Pskov judicial charter 1397 1467. General characteristics of the Pskov judicial charter, its system, sources
This letter was written out from the letter of Grand Duke Alexander, and from the letter of Prince Constantine, and from all the additions of Pskov primordial customs, with the blessing of the fathers of their priests of all five councils, and hieromonks, and deacons, and priests, and all of God's clergy, to all Pskov at the veche , in the summer of 6905.
1. These are the cases subject to princely court. If they steal a storeroom from under a castle, or a sleigh covered with felt, or a cart tied with ropes, or a boat sealed with bast, or if they steal [bread?] from a pit, or cattle [from a locked stable?], or hay from an endless stack , then all these cases of theft are subject to the princely court, and a fine [for each specified case] is collected 9 money. And for robbery, assault, robbery [penalties in favor of the city of Pskov?] - 70 (9?) hryvnia, in favor of the prince - 19 money and in favor of the prince and mayor - 4 money.
2. And the [Pskov] viceroy of the [Novgorod] archbishop is in charge of his own court, and the cases subject to his trial are not to be examined by [neither the prince] nor the city judges; Likewise, the ruler's deputy should not interfere in matters subject to the princely court.
3. When elevated to his position, the mayor must swear that he will judge fairly, according to the oath, not to use city revenues, not to take revenge on anyone out of enmity with his court, not to indulge in court, friends by kinship, not to punish the right, not to pardon the guilty , but you cannot condemn anyone indiscriminately either at the trial [or?] at the assembly.
4. The prince and the mayor should not hold court at the assembly; to judge them in the prince's chambers, dealing with the law, according to the oath. If they do not judge according to the law, then may God be their judge at the second coming of Christ. And neither the prince nor the mayor should take secret exactions [from the litigants].
5. If one of the prince’s servants is assigned to go to the suburbs as a governor, then he must [before leaving] swear that he will wish Pskov well, and let him judge fairly, according to the oath. If he should go to some...
6. A posadnik who has left his position is obliged to finish the analysis of judicial and other cases [started by him], and his successor is obliged not to revise the court decisions he has made.
7. A thief who committed theft in Krom, a horse thief, a traitor and an arsonist shall be deprived of life.
8. If a theft is committed in a posad, then pardon (not deprive of life) the culprit twice, but, having proven the crime, punish in accordance with the degree of guilt; having caught him a third time, put him to death, like a thief who committed a theft in Krom.
9. In the case of a lawsuit about field land or water, if there is a yard or arable land on this land, and the defendant cultivates this land and uses it or water for four to five years, then he must [to confirm the validity of possession] refer to the neighbors , numbering 4−5. If the neighbors, whom the defendant called as witnesses, say at the headquarters truly, as before God, that he really cultivates the disputed land and uses it or water for four to five years, and his opponent during these years did not sue him and did not declare his claims to land or water, then in this case his land or water is freed from all harassment and the defendant is not required to swear his right. And the plaintiff, who did not initiate legal proceedings and did not state his claims for the specified years, thus loses his claim.
10. In the case of a lawsuit regarding land that is inconvenient for cultivation (land under a forest), if both litigants present documents according to which the boundaries of adjacent properties do not converge, so that one land will be between both owners, and the litigants will hire surveyors who will the boundaries of the possessions according to the charters of both, and they, having appeared in court, will declare that they are satisfied with this survey, then the matter will be decided by a judicial duel.
11. And whoever of the litigants defeats his opponent [in a judicial duel, the disputed land will be awarded to him according to his charter].
12. Whichever of the litigants [suffers defeat in a duel with his letters] shall have his claim rejected and his letters declared invalid, and the one who wins the case shall be issued a written court ruling (letter of right) for the disputed land; and the court fees in favor of the prince and mayor and with all the sotskoe to collect 10 money.
13. If someone demands the return of alienated land by right of redemption, and the defendant has documents indicating long-standing ownership, then the matter is resolved at the request of the bearer of such documents: he can challenge the plaintiff to a judicial duel or demand an oath from him, what else the redemption period established upon alienation has not expired.
14. If someone presents a board for recovery against the deceased and begins to demand from the executors the property deposited for safekeeping: money, or clothes, or jewelry, or any other movable property, and it turns out that the deceased made arrangements in the event of death his property, he has written a spiritual will and placed it in the city archives - then such a claim against the executors [on the basis of a simple board], neither regarding storage, nor regarding a loan, nor regarding anything else that is not stated in the will, is not permitted without mortgage or [formal] recording. If there is a [formal] record or a mortgage [securing the board], claims can be brought. Likewise, if someone has received (from a deceased person during his lifetime) property [in an amount the transfer of which by law must be secured by a mortgage or recording], and the executors have neither a mortgage nor a recording [of the deceased] on this person, they have no right to demand anything from him: no loan, no trade loan, no storage.
15. If a father, or mother, or son, or brother, or sister, or anyone else from close relatives remains after the deceased, then they can search against each other without a mortgage or [formal] record, but not against strangers , both property given by the deceased to one of them, and property taken from him by one of them.
16−17. About storage. If someone, [leaving for a foreign land, or] during a fire, or when people rise up against him because of his sins, gives his property for safekeeping, and then demands it back, and the one who took it begins to deny [the fact of the luggage], in that case the plaintiff must file his claim no later than one week after arriving from a foreign land, due to a fire or plunder of his home by people; If the defendant [still] refuses [to receive the property for safekeeping], then the case will be resolved according to his wishes: if he wants, he will take the oath himself, or will go to court with the plaintiff, or will lay down at the cross [the price of the claim, allowing him to take the oath] to the plaintiff.
18. In the same way, if a transient worker, hired to plow land or graze cattle in a rural volost, brings a claim for storage or for grain, then the court, having investigated the case, must decide it at the request of the defendant: if he wants, he will take the oath himself, or go to a legal duel with the plaintiff, or he will lay it at the cross [the price of the claim, leaving the plaintiff to swear allegiance].
19. Whoever begins to demand property deposited on boards, without an exact designation, according to the old custom, of the things sought, loses the claim.
20. If someone initiates [without direct evidence] a case of beatings or robbery, asking the court to summon the defendant, then the prince, posadniks and sotskie must find out whether the plaintiff has a rumor [that will certify] where he is [that day ] dined or spent the night. And if the rumor turns out to be his bedfellow or an accomplice to the dinner, the court must interrogate the victim himself, where he was beaten and robbed, and let him point out those to whom he reported this [at the same time]. If the one to whom the reference is made, being summoned to court, says truly, as before God, that the victim really told him about his beatings and robbery, and the hearing at the headquarters shows the same word with the testimony of the plaintiff, then the case is decided according to the desire of the defendant: either let him go to the court duel with the rumor, or let him lay down the price of the claim at the cross, [letting the rumor swear].
