmed or even conferred all the foregoing upon the monastery. Fourth, through the instruments of leases that the abbots of the aforementioned monastery had made to various persons. He had also produced witnesses through whom he endeavored to prove that the monastery, for the last sixty years and within, and for fifty years and more, had held and possessed all the foregoing, and that it was public report that they had all been donated to the aforesaid monastery by the already-mentioned Luitard.

But many objections were made by your proctor against the privilege of donation. First, because it appeared to be consumed most of all at the very point, namely in the notation of the indiction, where falsity could more easily have been detected. Second, because, although the charter appeared most ancient, the writing appeared more recent, as though it had not been made at that time. Third, because a false seal appeared to have been defectively affixed, in that on one half of the seal a certain image appeared, not with a miter on its head but with a cap, and not clothed in pontifical but in royal vestments, holding in its hand not a pastoral staff but something like a royal scepter; its face did not appear whole but half, as though on that half it looked toward another half-image, although that other half remained entirely empty. But a certain image appeared to have been erased from it, because the wax in that part appeared similar to the remaining part neither in color nor in flatness. Hence it appeared to have been the seal not of a bishop but of an emperor, because on one half it portrayed the image of Caesar and on the other half it was presumed to have borne the image either of his son or of his wife. For on the seal itself no other letters appeared except those that designated the proper name together with this addition, “By the grace of God.” But since the proper name of the bishop himself had been Luitard, two letters had been erased in the proper name expressed by the seal: the second, which was between “I” and “t,” and the sixth, which had been between “r” and “v,” so that, if the second had been “o” and the sixth had been “i,” without doubt it would read not Luitardus but Lotharius. This could also be proved from the fact that, according to the disposition of the other letters, between “I” and “t” there was space sufficient to contain only one letter, although according to the completeness of the name Luitardus there are two different letters between “I” and “t.” Moreover, between “r” and “v” there was so little space that the letter “d,” which occupies greater space, did not appear to have been formed there, but rather the letter “i,” which occupies the least. Again, although the wax of the seal on the inner side was most ancient, the wax placed on the outer side, as if for preservation of the seal, was fresh and soft. When this had been diligently investigated, it was ascertained with the greatest certainty that the charter had been perforated beneath the ancient seal and, through the adhesive of the new wax placed on the outside as if for preservation of the seal, it was defectively joined to the charter itself. By the same kind of falsity, namely through defective affixing of a seal, nearly all the other privileges of the Roman emperors, except the privilege of Henry, were found either false or falsified.

But even Henry’s privilege itself did not appear sufficient for establishing faith, because it had neither been drawn up by a public hand nor did it have an authentic seal, in that it was consumed over almost one half and no more of the proper name appeared than its latter half, namely “icus,” nor of the other letters except this addition, “By the grace of God,” so that from the letters themselves it could no more be proved to have been the seal of Henry than of Louis. The instrument of the sentence was also found suspect in many ways, both because certain erasures appeared in it and because the subscription of the notary appeared to be by a different hand than the writing of the instrument, although the notary professed in the subscription that he had written the instrument with his own hand. The writing also appeared more recent than the charter, and the ink appeared to have been stained with water so that it might appear older. Moreover, in all the imperial privileges that were later, no mention at all was made of that sentence, although in some of them mention was made of Luitard, who was said to have made the donation.

Furthermore, if the instrument of the sentence were true and lawful, nevertheless no prejudice could be generated against the Archbishopric of Milan through that sentence, since the sentence itself had been rendered between other persons, and a matter transacted between some persons does not prejudice another. Nor could the attestations contained in the instrument of the sentence, by which the lawful donation of Luitard appeared to have been proved, inflict any injury upon the same archbishopric, since they had been received between other persons and in another judgment.

Moreover, the aforementioned privilege of Henry appeared to have been not only one of confirmation but also one of donation, whence perhaps the ownership of the things donated could be understood to have been acquired and delivered to the monastery. Yet, although from the form of the petition declared in the privilege itself and from certain other words placed in it it appeared to have been only confirmatory, nevertheless, so that it may be understood in the manner in which it could have greater effect, it appeared certainly necessary to distinguish that the same Henry donated some things and confirmed others, since the same things could not lawfully both be confirmed and donated at the same time: confirmed, as things previously had and possessed; donated, as things then delivered and granted. He donated, I say, those things that he granted to the monastery within the space of three miles; but he confirmed those things that had previously been granted and donated to the monastery itself, among which were contained those brought into judgment. And on this account those things could not be understood to have been donated through that privilege, but confirmed, since according to the sanctions of the laws that which is mine cannot become mine by another cause unless it has ceased to be mine; especially since the party of the monastery endeavored to prove, both through the privilege of grant and through the instrument of the sentence, that those things had lawfully been donated by Luitard, and throughout the whole judgment it relied upon that donation; whence after a donation of this kind the same things could not be donated again to the same party. Therefore, since Henry’s privilege was only confirmatory, at least as to those things brought into judgment, if the principal did not hold, neither did the accessory, which is known to have followed from it or on account of it. In the same way, the other privileges of the Roman emperors, even if they had been true and without suspicion, would nevertheless be proved invalid for proof. Through the instruments of lease, indeed, neither ownership nor even full possession is proved, since according to the lawful sanctions a lease made is not sufficient for proof or defense of one’s own property.

