Privileged persons were r 1, Persona min rabiles, who were persons under the special protection of the law on account of some in capacity of age, sex, mind, or condition. These were entitled, whether as plaintiffs or defendants, to carry their causes directly be fore the emperor, and, passing over the in ferior courts, to demand a hearing before his supreme tribunal, whenever they had valid grounds for doubting the impartiality or fear ing the procrastination of the inferior courts, or for dreading the influence of a powerful adversary. 6 G:tick, Pend. 522. On the other hand, if their adversary, on anypretext whatever, had himself passed by the inferior courts and applied directly to the supreme tribunal, they were not bound to appear there i if this would be disadvantageous to them, but, in order to avoid the increase of costs and other inconveniences, might decline an swering except before their forum domicilii. The personce miserabiles thus privileged were minor orphans, widows, whether rich or poor, persons afflicted by chronic disease or other forms of illness (diuturno morbo fatigati et debiles), which included paralytics, epileptics, the deaf, the dumb, and the blind, etc., per sons impoverished by calamity or otherwise distressed, and the poor when their adversary was rich and powerful, prcesertim CUM ali cujus potentiam perhorrescant. This privilege was, however, not available when both par ties were persona miserabiles; when it had been waived either expressly or tacitly ; when the party had become persona miserabilis since the institution of the action,--except always the case of reasonable suspicion in regard to the impartiality of the judge ; when the party had become persona misera bilis through his own crime or fraud • when the cause was trivial, or belonged to the class of unconditionally privileged cases having an exclusive forum ; and when the cause of action was a right acquired from a persona non miserabilis. 6 Gluck, Pand. 522.
'7. Clerici, the clergy. The privilege of clerical to be impleaded only in the episcopal courts commenced under the Chris tian emperors. Justinian enlarged the juris diction of these courts, not only by giving them exclusive cognizance of affairs and of fences purely ecclesiastical, but also by con stituting them the primary courts for the trial of suits brought against the clergy even for temporal causes of action. Nov. 83, Nov. 123, cap. 8, 21, 22, 23. The causes of action cognizable in the forum ecclesiasticum were-1. causes ecclesia,sticce mere tales, purely ecclesiastical, i.e. those per taining to doctrine, church services and cere monies, and right to membership ; those re lating to the synodical assemblies and church discipline ; those relating to offices and dig nities and to the election, ordination, transla tion, and deposition of pastors and other of fice-bearers of the church, and especially those relating to the validity of marriages and to divorce ; or, 2. causce ecclesiasticce mixtce, mixed causes, i.e. disputes in regard to church lands, tithes, and other revenues, their management and disbursement, and legacies to pious uses, in regard to the bound aries of ecclesiastical jurisdictions, in regard to patronage and advowsons, in regard to burials and to consecrated places, as grave yards, convents, etc., and, lastly, in regard to
offences against the canons of the chuYch, as simony, etc. But the privilege here treated of was the personal privilege of the clergy when defendant in a suit to have the cause tried before the episcopal court; when plaintiff, the rule actor sequitur forum rei prevailed. All persons employed in the church service in an official capacity, even though not in holy or ders, were thus privileged. But the privilege did not embrace real actions, nor personal as tions brought to recover the possession of a thing: these must be instituted ip the forum rei slice. The jurisdiction extended to all personal actions, criminal as well as civil; although in criminal actions the ecclesiastical courts had no authority to inflict corporeal or capital punishment, being restricted to the canonical judgments of deprivation, degrada tion, excommunication, etc. 6 Gluck, Pond. 523.
S. Academici. In the modern civil law the officers and students of the universities are privileged to be sued before the university courts. This species of privilege was un known to the Roman law. See 6 Gliick, Pand. 524.
Milites. Soldiers had special military courts as well in civil as criminal cases. In civil matters, however, the forum militare had pre ference only over the courts of the place where the soldier defendant was stationed ; as he did not forfeit his domicil by absence on military duty, he might always be sued for debt in the ordinary forum domicilii, pro vided he had left there a procurator to transact his business for him, or had property there which might be proceeded against. L. 3, C. 2, 51; 1. 6, eodem; 1. 4, C. 7, 53. Besides this, the privilege of the forum militare did not extend to such soldiers as carried on a trade or profession in addition to their military service and were sued in a case growing out of such trade, although in other respects they were subject to the military tribunal. L. 7, C. 3, 13. If after an action had been com menced the defendant became a soldier, the privilege did not attach, but the suit must be concluded before the court which had acquired jurisdiction of it. The forum militare had cognizance of personal actions only. Actions arising out of real rights could be instituted only in the forum rei sites. In the Roman law, ordinary crimes of soldiers were cogni zable in the forum delicti. The modern civil law is otherwise. 6 Gliick, Pand. 418, 421.
There are many classes of persons who are privileged in respect to jurisdiction under the modern civil law who were not so privileged by the Roman law. Such are officers of the court of the sovereign, including ministers of state and councillors, ambassadors, noblemen, etc. These do not require extended notice.