21. If the defendant who will have to compete in a duel with rumor turns out to be an elderly person, or a minor, or with some kind of injury, or a priest, or a monk, then he has the right to put up a hired fighter for himself, but the rumor [in no case ] cannot replace himself as a mercenary fighter.
22. If the hearsay to which the plaintiff refers does not appear in court or, having appeared, gives testimony that does not completely coincide with the testimony of the plaintiff - does not say everything or, on the contrary, says something superfluous in comparison with it - then such hearsay is not is recognized as hearsay, and the plaintiff loses his claim.
23. If the plaintiff refers to the rumor, and the defendant [in turn] also exposes the rumor, saying: “the plaintiff himself beat me with the person whom he is now calling for hearing,” then the court must allow that rumor that is called from the outside defendant during the trial of the case.
24. If the defendant, charged with robbery, does not make a report himself, then, in order not to be guided only by the plaintiff’s reference, the judges must send their bailiffs from the court [to investigate the case to the scene of the incident], and the defendant, who has not indicated the report, shall not be found guilty due to the absence of only a reference on his part. Let the Pskov judges not be surprised [by such an incident].
25. If the defendant, summoned by the bailiff to the court, does not go to the church square to hear the summons or [having appeared] hides [during the reading so as not to listen to the summons], then the summons will be read in the church square in the presence of the priest. If the defendant, regardless of the deadline assigned to him for appearance, still does not appear in court on time, then on the fifth day the judges will issue a [new] letter to the plaintiff and the bailiff about delivering the disobedient person by force.
26. The plaintiff, who has received [such a] letter [of bringing] his defendant, having detained him by virtue of the received order, must present him to the court, but at the same time not torment or beat him. And the defendant, who, according to the letter, is subject to arrest, should not, when detained, fight off the plaintiff; if he begins to resist with weapons in his hands and commits murder, he will be held accountable as a murderer.
27. If a fight occurs in Pskov or the suburbs, - in the market or on the street, - or in a rural volost at a feast, but [at the same time] a robbery does not happen, and if this fight was seen by many people in the market, or on the street, or on feast, and of these eyewitnesses, four or five people, standing in front of us [the judges], will say: “So-and-so beat this one,” then hand over the one who caused the beating to the beaten person on their conscience and collect a fine from him in favor of the prince. If the victim also accuses [the offender] of robbery, then he must pursue the claim with the assistance of the hearing, which must be alone, because in this case the matter can be decided by a judicial duel.
28. If someone presents for collection a loan board secured by a mortgage [which the debtor recognizes as his property, refusing the loan itself], then the matter is decided according to the desire of the plaintiff: if he wants, he will take the oath himself and receive his debt, or he will place the mortgage at the cross , leaving it to the defendant to swear and take it. The resolution of the case by judicial duel in a debt claim in the presence of a mortgage is not allowed. And boards secured by a mortgage should not be invalidated [as evidence in court].
29. If someone borrows money on the security of serfdom or some thing, [but does not give the mortgage board], and then, without waiting for recovery from the creditor or in court [at the suit of the latter], he himself demands return from him mortgage [as deposited], then the creditor who presented the mortgage [in court] should not refuse to claim the debt on the grounds that he does not have a mortgage board, but take the word [of the debt amount that] he names, and decide the matter according to his wishes: if he wants, he will take the oath himself and receive the money, or he will place a pledge at the cross, leaving it to the debtor to swear and take it.
30. It is permitted to lend money without a mortgage or without a [formal] entry in an amount up to a ruble inclusive. Loans of money for a large amount without a mortgage or without a [formal] record are not allowed. If someone sues for a loan of more than a ruble on a [simple] board that is not secured by a mortgage, then such board will not be accepted for collection, and the defendant [who does not recognize the debt] wins the case.
31. If someone presents for collection a board secured by a material pledge - a dress, or weapons, or a horse, or any other movable property, and the value of the pledge will be less than the sought debt amount, and the defendant will refuse it, saying: “ I did not pawn this from you and did not borrow anything from you,” then in this case, let the mortgage become the property of the plaintiff, and the defendant is released from collection.
32. If someone guarantees for the debtor to return the borrowed money, and the lender initiates a claim for the debt amount against the guarantor, the debtor, for whom the latter guaranteed, presents a payment receipt in response to the lender’s claim, saying: “I, brother, paid you have a debt secured by this guarantee, but I have a receipt stating that the plaintiff is not to demand [more] borrowed money from either the defendant or his guarantor,” then such a receipt should not be taken into account in court if there will not be a copy of it in the [city] archive, and the plaintiff will be allowed to recover his money from the guarantor who vouched for his debtor.
33. A guarantee secures a debt only for an amount up to a ruble inclusive; in loans exceeding the specified amount, the guarantee cannot serve as security.
34−35. If one of the Pskov residents is robbed in Pskov, or in the suburbs, or in a rural volost, then he must report [this] to the elders, or the closest neighbors, or other third parties; if [the theft happens] at a [brotherly] feast, then [report] to the feast leader or guests, but this matter does not concern the owner of the house where the feast is taking place. Pskovitin [not to call the defendant from] the volost to a free oath in Pskov, let him take the suspect to the oath in the church located where the theft occurred. In the same way, a resident of a suburb or rural volost should not call a Pskovite [suspected of theft] to take an oath in the suburb [or village], but take the oath at the place where the theft was committed.
36. If in a debt claim brought on the basis of the board, the plaintiff turns out to be a woman, or a minor, or an elderly person, or a sick person, or with some kind of injury, or a monk, or a nun, then [such plaintiffs] have the right to assert [ to a judicial duel] mercenary fighters; litigants must [however, personally] take an oath, and mercenaries [can only] fight in a duel. The defendant [in turn] is given the right, if he does not want to go into battle with the plaintiff’s dummy fighter, to also put his mercenary against him.
37. If the court sentences the litigants to a duel, in which the plaintiff defeats his opponent, then in this case he receives a claim brought against the latter, but in the case of the murder of the defendant, no recovery is made, the winner only has the right to remove [from the killed] armor or other [ robe] in which he went out to fight. If the duel takes place, then the loser must pay a fine to the prince and a fee to both bailiffs, 6 money each, but if the litigants finish the peace case [before the duel], then 3 money will be collected [from the defendant] in favor of the bailiffs, and no fine will be paid to the prince from him is collected completely, once the plaintiff [under the settlement] abandons his claim.
38. If someone brings a claim on the boards for money given for trade turnover, and the defendant, in response to the plaintiff’s claim, presents a payment receipt, which states the payment of the trade loan, but there is no copy of this receipt in the archives of the Trinity Cathedral, then such a receipt is recognized by the court as having no force, [and the case is resolved in the usual manner established for claims for trade loans].
