Privileged persons were: 1. Persona; miserabiles, who were persons under the special protection or the law on account of some incapacity of age, sex, mind, or condition. These were entitled, whether as plaintiffs or defendant*, to carry their causes directly before the emperor, and, pasting over the inferior courts, to demand a hearing before his supreme tribunal, whenever they had valid grounds for doubting the impartiality or fearing the pro crastination of the inferior courts, or for dreading the influence of a powerful adversary ; 6 Gltick, Pand. § 522. On the other hand, if their adversary, on any pretext whatever, himself passed by the inferior courts and applied directly to the supreme tribunal, they were not bound to appear there if this would be disadvantageous to them, but in order to avoid the increase of costs and other inconven iences, might decline answering except before their forum doMicilii. The persona; 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., persons impov erished by calamity or otherwise distressed, and the poor when their adversary was rich and powerful, prosertim cum alicujus potentiam perhorrescant.
This privilege was, however, not available, when both parties were personce miserabiles ; when it had been waived either expressly or tacitly ; when the party had become persona miserabilis since the in stitution of the action,—except always the case of reasonable suspicion in regard to the impartiality of the judge ; when the party had become persona miserabilis 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.
Clerici, the clergy. The privilege of clerical per sons to be impleaded only in the episcopal courts commenced under the Christian emperors. Justin ian enlarged the jurisdiction of these courts, not only by giving them exclusive cognizance of affairs and offences purely ecclesiastical, but also by con stituting them the ordinary, primary courts for the trial of suits brought against the clergy even for temporal causes of action. Nov. 83, Nov. 123, cap. S. 21, 22, 23. The causes of action cognizable in the forum ecclesiasticum were-1. causes ecciesiasticce mcro tales, purely ecclesiastical, 4. e., those pertain ing to doctrine, church services, and ceremonies, and right to membership ; those relating to the syn odical assemblies and church discipline ; those re.: lating to offices and dignities and to the election, ordination, translation, and deposition of pastors and other office-bearers of the church, and espe cially those relating to the validity of marriages and to divorce ; or, 2. causes 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 re gard to the boundaries of ecclesiastical jurisdictions, in regard to patronage and advowsons, in regard to burials and to consecrated places, as graveyards, etc., and, lastly, in regard to offences against the canons of the church, 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 serv ice in an official capacity, eyed though not in holy orders,' were thus privileged. But the privilege did not embrace real actions, nor personal actions to recover the possession of a thing: these must be instituted in the forum rei sift. The ju risdiction extended to all personal actions, criminal as well as civil' ; although in criminal actions the ecclesiastical courts had no authority to inflict cor poreal or capita/ punishment, being restricted to the canonical judgments of deprivation, degrad ation, excommunication, etc. 6 Gliick, Pand. § 523. In the modern civil law the officers and 'sit:del:1V; of the uni'ver'sities are privileged to be sued before the university courts. This species of privilege was unknown to the Roman law. See 6 Gitick, Pand. § 524.
Milites. Soldiers had Special military courts as well in civil as criminal cases. Ih civil matters, however, the forum militare had prefe'rence only' over the courts of the place where the soldier de fendant was stationed ; as he did not forfeit his domicil by absence on military duty, he might al ways be sued for debt in the ordihary forum domi cilii, provided 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 td such sol diers 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 re spects they were subject to the military tribunal. L. 7, C. 3, 13. If after an action had been commenc ed 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 in stituted only in the forum rei sitar. In the Roman law, ordinary crimes of soldiers were cognizable in the forum delicti. The modern civil law is other wise. 6 Gliick, Pand. 418, 421.