[Although in these and other ways your often-mentioned proctor appeared to refute the intention of the abbot, and it is provided in civil law that, when the claimant does not prove, the person convened shall prevail even if he has furnished nothing, nevertheless, in order to show more clearly the justice of your party, he appeared to prove through witnesses that the Archbishop of Milan had possessed undisturbed for the last sixty years all the foregoing. But against prescription of this kind the said abbot objected both civil and natural interruption in the intervening time. For formerly, when Gozovio, once a count, had been delegated as judge concerning these matters by Emperor Frederick, because after lawful citations the Archbishop of Milan had contumaciously absented himself, a sentence was rendered for the monastery, and corporal possession was assigned in its name; the abbot asserted that, after it had been held for six years and more, it was lost in the war of the Milanese. Through this he alleged that prescription was interrupted civilly and naturally. But your often-mentioned proctor replied to the foregoing exception in this way: John of Anagni, of good memory, cardinal deacon of Saint Mary in Portico, afterward cardinal priest of Saint Mark and finally Bishop of Palestrina, then legate of the Apostolic See, observing with what barbaric ferocity and insatiable hatred Emperor Frederick wished utterly to overthrow the church and city of Milan and reduce them to the lowest servitude, recalled as void whatever he or any judge or ministerial of his had ordained at that time against the churches, clerics, or citizens of Milan. Our predecessor Pope Alexander, of happy memory, approving his act, confirmed it; whence what had been done by the aforesaid count in hatred of the Milanese, whom the said emperor was persecuting more bitterly, could not for the foregoing reason generate prejudice against the Church of Milan. But the adverse party considered reasoning of this kind frivolous, since completed matters cannot be made uncompleted by any constitution of law.]

When litigation had therefore been conducted for a rather long time concerning the matters that we have set forth in our presence and that of our brothers, because the things that were sought had not been lawfully proved to belong to the monastery, by the common counsel of our brothers we determined by sentence that your aforesaid proctor, in your name and that of the Church of Milan, should be absolved from its claim, since, when the rights of the parties are obscure, it is customary for judgment to be rendered against the person who is claimant. [But concerning the manse, etc. Given at the Lateran, on the sixteenth day before the Kalends of May, 1199.]

Latin source headnote: Letters concerning absolution from a vow obtained by crusaders with the truth suppressed or falsity expressed are not valid.

The same, to the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Concerning what—(And below: [cf. c. 8, On a Vow, III.34.]) You asked, moreover, what you ought to do concerning crusaders who, saying that they are returning from the Apostolic See, bring back unknown seals of cardinals concerning their absolution, although they should not lightly have been believed concerning the impediments alleged. To this we respond to you that, when we at any time grant apostolic letters to such persons, we write in this manner to those who know their persons and resources more fully: that, after the truth concerning the impediments alleged has been more diligently investigated, they shall ordain concerning them what they shall know to be more expedient for the salvation of souls and the relief of the Holy Land, providing attentively, as is contained above, lest anything be deceitfully fabricated in fraud of the vow. Hence, if it has been established that such persons obtained, through suppression of the truth or expression of falsity, letters not only of the cardinals but also our own, and not only doubtful but even certain letters, we will them to be without what was obtained and, notwithstanding those letters, command, appeal removed, as is expressed above, that they be compelled to execution or redemption of the vow.

Latin source headnote: If there is doubt whether an extravagans is an authentic decretal, either it accords with the law, and then judgment is rendered according to it, or it conflicts with the law, and then the Pope is consulted.

The same, to the Bishop of Ely.