39. If a master carpenter or a [simple] hired worker outlives the term for which he was hired, or finishes the agreed work, then he can demand his rent from the owner [who refuses to pay him], and without presenting a written condition, by means of an oral public publicize your claim.
40. If a yard hired worker leaves the owner before the deadline, then he receives wages based on the time spent; and he has the right to bring a claim for the money due to him [in case of non-payment by the owner] within a year from the date of departure; even if the worker lived with the owner for 5 or 10 years, since he did not receive wages for his work, he can demand it for all this time. After the expiration of a year from the moment of leaving, hired workers lose the right of action against the owners.
41. If a carpenter who has hired a job leaves the owner without finishing the work and begins to demand rent from him, saying to him: “I have done all the work required for you,” and the owner [in response] says: “You have not done all the work.” the work that follows from you,” then, if they do not have a written condition, the case is resolved at the request of the owner: let him either place the required amount at the cross, allowing the plaintiff to swear allegiance, or let him take the oath himself.
42. If a landowner wants to refuse a [dependent] farmer, gardener or fisherman [using plots on his estate], then the refusal must be made on the day of the Philippian spell; in the same way, if a dependent farmer, or gardener, or fisherman wants to give up his plots, then the same period is set for refusal. No other period of refusal is allowed, regardless of whose desire it is made - the landowner or the farmer, gardener or fisherman dependent on him.
42a. If a farmer, or a gardener, or a fisherman begins to deny the fact of [formal] refusal on the part of the landowner, then in this case, take them to an oath, [after taking which] the landowner loses the claim for the share of products from the arable, vegetable garden that follows him [in case of refusal]. or fishing grounds.
43. If a fisherman-sharecropper misses the spring catch, then he must pay the owner of the fishing ground the same amount as he received from other areas of the same land.
44. The landowner has the right to demand from the farmer, gardener or fisherman dependent on him, and without a written document, by verbal publicity of his claim, help - money and all kinds of bread, indicating which one: spring or winter wheat, regardless of whose side there was a refusal - whether it was a landowner or a farmer, a gardener or a fisherman.
45. Whoever demands money given for trade, or a debt on a guarantee, or property given for storage, or a loan, or an inheritance, without indicating a claim, loses the claim.
46. If someone identifies his missing property from another, and the latter says: “I bought [this thing] at the market, but I don’t know the seller,” then the defendant must be sworn that he actually made the purchase at the market, but was not an accomplice in theft; If the defendant does not present [to the court the person from whom he purchased the disputed item], but he himself has not previously been caught in theft and there is no suspicion of him in society, then the plaintiff loses the claim.
47. If someone buys [a thing] in a foreign land, or in a city, or finds it somewhere, and another recognizes it as his own, then the matter is resolved in the same way as [in the case of a purchase] on the market.
48. If someone demands from an official the return of an incorrectly taken reward [and it turns out that the official] forcibly took away the plaintiff’s clothes or stole a horse, saying: “I took away the clothes or stole the horse to pay for what was promised,” then the guilty person in taking away clothes or breaking a horse, he is brought to justice as for robbery.
49. Princely servants or bailiffs are to go on official trips together, and the runs are collected at the rate of one money for each mile, and regardless of whether two or three bailiffs participate in the trip, the runs are collected in the same amount. If the prince's servant or bailiff refuses to go beyond these runs, then Pskovite has the right to send anyone to those same runs.
50. For writing a summons for the defendant to appear in court, or a verdict of guilty due to the defendant’s failure to appear, or a letter to the bailiff, the princely scribe must collect a tax from the plaintiff. If the scribe does not demand the tax, then the plaintiff has the right to write [the named documents] somewhere else, and the prince [in this case] is obliged to attach his seal to them; and if the prince refuses to affix the seal, then the latter can be affixed in the archives of the Trinity Cathedral, and this will not be treason to the prince.
51. If the farmer denies the fact of receiving help from the landowner, saying: “I lived on your estate, but I didn’t owe you anything, [I didn’t take help from you],” then the landowner must present four or five third-party people [as witnesses]. who will say truly, as before God, that [the defendant] really occupied a plot of land on the estate, [on the basis of dependence, having received help], and in this case, the landowner, having taken an oath, seeks help, or let him, if he wants, allow the defendant to swear allegiance. But if the landowner cannot provide witnesses that the farmer occupied a plot of land on the estate [on the basis of dependence, having received assistance], then he loses his claim for assistance.
52. If the plaintiff renounces his claim brought against a thief or robber, then in this case the prince will also be deprived of the penalty due in his favor from the defendant.
53. If a son refuses to support his father or mother until their death and leaves the parental home, then in this case he will be deprived of the share due to him from the undivided property.
54. If a person [from whom the owner identified his missing property] presents to the court or in an oath the one from whom he acquired [this property] by purchase, then the latter will be liable in court to the plaintiff, and the first defendant, who has waived the claim , is his guarantor.
55. If a claim is brought against someone regarding property inherited from his father or by will, and if neighbors or outsiders know [the origin of the property] and four or five people [of them] tell the truth at the rate, how before God, that [the disputed thing] was actually received by the defendant by inheritance from his father or by will, then the defendant is released from the oath, and the plaintiff loses his claim [based on testimony alone]. But if there are not four or five people who would truly confirm, as before God, [the defendant’s rights to the property], then he must take an oath that this is indeed his father’s inheritance.
56. In the same way, if someone bought [a thing] in the market from an unknown seller and the purchase will be known to good people, and if [later, when this thing] is claimed by another person, four or five people will say truly how before God: “he made a purchase in our presence on the market,” then the defendant is considered acquitted and is released from the oath. If he does not have witnesses, then take him to an oath, [after taking which] the plaintiff loses the claim.
57. If someone asks the prince or the mayor for a bailiff to catch a thief red-handed, then the prince and the mayor must send good, trustworthy people as bailiffs. If the sent bailiffs [upon their return] say the following: “we arrived at the yard [of a person suspected of theft] to search, and he did not allow us to search, and did not let us into the house, and drove us out of the yard,” and the defendant [ for his part] will say: “those bailiffs, gentlemen judges, were not with me,” or he will say: “those bailiffs, gentlemen judges, were with me, and I opened the doors of the house to them, and they, without searching my place, “They ran away from the yard of their own free will, and now they are slandering me, as if I kicked them out,” then the prince and the mayor should ask the bailiffs: “Do you have any witnesses, in whose presence the defendant drove you out of the yard?” Then the bailiffs must present two or three people as witnesses to the incident, and if they, having appeared at the trial, say truly, as before God: “that man with us drove those bailiffs out of the yard and did not allow them to conduct a search,” then bring the bailiffs to the oath, and the defendant, [suspected of theft and interfering with the red-handed seizure], to be prosecuted as a thief. If the bailiffs turn out to be guilty [of slander], then such bailiffs are not recognized as bailiffs, and the plaintiff who sent them loses the claim.
