Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 6

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
EN
The present article focuses on the acts of the Supreme Tribunal of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in the late 18th century. It is claimed that the records produced by the chancery or clerk’s office of this court in the discussed period were influenced by both centuries-old traditions and reforms carried out in 1764 and subsequent years. The transfer of powers to manage the work of the chancery to Tribunal judges did not have a negative effect on its efficiency because, in practice, a quite clear division of duties among court officials was observed. One of them was responsible for recording real estate property transactions into the acts of statements as well as keeping official and private documentation (he kept the book of acts and a protocol into which he registered the acts transferred to him). The other three sworn-in clerks were required to draw up verdicts; they were responsible for the decree books (final versions) and sentencjonarz (which was referred to in the Lithuanian Tribunal as a decree protocol), in which they placed the content of rulings delivered during the proceedings of taking evidence. One more clerk kept records of the cases in which suits were presented, and the last one compiled an on-going protocol, in which he registered the so-called judicial appeals, and recorded all the major activities related to the functioning of the court and its verdicts regarding litigations addressed to it.
PL
Przedmiotem artykułu są akta Trybunału Głównego Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego w II poł. XVIII w. Kancelarii Trybunału Litewskiego poświęcono kilka prac naukowych, jednak akta tego sądu nie zostały dotąd należycie rozpoznane. Obserwowana obecnie intensyfikacja badań dotyczących funkcjonowania i wytworów kancelarii sądów szlacheckich na terenie Korony skłania do podjęcia analogicznego tematu odnośnie do ziem Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego. Celem niniejszego artykułu było omówienie pracy kancelarii Trybunału Głównego Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego, przedstawienie używanych w tym sądzie serii akt oraz scharakteryzowanie znajdujących się w nich wpisów. Badanie przeprowadzono przez ustalenie oraz przeanalizowanie zawartości ksiąg Trybunału Litewskiego, a także porównanie otrzymanych wyników z pracami poświęconymi dokumentacji Trybunału Koronnego. Skonstatowano, że w Trybunale Litewskim w II poł. XVIII w. w formie czystopisów występowały jedynie zeznania zapisów, oblaty oraz dekrety (przeważnie umieszczane już w jednej księdze), oddzielnie funkcjonowały podserie brudnopisów akt i wyroków; pomocniczą rolę spełniały rejestry spraw, a codzienne czynności sądu odnotowywano w specjalnej księdze, zwanej protokołem potocznym. Skonstatowano ponadto, że przekazanie sędziom trybunalskim uprawnień do kierowania pracą kancelarii nie wpłynęło negatywnie na jej sprawność, gdyż w praktyce ukształtował się dosyć klarowny podział obowiązków między regentami. Na wytwory kancelaryjne tego sądu w II poł. XVIII w. miała wpływ tradycja, a także reformy przeprowadzone w roku 1764 oraz w latach następnych.
RU
У артыкуле даследуюцца акты трубыналу Вялікага княства Літоўскага другой паловы XVIII стагоддзя. Канцэлярыі Літоўскага Трыбуналу ўжо было прысвечана некалькі навуковых прац, аднак актам дадзенага суда дагэтуль у даследаваннях удзялялася недастаткова ўвагі. На сучасным этапе назіраецца інтэнсіфікацыя даследаванняў, прысвечаных функцыянаванню і вядзенню дакументацыі канцэлярыямі шляхецкіх судоў на тэрыторыі Каралеўства Польскага, што сведычць пра неабходнасць напісання працы на аналагічную тэму ў дачыненні да земляў ВКЛ. Мэтай дадзенага артыкула з’яўляецца апісанне дзейнасці канцэлярыі трыбуналу Вялікага княства Літоўскага, спецыфікацыя серый актаў, што выкарыстоўваліся ў гэтым судзе, і характарыстыка запісаў, якія ў іх знаходзяцца. Даследаванне праводзілася шляхам выяўлення і аналізу зместу кніг Літоўскага Трыбуналу, а таксама параўнання атрыманых вынікаў з працамі, прысвечанымі Кароннаму Трыбуналу. На падставе аналізу можна канстатаваць, што ў Літоўскім Трыбунале ў другой палове XVIII стагоддзя ў форме “чыставіка” выступаюць толькі паказанні, запісы юрыдычных актаў у судовых кнігах і дэкрэты (змешчаныя пераважна ў адной кнізе), асобна функцыянавалі падсерыі чарнавікоў актаў і прыгавораў, дапаможную ролю выконвалі спісы спраў, штодзённая дзейнасць трыбуналу фіксавалася ў спецыяльнай кнізе, якая называлася бягучым пратаколам. Намі зроблена выснова, што перадача ў дадзены перыяд паўнамоцтваў кіравання працай канцэлярыі трыбунальскім суддзям не аказала негатыўнага ўплыву на яе функцыянальнасць, паколькі ў практыцы сфарміраваўся досыць выразны падзел абавязкаў паміж рэгентамі. На тагачасныя канцэлярскія дакументы гэтага суда паўплывалі як шматвяковыя традыцыі, так і рэформы, праведзеныя ў 1764 г. і пазней.
