Title — Liber Sextus
Title V: On the Restitution of Those Despoiled
Chapter I
In civil matters an exception of spoliation committed by someone other than the plaintiff is not admitted. In criminal matters it is admitted when committed by a third party, provided it concerns the whole substance or its greater part. The exception ought to be proved within fifteen days; otherwise condemnation in expenses is made. John Andrew. — § 1. One pleading an exception of spoliation committed by a third party ought to seek restitution within a definite time to be established by the judge; otherwise he will be accused notwithstanding the exception. John Andrew. — § 2. An exception of spoliation of private property does not stand in the way of one bringing an action concerning ecclesiastical property, or conversely. John Andrew.
Innocent IV at the Council of Lyons. Frequent and continual complaint resounds around us that an exception of spoliation, sometimes calumniously proposed in judicial proceedings, impedes and disturbs ecclesiastical causes. For while the exception is insisted upon, it happens that appeals are interposed, and thus cognizance of the principal cause is interrupted and frequently extinguished. Therefore, we, who seek voluntary labors so that we may prepare repose for others, desiring an end to be imposed upon litigation and the material of calumny to be cut away, decree that in civil business a judge is not to postpone proceeding in the principal cause because of an objection of spoliation alleged to have been committed by someone other than the plaintiff.
But if in civil matters the defendant asserts that he was despoiled by the plaintiff, or in criminal matters by anyone, he is to prove what he asserts within the space of fifteen days after the day on which it is proposed. Otherwise, after a judicial assessment has first been made, he is to be condemned in the expenses that the plaintiff incurred in the meantime on this account, and otherwise punished if it seems equitable to the judge. In this case, when he is criminally accused, we will that a person be understood to have been despoiled if he affirms that he was violently deprived of his whole substance or its greater part. It is to be believed that the canons speak according to this sound understanding, because we ought neither to contend naked nor to oppose our enemies unarmed. For a despoiled person has the privilege that, already stripped bare, he cannot be stripped again.
§ 1. It is customary to doubt among scholars whether, if one despoiled by a third party pleads spoliation as an exception against his accuser, a time ought to be indulged to him by the judge within which he may implore restitution, lest perhaps he should thus wish to remain so as to elude every accusation. We judge that this is sufficiently consonant with equity and law. But if within the time indulged he has not sought restitution and does not bring the cause to an end when he could, he can thereafter be accused notwithstanding the exception of spoliation.
§ 2. In addition, we decree that spoliation of private property is by no means to be opposed to one bringing an action concerning ecclesiastical property, or conversely.
DE RESTITUTIONE SPOLIATORUM.
In civilibus non admittitur spoliationis exceptio, facta ab alio quam ab actore. In criminalibus admittitur facta a tertio, dummodo sit de tota substantia vel maiori parte. Exceptio probari debet infra quindecim dies; alias fit condemnatio expensarum. Ioann. Andr. — §. 1. Excipiens de spoliatione facta a tertio, infra certum tempus a iudice statuendum debet restitutionem petere; alias accusabitur exceptione non obstante. Ioann. Andr. — §. 2. Agenti super rebus ecclesiasticis non obstat exceptio spoliationis privatarum rerum vel e converso. Ioann. Andr.
Innocentius IV. in concilio Lugdunensi .
Frequens et assidua nos querela circumstrepit, quod spoliationis exceptio, nonnunquam in iudiciis calumniose proposita, causas ecclesiasticas impedit et perturbat . Dum enim exceptioni insistitur, appellationes interponi contingit, et sic intermittitur et plerumque perimitur causae cognitio principalis. Et propterea nos, qui voluntarios labores appetimus, ut quietem aliis praeparemus, finem litibus cupientes imponi et calumniae materiam amputare *, statuimus, ut in civilibus negotiis spoliationis obiectu, quae ab alio quam ab actore facta proponitur, iudex in principali procedere non postponat. Sed si in civilibus ab actore , in criminalibus autem se spoliatum reus asserat a quocunque: infra quindecim dierum spatium post diem, in quo proponitur, quod asserit comprobabit ; alioquin in expensis, quas in-terim actor ob hoc fecerit, iudiciali taxatione praehabita condemnetur, alias, si iudici aequum visum fuerit, puniendus. Illum autem spoliatum intelligi volumus in hoc casu, quum criminaliter accusatur, qui tota sua substantia vel maiori parte ipsius se per violentiam destitutum affirmat. Et secundum hoc loqui canones sano credendum est intellectu, quia nec nudi contendere, nec inermes inimicis opponere nos debemus. Habet enim spoliatus privilegium, ut non possit exui iam nudatus. §. i. Solet autem inter scholasticos dubitari, si spoliatus s a tertio de spoliatione contra suum accusatorem * excipiat, an ei tempus a iudice debeat indulgeri, infra quod restitutionem imploret, ne forte sic velit exsistere ut omnem accusationem eludat ; quod satis aequitati et iuri consonum aestimamus *. Quodsi infra tempus indultum restitutionem non petierit, et causam, quum potuerit, non ducat ad finem: non obstante spoliationis exceptione deinceps poterit accusari. §. 2. Ad hoc sancimus , ut rerum privatarum spoliatio agenti super ecclesiasticis , vel e contrario, nullatenus opponatur.
Chapter II
A church that seeks restitution of tithes that it says it possessed within another’s parish is not heard unless it proves lawful possession. John Andrew.
Boniface VIII. The canons of Saint Nicholas ought by no means to be restored to the tithes that they assert they possessed for some time within the parish of the church of the cleric B., and of which they were despoiled by that cleric, unless they clearly show that they had lawfully obtained possession of them. For they are probably presumed to have occupied them unjustly, since they arise from estates situated within another’s parish and it is manifest, unless something else is shown, that by the common law they pertain to the same church.
Ecclesia, quae petit restitutionem decimarum, quas se dicit infra parochiam alterius possedisse, non auditur, nisi probet possessionem legitimam.
Ioann. Andr.
Bonifacius VIII.
Ad decimas, quas canonici sancti Nicolai se asserunt infra parochiam ecclesiae B. clerici possedisse aliquamdiu, et eis per eundem clericum spoliatos fuisse, nequaquam debent restitui, nisi evidenter docuerint, quod earum possessionem legitime assecuti fuissent , quia eas occupasse iniuste verisimiliter praesumuntur, quum proveniant ex praediis infra alienam parochiam constitutis, sitque manifestum, nisi aliud ostendatur, eas de iure communi ad eandem ecclesiam pertinere.