58. It is not allowed to appear in court with accomplices; the court chamber may include [only] two litigants, and there should be no assistants from either the plaintiff or the defendant. The exception is: a woman, or a minor, or a monk, or a nun, or a very elderly person, or a deaf person, for whom an accomplice is allowed to speak at trial. If an accomplice appears for someone other than the persons listed above and tries to forcibly enter the court chamber or hits the gatekeeper, then he will be riveted in the block and a ruble penalty will be collected from him in favor of the prince and 10 money in favor of the gatekeepers.
59. And the gatekeepers will be one person from the side of the prince and one person from the side of the city of Pskov; they must take an oath that they will not punish the right and pardon the guilty. And from each court case they will collect two money for two from the person found guilty.
60. Do not trust the testimony of a thief; if he accuses someone [of complicity], then conduct a search in the house of the accused and, if caught red-handed, hold him accountable for theft, but if [during the search the stolen things] are not found, then he is not subject to detention.
61. The prince and mayor must not reject documents in court whose authenticity does not raise doubts and which are drawn up in the form established by law; As for forged documents, letters and boards, then, having subjected them to verification, they should be declared invalid by the court.
62. In any litigation, based on [simple] boards or secured by a mortgage, the plaintiff has the right, by agreement with the defendant, at trial or even before oath, to reduce his claim, and no fine [legal costs] will be collected from him, although He would have completely released the defendant from penalties without taking him to the oath.
63. If any dependent farmer refuses from the landowner the plot occupied on his estate, or if the refusal occurs on the part of the landowner, then [in both cases] at the time of refusal [between them] a [full] settlement must be made: the landowner receives his share of the produce [from the plot], the farmer the share due to him.
64. Bailiffs, from among the prince’s servants, or Pskovites, for a trip to summon the defendant to trial, or to remove the shackles from him, or to impose shackles, shall collect [from the plaintiff] travel expenses at the rate of one money for every ten miles .
65. For a trip to carry out a search in a case of theft, the bailiff has the right to double runs, collected from the one who is recognized as a thief. If [the bailiff] does not find out red-handed, then payment for the bailiff and the gatekeepers is made by the plaintiff, who hired the bailiff [for his case].
66. If any bailiff or nobleman takes [from the defendant] a horse or some other property as payment for his trip, then [the defendant] must give it under the guarantee of a third party or remove it from himself [suspicion of theft], and in this case, the runs are recovered from the plaintiff who did not win the claim.
67. If the plaintiff, having arrived with the bailiff, takes [from the defendant] something from the property to repay his debt without permission, and not by a court verdict, then for this he will be held accountable as for robbery. For robbery, a ruble penalty is awarded, and in the same way, the payment to the bailiff in this case falls on the plaintiff who is guilty [of arbitrariness].
68. No mayor [neither Pskov nor suburban] has the right to act in court as an attorney in the litigation of another. He can only conduct his own legal affairs and affairs regarding the property of the church where he is the church warden.
69. In the same way, none of the officials has the right to conduct legal proceedings for anyone other than their own.
70. Parishioners should not appear [en masse] in court to protect church land [from third-party claims]. Let [church] elders appear in court in litigation over church land.
71. One attorney cannot handle two court cases on the same day.
72. If someone receives [real estate] property for use by will, and if he has in his hands serfdom deeds for this property, and [the user] sells this land, or fishing, or any other real estate, then , when he is caught [in such an illegal sale], he is obliged to buy back the property sold, and [in addition] is deprived [in the future] of using it.
73. If someone is facing collection of a debt by record, and the record will stipulate certain interest, then when the payment deadline arrives, he must declare the interest to the court and then has the right to have it accrued even after the period expires. If [the plaintiff] does not make such a statement to the court on time, then he is deprived of interest (for the time that has elapsed from the due date until the actual payment).
74. If someone demands from his debtor to pay the debt before the expiration of the loan, he is deprived of the right to collect interest. If the debtor repays the debt to the creditor before the expiration of the term, then interest is charged according to the calculation of time.
75. If any dependent farmer brings a claim against the landowner for anything on the basis of a [simple] board, then such a board will not be recognized as valid legal evidence in court.
75a. The old-time farmer owes underwater taxes to the landowner.
76. If a dependent farmer runs away from the estate abroad [of the Pskov state] or somewhere else [within the Pskov state], and his movable property remains on the estate, but the landowner is faced with exacting help from the farmer, then he must take from the prince and from the mayor bailiff and invite the volost elders and third-party people, and in the presence of [these] bailiffs and third-party people, sell the movable property of the farmer and take the proceeds as payment for help. If the proceeds from the sale are not enough to cover the assistance, but the farmer returns after some time, then the landowner has the right to bring a claim against him to compensate for the missing part of the assistance. The landowner is not subject to a fine [for taking the cultivator's property]. And the farmer [upon his return] does not have the right to sue the landowner for the property (remaining on the estate).
77. Pskov judges and suburban mayors and elders must swear the same thing that they judge fairly, by oath. If they do not judge fairly, then may God be their judge on the terrible day of the second coming of Christ.
78. If one of the prince’s servants is assigned to go to demarcate the boundaries of a disputed estate, then he must also take an oath.
79. If a dispute arises between someone regarding the ownership of land or water and both parties present charters, then the charters of one party should be read by the princely clerk, and the other by the city clerk. Certificates sent from the suburbs must be read by the city clerk.
80. If a fight occurs between someone in Pskov, or in the suburbs, or in a rural volost, - at a feast, or in some other place - [those who fought] will not summon each other to court through the bailiffs, but will finish the matter world, then in this case the penalty in favor of the prince is not collected.
81. Princely servants and Pskov city bailiffs must travel to conduct a search or summon witnesses to court on an equal basis (i.e., two of them and divide the runs in half).
82. The princely scribe has the right to collect 5 money for writing a legal document on a land dispute, for [writing] a summons to appear in court - one money, for attaching a seal - one money, in the same way one money is recovered for drawing up a verdict of guilty due to failure to appear the defendant to the court and letters to the bailiff. If the prince's scribe demands a duty other than the tax, then in this case it is allowed to write [the letter] somewhere else, and the prince must attach his seal; if the prince refuses to affix the seal, then the latter can be affixed in the city archive at the Trinity Cathedral, and this is not considered treason to the prince.
83. If one of the Pskov residents needs to obtain written permission from the prince and posadnik to travel abroad on his own business, then for [writing] such permission the princely scribe has the right to collect one money; In addition, a stamp application fee of one money will be charged.
84. If a dependent farmer dies on the landowner’s estate, and the deceased has neither a wife, nor children, nor a brother, nor [other] relatives, then the landowner can also sell the farmer’s movable property and [the proceeds] in the presence of bailiffs and third parties. take your help as compensation. If the brother or any other relatives of the deceased farmer subsequently show up, then they do not have the right to demand the latter’s movable property from the landowner.