The pastoral—(And below: [cf. c. 28, On the Office of a Delegated Judge, I.29.]) You also asked by what indications faith is to be given to decretals concerning whose authority a judge can not undeservedly doubt, since many are found in the compilation of scholars and alleged in causes, concerning which authenticity by bull has not been established, nor were they themselves published through the metropolitan sees. Therefore, because it often happens that decretals of this kind are proposed even before us which we doubt to be authentic, responding benignly to your fraternity, we have determined by authority of the present letters to establish that, when some decretal concerning which a judge deservedly doubts is alleged, if it accords with the common law, he shall not fear to judge according to it, since he appears to proceed not so much by its authority as by the authority of the common law. But if it conflicts with the common law, he shall not judge according to it, but shall consult his superior concerning it. [Moreover, because, etc. (cf. c. 4, On Exceptions, II.25.) Given at Rome at Saint Peter’s, on the fourteenth day before the Kalends of January, 1204.]

Latin source headnote: After the attestations have been published, instruments can be produced until conclusion. This is the first point. The custom of a place makes an instrument authentic. This is the second.

The same, to the Bishop of Saint Andrews and the Abbot of Broch.

When the beloved—(And below: [cf. c. 6, On Arbiters, I.43.]) Moreover, we have determined to respond to the second question in this way: either party can exhibit instruments even after publication of the attestations, up to the casting of the definitive sentence, before the cause has been concluded. But concerning the third article we respond in this way: you shall inquire more diligently into the truth, and, if the approved custom of that country obtains that faith is given in such matters to the instruments of that king, you will be able to admit them safely, especially since the aforesaid king was of such integrity that his instruments are of the greatest authority in the regions of Scotland. [To the fourth, etc. (cf. c. 6, On the Cause of Possession, II.12.) Given at the Lateran, on the sixteenth day before the Kalends of April, in the tenth year, 1207.]

Latin source headnote: The falsity of an instrument, or what is lacking in an instrument, can be proved through witnesses.

The same, to Peter, a Citizen of Viterbo.

When John the Hermit had sought from you one hundred and thirty Sienese pounds by reason of a loan before Donadeus and John, judges of Viterbo, and you proposed in opposition that, since the same John was bound to you for one hundred and eighty pounds as the price of a house that you had sold to him, the one hundred and thirty pounds from them ought not undeservedly to be set off against the loan, at length, after litigation had been conducted between you for some time concerning this and certain other articles, the same judges, having understood the arguments of both parties and diligently inspected the attestations and published instruments, condemned you by sentence to deliver to the same John vacant possession of the aforesaid house, and freed from creditors. (And below:)

Therefore, when you determined to appeal from this sentence to our hearing, and we appointed our beloved son T., our subdeacon and chaplain, as auditor both for you and for the aforesaid John, it was proposed before him on your behalf that the sale of the aforesaid house had been not pure but rather conditional, and that you were in no way bound to its delivery. Four witnesses were nevertheless introduced to prove this, because, even if it was a new chapter, it nevertheless depended upon the old; having been sworn, they deposed that they were present at the contract celebrated between you and the aforesaid John concerning the same house, situated in the quarter of Saint Blaise, for which a price of one hundred and eighty pounds had been fixed for you, with this condition added, namely, that you should inhabit the house itself freely during your life and, after your death, it should remain to M. and R., your children and the nephews of the same John. In consideration of this condition, you sold the house itself to the same John for a lower price, although you could have had two hundred pounds for it from G. Morandi; but the same witnesses said that they did not at all remember the year, month, and day on which the sale was made.

The said John, however, proposed that the sale itself had been not conditional but pure, exhibiting to prove this a public instrument [drawn up in the year of the Lord’s incarnation 1206, in the month of November, on the fourth day,] in which you professed that by your own will you had sold and delivered the house itself to the same John and afterward received the price of one hundred and eighty pounds. He also introduced to prove it the notary who had drawn up the instrument and one of the witnesses subscribed in the instrument. But although the notary affirmed that the sale had been pure, as is contained in the sequence of the instrument, [and the witness also asserted that the sale had been made,] nevertheless, whether the contract had been entered into under a condition or purely, he said that he did not at all remember.

Furthermore, when a doubt had arisen as to whose proof ought to prevail, it was proposed on your behalf that, although according to the lawful sanctions the credibility of instruments and the depositions of witnesses possess the same force in conducting litigation, nevertheless not every instrument ought to be of such moment that it is preferred to the depositions of three or more suitable witnesses. For it is sufficient if, on account of the authority of the notary, who is presumed faithfully to fulfill his office since he is bound to this by oath, as much faith is given to the instrument drawn up as would be given to two suitable witnesses. But since it was manifestly proved through four witnesses superior to every exception that the aforesaid sale had been celebrated conditionally, you asserted that their depositions were deservedly to be preferred to the instrument.