LT
Straipsnyje analizuojami Trečiajame Lietuvos Statute pateikti teismo rengiamų ir išduodamų dokumentų įvardijimai, jų samprata, taikymo sritis ir vieta teismo procedūrose. Taip pat siekiama atskleisti šių dokumentų ir jų pavadinimų kaitą vėlesniais amžiais (iki XVIII a. pabaigos) naudojantis Lietuvos Vyriausiojo Tribunolo pavyzdžiu. Tyrimas atskleidžia, jog tuo pačiu terminu šaltiniuose pavadintas dokumentas įvairiu laiku reiškė skirtingus dalykus arba turėjo kelias prasmes tuo pat metu. XVII–XVIII a. Lietuvos Vyriausiojo Tribunolo teisminėje praktikoje vartota tik dalis Trečiajame Lietuvos Statute minimų terminų, o kai kuriuos bėgant laikui išstūmė kiti. XVIII a. pradėta vartoti daugybė naujų polonizuotų lotyniškos kilmės terminų. Tai siejama su Abiejų Tautų Respublikoje vykusiais unifikaciniais procesais, kurie turėjo įtakos pokyčiams teismo procedūroje.
EN
The article analyses Antanas Klementas’ legal practice at Raseiniai land and castle courts. This figure is known in historiography for his literary efforts. The lawyer’s biographical facts can be determined by a newly discovered source: the speeches delivered by Antanas Klementas at court (over a hundred documents, nearly seven hundred pages of texts). The research was aimed at identifying the instances when Antanas Klementas was representing clients in proceedings in 1783–1792 at Raseiniai land and castle courts, analysing his speeches at court, assessing them in terms of science of rhetoric, also elucidating his view of law and its application. The research has enabled drawing the following conclusions. On arriving to Raseiniai in 1777, Antanas Klementas must have studied law in the clerical office of Raseiniai land court, likely supervised by the then reagent Viktoras Jarudas. As early as from 1780 Antanas Klementas is referred to as the lawyer (advocate), but the earliest data of him representing clients at court are from 1783. He practiced law at Raseiniai land and castle courts until 1792. Antanas Klementas would appear in various cases, mostly involving debts, also runaway peasants, expropriated holdings, violent offences (battery and homicide), inheritance, and title to real estate. He represented Juozapas Pliateris, Viktoras Jarudas, also the Bilevičiai, Gruževskiai, Poniatovskiai, Juražicai and other families at court on a continual basis. Trying to prove that his statements were true, and to convince the court, Antanas Klementas used a range of rhetoric and psychological measures, would exaggerate the harm incurred by the party he represented, would present his requests as consistent with law, would attempt to create a negative image of the adversary and its actions, and would ingratiate with the court. High expressionism of Antanas Klementas was achieved by the use of tropes and rhetoric figures (synonyms, metaphors, irony). The nature of the lawyer’s work determined an ambiguous relation of Antanas Klementas with the law: on the one hand, he claimed that laws must be observed, but on the other hand, he often insisted on taking into account the factors other than lawfulness, e.g. circumstances of the matter, justice or a custom (he probably used the latter term when relying on the established judicial practice). Antanas Klementas perceived the laws applicable to Poland and Lithuania and included in Volumina Legum collections as common law. He mistakenly thought that such situation (i.e., a possibility to rely on Polish laws in Lithuania) was created by the Act of Equalisation of Laws of 1697. We could also notice that Antanas Klementas was inclined to rely on the oldest laws (where possible). A few instances were found on which he was using a prohibited right of precedent, and interpreted laws incorrectly.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.