85. If a dependent farmer dies [on the estate] of some landowner, for whom there is a loan record, and after him there remains a wife and children not mentioned in [this] record, then the wife and children [of the deceased] do not have the right to refuse payment of relief to the landowner, but must pay it according to the record. If there is no record of the farmer, then the matter [of collecting assistance] is decided by the court according to Pskov customs.
86. If [after the death of] a dependent farmer his brother or some other [lateral] relatives remain and wish to inherit his property, then the landowner has the right to collect assistance from them. The brother [and other side] relatives of the [deceased] farmer should not hide from the landowner either a basket or a tub (i.e., the available amount of grain that belonged to the deceased). But if [after the deceased] a horse or a cow remains, then they (the relatives) can, in turn, demand them from the owner in court.
87. If a dependent farmer makes a claim against the landowner for some movable property, and the landowner presents witnesses that the farmer is appropriating the property belonging to him, and outsiders, close neighbors, know that this is really his property, then the farmer loses the claim, and the landowner is recognized as right.
88. If someone’s wife dies without leaving a spiritual will, and after her there remains her ancestral real estate, then her husband will own this property for life, provided that he does not marry a second time, but in the case of a second marriage, he is deprived of the right to use it.
89. If someone’s husband dies without leaving a spiritual will, and after him there remains immovable family or movable property, then the wife can use it for life, provided that she does not marry a second time; in the event of a second marriage, the right to use it is deprived.
90. If someone’s wife dies, and the [widowed] husband marries a second time, and the mother, or sister, or other relatives of the first wife bring a claim against him for her dress, then the husband must, in good conscience, give up her dress, but it cannot be to swear that he gave away all of his wife's clothes. In the same way, if a husband dies, and his father or brothers bring a claim against the widow for her husband’s dress, then she must, in good conscience, give away everything that [after him] remains with her. But she cannot be sworn that she gave away all of her husband’s dress.
91. If someone’s son dies, and after him there is a widow who brings a claim against the father-in-law or brother-in-law for her dowry - jewelry or dress, then the father-in-law or brother-in-law must give the jewelry or dress to the daughter-in-law. If the daughter-in-law incorrectly demands property that does not belong to her, then the father-in-law or brother-in-law, if desired, either take the oath themselves, or put the price of the claim at the cross, [letting the daughter-in-law take the oath].
92. If one of the co-owners of property or co-participants in a partnership [with the exception of trade partnerships between native and foreign merchants] brings a claim against another regarding a share of the total profit and presents a board, then the case is decided at the request of the defendant: if he wants, let him accept it himself swear an oath, or place the value of the claim at the cross for his plaintiff, allowing him to swear an oath, or let him go out with him to a legal duel.
93. If a debtor, for whom the creditor has a record, disappears and does not appear on time for payment, in the same way, if a dependent farmer, for whom the landowner has a record, disappears, then all losses that occurred during his detention: remuneration to bailiffs, expenses for publication and imposition of shackles - are exacted from the culprit who was hiding.
94. If the elder brother, together with the younger brother, owns common undivided property, and someone demands that they pay their father’s debt, and there is no record of the [deceased] father, then the elder brother is sworn to [regarding the existence of such a debt, and if he acknowledges it ], then let him pay from the common property; the remainder is subject to division.
95. If a younger brother or nephew, who owns common undivided property with an older brother or brother [of the father], takes advantage of something from the common property and denies it, then they must take an oath that they have not appropriated anything, and the property is subject to division .
96. If a murder occurs somewhere and the murderer is caught, then a ruble penalty is collected from the murderer in favor of the prince.
97. Even if a son kills his father, or a brother kills his brother, a fine is still collected in favor of the prince.
98. If someone comes to [someone else’s] yard with a bailiff to arrest a thief and conduct a search to catch him red-handed, and at that time a [pregnant] woman miscarries the baby, and [then] begins to accuse the bailiff or the plaintiff of murder, then this is not considered murder.
99. If the defendant does not appear for the judicial oath, then he is obliged to pay the full price of the claim to the plaintiff without an oath.
100. If someone, during his lifetime or before his death, personally transfers something to his relative, a dress or some other movable or real estate, and also gives him certificates of gift in the presence of a priest or third-party people, then [after the death of the donor ] the recipient has the right to own this donation even in the absence of a will.
101. About trade loan and debt under guarantee. If someone demands money given for trade turnover, or a debt on surety, or something else, indicating a claim, then the matter is decided according to the desire of the defendant: if he wants, let him go to court duel, or let him lay [the price] at the cross claim, allowing the plaintiff to swear an oath].
102. If the owner-master brings a claim against his student for tuition fees, and the student denies [his debt], then the matter is decided according to the owner’s wishes: if he wants, let him take an oath that the student really owes him, or let him swear an oath to the student.
103. An obligated tenant - a tenant of a house or part of an estate may sue the owner for a house or some other obligation.
103a. If the creditor had a lawsuit with the debtor on the basis of a note or mortgage, and then the defendant, to whom there was a note or who made a loan on the security of something, will file a counterclaim against the plaintiff [in the first case] for the loan, or the property given for safekeeping , or about something else, on boards or on a trade obligation, then this [counter] claim is subject to judicial proceedings on the basis of Pskov customs.
104. If several plaintiffs present [to the court] deeds [two, or three, or five] pledged by the deceased [as security for a loan], certifying ownership of one plot of land, or water, or one yard, or one storeroom, Moreover, some plaintiffs, in addition to the mortgage, will also have records [forming out the loan agreement], while others will only have a mortgage in the form of letters, and there will be no records, then [the latter] will be sworn in, and then, if the relatives of the deceased want to redeem deeds for the mortgaged property, then the amount received from the redemption should be divided between the plaintiffs in proportion to the size of the loan made from each of them by the deceased. Plaintiffs who submit formal records to the court along with the pledge are released from the oath.
105. In litigation between foreigners regarding beatings and robbery, the case is decided at the request of the defendant: if he wants, let him take an oath that he did not beat or rob the plaintiff, or let him lay it at the cross [the price of the claim, leaving the defendant to swear the oath].
106. In the case of a lawsuit regarding the ownership of land or a forest plot with hives of wild bees, if the plaintiff presents [to the court] documents indicating the prescription of possession, as well as his bill of sale, and these fortresses will affect adjacent lands and trees with bee hives belonging to several co-owners, who will all appear in court together, defending each of their plots of land or their trees, and present to the court, for their part, serfdom deeds for the specified real estate, and then [the plaintiff and defendants] will invite land surveyors who will demarcate, according to the deed of sale [of the plaintiff], his plot from the adjacent plots of the ancient co-owners, then the plaintiff must take an oath that the disputed land belongs to him. The plaintiff swears the oath once, regardless of the number of co-owners acting as defendants, and if he swears the oath before all the defendants, then he is issued a judicial determination (letter of right) for the plot that he called his own under oath.