To this, however, the same John responded in opposition that, since he founded his intention through the already-mentioned instrument, to which undoubted faith is to be given, since it is neither canceled, effaced, nor corrupted in any part of itself, and you propose by way of exception that the sale itself was celebrated not purely but conditionally, and certain faith concerning the time was not made through the witnesses introduced by you for this purpose, and therefore it does not appear that they depose concerning that sale which, as is established by the said instrument, was contracted at a determinate time, proof of this kind appeared ineffective to refute the contrary intention. But you proposed that this response was invalid, because, when either party, interrogated by us, had confessed at law that only one sale had been contracted concerning the house, and it is clear from the depositions of the witnesses that the sale was conditional, it is gathered from the confession of both parties that the sale of the same house was conditional, not pure, notwithstanding that the interrogation itself was made after the cause had been concluded by the parties, since the judge, who ought to investigate all things up to the pronouncement of sentence, can interrogate concerning a fact whenever some matter of doubt occurs.

Therefore, these and other matters having been proposed both before us and before the said chaplain and more fully understood, by the counsel of our brothers we pronounced that the sale of the aforesaid house had been celebrated conditionally and that on this account you were in no way obligated to its delivery, imposing perpetual silence upon the aforementioned John concerning this. But the sentence of the aforesaid judges, who are known otherwise to have pronounced justly, since an exception of this kind was neither proved nor objected before them, we invalidate as to the said chapter, confirming it as to the other articles by apostolic authority.

Latin source headnote: The absence of a letter does not invalidate a rescript.

Honorius III.

It was proposed before us on behalf of our dearest daughter in Christ B., formerly Queen of the English, that, when the nobleman W. de Guerche and his accomplices of the Dioceses of Nantes, Rennes, and Angers despoiled her at their own pleasure of the castle of Segré, which belonged to her by reason of her dower, and she obtained letters concerning this against him from Pope I., our predecessor of good memory, directed to us, because an apostolic rescript is asserted to be defective on the ground that in the word spoliarunt this character “o” was missing, although three or four citations had already emanated from us, nevertheless, admitting frivolous exceptions of this kind, you deferred proceeding in the matter itself. We therefore, marveling not a little at your discretion, since from what precedes and follows the meaning can be understood, although through the fault or occupation of the scribe the aforesaid “o” was omitted, you could sufficiently have ascertained the intention of the mandator, nor had his mandate expired at his death because the matter was no longer untouched; and willing that an end be imposed upon litigation, through apostolic writings we command your discretion that, notwithstanding this, you shall proceed in the matter itself according to the tenor of the former letters, with the obstacle of any contradiction and appeal removed, reason going before. [Given at the Lateran, on the fifteenth day before the Kalends of November, in the first year, 1216.]

Latin source headnote: An appeal is lawfully taken from a judge who does not cause common instruments to be produced for a party petitioning this.

Gregory IX, to the Prior of Saint Bartholomew and the Dean of Arches in London.

G., perpetual vicar of the church of Rechan., explained to us that, when the prior and convent of Leeds convened him concerning tithes before judges by apostolic authority, and the said G. reconvened them before the same judges concerning like matters, because the said judges did not cause a copy of certain common instruments—which the other party had and through which he intended to establish his intention concerning the principal matter—to be made for him although he petitioned this insistently, he appealed to our hearing. Therefore, we command that, if it is so, after [the matter] has been recalled to its due state, etc.

Latin source headnote: Contrary writings produced by the same person do not create faith.

The same.

It can be imputed to one who has produced in judgment writings contrary to one another, mutually derogating from their own credibility, since it was within his power not to produce whichever he wished.

Latin source headnote: If the cause is expressed in an instrument of debt, the debtor is condemned unless he proves that it is not owed. If it is not expressed, it is necessary that the creditor prove that it is owed.

The same.

If the bond that you propose was issued by you without being owed speaks indeterminately, your adversary is bound to show the debt that is contained in it. But if you expressed in it the cause on account of which a writing of this kind issued, one stands by your confession unless you prove that you promised it without its being owed.

Latin source headnote: By authority of the ordinary, a notary can reduce the notes of a deceased notary to public form.

The same, to I., Notary.

Since P., a notary overtaken by death, did not complete certain instruments that had been reduced by him to notes, at the petition of those to whom they belong you will be able, by authority of the ordinary judge, faithfully to reduce them to public form, and by this they shall have perpetual firmness.

Latin source headnote: An instrument copied by a notary by authority of the ordinary has the same force as the original.

The same.

If instruments are petitioned to be copied because of age or another just cause, they shall be presented before the ordinary judge or one specially delegated by him. If, after inspecting them diligently, he finds them defective in no part of themselves, he shall command that they be copied by a public person, and through this they shall have the same authority as the originals.