107. If someone borrows money on the mortgage of some property, and after some time begins to return the money and asks for his mortgage back, and the creditor, refusing to receive the mortgage, says: “I didn’t lend you money, but did not take a mortgage from you,” then the case is resolved, similar to the case of giving property for safekeeping, at the request of the defendant (creditor), who is given three options: either let him take an oath that he does not have a mortgage, or let him lay it at the cross the price of the mortgage, [by allowing the plaintiff to swear allegiance], or let him go out with the plaintiff to a legal duel.
108. If in this collection of Pskov customary law the absence of any article is discovered, then the mayors must report this to the assembly of the Pskov State and then introduce this [missing legal] norm. If any article of the law seems undesirable [to the council] of the Pskov state, then it may be excluded from the collection.
109. Priests, deacons, mallow, monks and nuns are subject to the trial of the [Pskov] governor of the [Novgorod] archbishop. If [a case arises] against a priest, or a deacon, or a monk, or a nun, and both litigants are not laymen, but people under the jurisdiction of the church, then such cases should not be examined by either the prince, or the mayor, or [secular] judges, so how they are subject to the jurisdiction of the [Pskov] viceroy of the [Novgorod] archbishop. Litigations in which not both parties are under the jurisdiction of the church, but one of the litigants is a layman, the prince and the mayor, and, likewise, the [city] judges must be examined together with the viceroy of the archbishop.
110. If a claim is brought against someone for the possession of a horse, or a cow, or any other domestic animal, even a dog, and the defendant says: “This animal is mine, home-grown,” then take him to an oath to the effect that that [the controversial animal] is truly homegrown.
111. If someone, in the presence of the judicial authorities, strikes his opponent in court, then he must pay the offended ruble, [and if he is unable, then] it is given to him with his head. In addition, a fine is collected from the culprit in favor of the prince.
112. For [theft of] a ram, 6 money should be awarded, and for [theft of] a sheep - 10 money in favor of the owner and 3 money in favor of the judge, according to ancient custom. For the gander and for the goose, award 2 money to the owner, 3 money to the judge; for a duck, for a drake, for a rooster, for a chicken - 2 money each [to the owner and the same to the judge].
113. A society sharing a feast has the right of court.
114. If two persons, while drunk, exchange something or make a purchase and sale transaction, and then, when they wake up, one of the parties [the transaction] seems unsuitable, then in this case, let both return to each other what they exchanged. And don’t take them to the oath.
115. Princely servants should not keep drinking establishments in the courtyards either in Pskov or in the suburbs and should not sell honey - neither in a bucket, nor a ladle, nor a barrel.
116. If someone accuses another of arson, and there is no evidence, then the accused can clear himself with a free oath.
117. If someone pulls out the beard of another, and hearsay testifies to this, then hearsay must take an oath and fight [with the guilty] in a judicial duel. If the rumor overcomes [his opponent], then [the latter] is awarded 2 rubles for the [pulled out] beard [in favor of the victim] and in addition [a penalty] for beatings. There should be only one hearing.
118. If someone amicably buys a [pregnant] cow, the seller should not demand from him the return of the calves born after the transaction. If the cow begins to urinate blood, then return it back [to the seller], even if the money has already been paid.
119. If [two] women are sentenced to judicial combat, then neither of them can put up a hired fighter in her place.
120. If several people, 5 or 10 or any number at all, bring charges of beatings against any number of defendants, 5 or one, and prove the accusation, then a fine for beatings is awarded to all of them in the amount of one ruble and a fine in favor of the prince is collected in the same amount [regardless of the number of accused defendants or plaintiffs].
Translation and comments by L. V. Cherepnin and A. I. Yakovlev
Pskov judicial charter
Sources of the Pskov Judgment Charter
The Pskov charter of judgment was issued “to all Pskov at a meeting in the summer of 905 (1397) with the blessing of...”. The composition of the Pskov Judgment Charter proves its gradual, stage-by-stage origin. The Pskov judicial charter has a phased, gradual origin. This confirms the composition of the letter itself. It shows traces of a chronological layering of content: earlier articles, canceled or modified by subsequent ones, were nevertheless left in the document. Example: Article 50 and Article 82.
The Pskov Judgment Charter can be divided into 3 parts:
1. first - from 1 to 76 articles;
the second - from 77 to 108 articles;
the third - from 109 to 120 articles.
Each part begins with constituent laws (on the composition of the court).
At its core, the Pskov Judicial Charter is a code of local procedural law. At the same time, the charter contains articles relating to the norms of criminal and civil law. from all 5 councils"
Among its sources, the court charter indicates the charter of Prince Konstantin, but only Konstantin Dmitrievich, who reigned in 1407, can be recognized as such a prince. the letter was supplemented for the third time.
The composition of the letter clearly shows traces of chronological layering of content. The entire charter can be divided into three parts: from 1 to 76 articles, from 77 to 108, from 109 to the end. Each of them begins with constituent laws (on the composition of the court).
The sources of the Pskov judicial charter are indicated in its inscriptions: it “is copied from the charter of Grand Duke Alexander and Count Prince Constantine and from the postscripts of the Pskov duty. These sources are the same in meaning as the sources of the Russian Pravda - princely charters; unlike further ones statutes included in the Russian Pravda, the Pskov statutes already covered a significant mass of legalizations (there were attempts at codes) and were set out in special charters.
The second source of the Pskov judicial charter was Pskov duties, i.e., common law, probably the most abundant source.
Pskov law draws its content from customs; it differs from custom by external compulsion (expressed in the imposition of a church oath by legislators on themselves) and written form (the original of the laws is kept in the Lavra of the Holy Trinity; “tearing up the charter” means destroying the law itself). The initiative of the law belongs to the mayor, and its adoption and repeal belongs to the evening, of course, with the participation of the prince. The publication of a law when it is drawn up by the people at a meeting does not matter.
Pskov court charter of the 15th century. (it has come down to us in full, in two lists, of which only one is the most complete). The charter consisted of several “layers” of legal norms, different in origin, and represented, as it were, the final codification of Pskov legislation, approved at the veche in 1467. Its content, of course, was influenced by the legislation of Novgorod. As already indicated, until the middle of the 14th century. Pskov was a city of the Novgorod state. The Pskov judicial charter contained 120 statutes, which included norms of civil law, provisions on the judicial system and process, and norms of criminal law. From her articles we learned about many aspects of the socio-political system of Pskov.
You can also learn about the sources of the Pskov judicial charter from its title: “This charter was written out from the Grand Duke Alexander’s charter and from the princes Kostyantinov’s charter and from all the postscripts of the Pskov duties...” The Pskov judicial charter was created on the basis of the charter of Prince Constantine and the charter of Alexander. It also included a large number of norms based on judicial practice and veche documents adopted earlier - “addition of Pskov duties”. The personality of Prince Konstantin is well known to history; this is Prince Konstantin Dmitrievich. He was the brother of the Grand Duke of Moscow Vasily I Dmitrievich. Constantine reigned in Pskov in 1407 and 1412, which once again indicates the fact that the date of the appearance of the Pskov judicial charter cannot be unambiguous.
The reason for the adoption of the Pskov judicial charter was the acquisition of complete independence by Pskov from Novgorod in 1397. In fact, Pskov was left without legislation, since the current charter of Dionysius was canceled in 1395, which led to the adoption of new legislation - the Pskov judicial charter.
judgment letter Novgorod Pskov
Novgorod court charter
Sources of Novgorod law
An important role in the development of the law of the Novgorod Republic belonged to Russian Pravda. It was applied directly and had a noticeable impact on legal documents throughout the period of the independent statehood of Novgorod.
The Novgorod Judgment Charter was drawn up in 1440 and supplemented in 1471. It is believed that its original composition was determined at the Novgorod veche, during the war between the Novgorodians and Grand Duke Vasily Vasilyevich. According to I.D. Belyaev, the letter, having been written at the veche, was approved with a kiss on the cross shortly after the Yazhelbitsky peace (1456), and according to the Korostyn treaty (1471), Grand Duke Ivan Vasilyevich ordered it to be rewritten in his name.
The legal sources of the Novgorod judicial charter are individual articles of Russkaya Pravda and local Novgorod law of later origin.
The Novgorod Judicial Charter is dedicated to the judicial system and legal proceedings in Veliky Novgorod. M.F. Vladimirsky-Budanov allocated 42 articles in it.
The Novgorod Judgment Charter has reached us in a fragment (initial). It was compiled around the middle of the 15th century. “To all sovereigns Vel. Novgorod at the veche, at the Yaroslavl yard." The content of the passage that has come down to us consists of the statutes of the judicial system and part of the legal proceedings, but it cannot be concluded that the entire content of the charter is similar. From the content it is clear that it is based on common law.
Among the documents that have survived to this day, the treaty letters between Veliky Novgorod and the princes are very interesting: they clearly defined the position of the prince and the features of the political system of the feudal republic. The agreements between Novgorod and Gotland, with German cities and other foreign countries established the rules of international trade, guarantees of unhindered passage of Novgorodians, for example, to Gotland and German cities and, accordingly, foreign merchants to Novgorod. The treaties provided for high fines for the murder of foreign ambassadors and merchants and for causing them bodily harm. The procedure for resolving property disputes between foreigners and Novgorodians and disputes over debt obligations was determined. It is interesting that the agreement of Novgorod with the Gothic coast and with German cities (1189-1199) prohibited the imprisonment of a foreign debtor (both in Novgorod and Novgorodians in other states), allowing the collection of debt in another way.
Important legal documents were princely charters, for example, the Charter of Prince Vsevolod on church courts and people and on commercial standards and the Manuscript (testament), associated with the name of the same prince. The first Charter determined the privileges of the church in Novgorod ("tithe" from court fines, trade duties and "from every herd and every life" in favor of Novgorod Sophia); the jurisdiction of the church court, the non-interference of the state court in the church court and the status of the court in commercial matters (under the Ivan Association of Merchants). The position of this largest merchant corporation of Veliky Novgorod is defined in much more detail in the Manuscript. The articles of this document spoke about the procedure for joining the corporation, the composition and competence of the commercial court.
The initiative of the law belongs to the mayor, and its adoption and repeal belongs to the evening, of course, with the participation of the prince.
The Pskov Judicial Charter of 1467 (PSG) is a legal act that regulates, to a greater extent, civil law relations. Monument to Russian feudal law of the 15th century.
History of creation and adoption
The PSG consisted of two parts: the charter of the Grand Duke of Tver, Alexander Mikhailovich, and the charter of Prince Konstantin Dmitrievich, who reigned in Pskov in 1407-1414. With additions made later, the PSG was approved at a meeting in 1467.
It was supposed to determine the judicial rights of the prince, mayor, Novgorod governor, lord, princes and veche officials, legal proceedings, interpretation of criminal offenses, property rights and their violations, various kinds of obligations and inheritance rights.
Sources of PSG
The sources of the PSG were both all-Russian legislation and local legislation, formed under the influence of the socio-political realities of northwestern Rus'.
1. Russian Truth
2. Veche legislation
3. Treaties of the city with the princes
4. Judicial practice
5. Customary law
6. Agreements with foreign entrepreneurs (merchants, artisans)
Features of PSG
The PSG regulated civil relations in detail. This was due to the fact that the inhabitants of northwestern Rus' took an active part in commercial and industrial activities, including international trade.
There is a preamble in the PSG: “This letter was written out from the Grand Duke Alexander's letters and from the princes Kostyantinov's letters and from all the registrations of Pskov duties with the blessing of the father of his priests of all 5 assemblies, and holy monks, and deacons, and priests and the entire God's priesthood to all Pskov for the veche , in the summer of 6905.”
The PSG carefully regulates the rights and obligations of the prince and other officials.
PSG content
Civil law
Property right provided for the division of things into immovable - "fatherland" and movable - "belly". In addition, hereditary land ownership - “votchina” and conditional land ownership - “feeding” were divided. The methods for the emergence of property rights were also determined: transfer by contract, by inheritance, grant, prescription and offspring.
Law of obligations regulated contracts: purchase and sale, donation, pledge, loan, barter, luggage, rental of premises, personal hiring (the position of the hired employee was regulated in detail).
The form of the agreement could be oral or written. Its registration was carried out in the presence of witnesses and a priest. An important role was played by establishing the deadline for the execution of the contract.
Debt obligations fell not on the person of the debtor, but on his property. Thus, the debtor did not pay off his debts with his own freedom.
PSG knows two types of inheritance: by law (“wrinkle”) and by will (“mandatory”). There were also cases when the property did not become the property of the heir, but for his lifelong use, and he could not alienate it.
Criminal law
PSG introduces into the concept of “crime” not only causing damage to a person, but also to the state.
The crime system looked like this:
1. Against the state: treason (“perevet”).
2. Against the order of administration: a bribe (“promise”) to a judge, invasion of court premises, violence against a judge.
3. Against the individual: murder (“golovshchina”), beatings, insult by action. The most serious crimes were considered to be fratricide and the murder of parents.
4. Property crimes: theft (“theft”), theft of church property, arson, horse theft, robbery, robbery. The punishment for theft varies depending on the size of the stolen property, the method of commission and repetition. The most serious crimes against property were arson and horse theft. The death penalty was awarded for them.
Punishment and its purpose
Punishment system:
1. Death penalty (Articles 7-8).
2. Monetary fines - for most crimes under the PSG.
3. Corporal punishment, used in practice, was not provided for by law.
The punishment was mainly compensatory rather than punitive.
Legal proceedings
The process as a whole was adversarial in nature, that is, it was built on the principles of procedural equality of the parties and the division of functions between the prosecutor, defense and court. In this case, the prosecutor bore the “burden of proof” of the guilt of the accused, and the court acted as an arbiter between the parties.
However, compared to Russkaya Pravda, the role of the court has increased.
The summons to court was based on a summons (“pozovnitsa”). Among the forensic evidence, written evidence is also noted. The institution of judicial representation arose, which could only be used by women, the deaf, teenagers, monks and the elderly.
At the same time, such an archaic form of proving one’s rights as a judicial duel (field) remains: an armed combat of the parties or their representatives before the court.
PSG value
First of all, the Pskov Charter of Judgment thoroughly regulated the socio-economic life of society, providing the opportunity for civilized farming.
PSG was a “step forward” compared to Russian Pravda and was much closer to Western European legislation.
Adapted translation
This letter was written out from the letter of Grand Duke Alexander and from the letter of Prince Constantine and from all the Pskov customs attributed (to them), with the blessing of their fathers, priests of all five cathedrals and hieromonks and deacons and priests and all the clergy, to all Pskov at the veche in 1397- m (?) year
1. These are the affairs (subject to trial) of the prince. If they rob a locked storeroom, or a fully covered sleigh, or a cart tied with straps, or a boat covered with bast, or (grain) from a pit, or steal cattle, or take hay from the top of a stack, then these are all matters within the jurisdiction of the prince. , and the fine (prince) is levied 9 money. And for robbery, forcible seizure (of someone else's property) or robbery (should be paid) 70 hryvnia, and the fine to the prince is 19 money and (court fees) 4 money.
2. The prince, mayor and viceroy of the archbishop should not (should) re-judge cases decided by the judge; judges and the (archiepiscopal) governor (also) do not re-judge cases decided by the prince.
3. If any mayor enters into the performance of his duties, then he (should) swear that he will (from now on) judge truly in accordance with the oath, and will not appropriate city court fees from citizens, use the right of court for the purposes of personal revenge on someone, deciding matters on friendship, condemning the right and acquitting the guilty, (and also) condemning without investigation in court or at a veche.
4. The prince and mayor do not judge at the veche; they (should) judge in the princely mansions, guided in accordance with the oath (Pskov) law. If they judge not according to the law, then may God judge them at the second coming of Christ. And neither the prince nor the mayor should take illegal bribes.
5. If any princely servant (has to) go as a governor to a (Pskov) suburb, then he (should) swear that he will wish Pskov (every) good and judge really, in accordance with the oath. And if he (has to) go to any...
6. If any (steady) posadnik leaves his position, (then he must) finish the court cases himself; another (mayor), having taken his place, does not review the court cases decided by him.
7. The thief who robbed the (Pskov) Kremlin, horse thief, traitor and arsonist should not be left alive.
8. If something is stolen at the posad, then pardon (the thief) twice, not deprive him of his life, but, having caught him (of theft), punish him in accordance with his guilt; if he is caught a third time, then he should not be left alive (in the same way) as the thief who robbed the Kremlin.
9. If a lawsuit begins with someone regarding field land or water, and there is a yard or a plowed field on that land and (one of the parties) plows and owns this land or water for 4-5 years, then that party (should) refer to (the testimony of) four or five neighbors. If the neighbors, whom one of the parties pointed out, when they come (to the trial), say in good conscience that indeed the person who referred (to their testimony) has been plowing and owning that land or water for 4-5 years, and the other party during those years did not sue (with him) and did not make claims to the land or water, then the land or water (which was the object of the claim) is exempt from the plaintiff’s claims, and the defendant is exempt from taking an oath (in confirmation of his rights); a plaintiff who has not been sued and has not made claims (to land or water), therefore, does not receive satisfaction for the claim.
10. If a lawsuit regarding forest land begins, and both (parties) present documents for the same (same) land, and the documents (of one of the parties) contradict the documents (of the other party), then let both litigants, taking surveyors, will indicate the boundaries of the disputed area in accordance with the documents, then, standing before the Lord, they will confirm the investigation of the boundaries carried out by the surveyors (and after that) the matter should be resolved by duel (of the litigants).
11. Whoever (of the litigants) is defeated by his opponent (in a duel) [is recognized as the losing party].
12. If any litigant [presents documents at the trial that will be rejected on the basis of the documents of the other party], then she (should) be found guilty and her documents declared invalid, and the party who won the process should be given the land (which was the object of the claim), the judge, and the prince and the mayor with all the sotskys to take 10 money for court fees.
13. If someone begins to take away land from someone, citing the right of redemption, and the one whose land is being encroached upon presents documents proving the prescription of his possession (of that land), then the matter is transferred to the discretion of the latter: he can challenge the plaintiff to a duel or take an oath (to find out) on the basis of what period of ransom he is encroaching on his land.
14. If someone, having presented a household receipt, begins to recover from the heirs the property given for safekeeping (to the testator): money, clothes, jewelry or any other movable property, and (it turns out that) the deceased has drawn up his will in writing form and put it in the (Pskov) archive, then a claim cannot be brought against the heirs (about the property given for storage) if it is not supported by a will; You cannot (also) look for a loan against the heirs that is not secured by a pledge and a record. If (the plaintiff) has a mortgage or a record (supporting his claims against the heirs), then he can, referring to (this) record, bring a claim (against the heirs). If someone owns the movable property (of the deceased) according to a record or a pledge transaction, and the heirs of the deceased have neither a pledge nor a record drawn up by the deceased (with which they could support their claims against this person), then they cannot bring a claim (to him) neither about a loan, nor about a trade loan, nor about property given for storage.
15. If after any deceased there remains a father or mother or son or brother or sister or any of the close relatives who own the movable property of the deceased, but not from among strangers, then they can bring claims without referring to the pledge and to a record compiled by the deceased; (on the same grounds)1 you can bring claims against them.
16. On storage (of property). If someone gives something (for safekeeping) and this (property) dies during a robbery or] fire or popular uprising, and in the meantime the person who took this (property) for safekeeping will be locked up (i.e. i.e. deny receiving property for storage), then the person collecting (his property) can (by the court) seek satisfaction of his claims.
17. [If someone], having arrived from a foreign land a week after the fire or robbery (brings a claim for property given for storage), and the defendant denies (giving him this property), then the case is transferred to the discretion of the one [against whom the claim is brought lawsuit]: he can swear an oath or go to a duel (with the plaintiff) or return to the plaintiff in court (the property deposited).
18. If in the (Pskov) volosts one of those who entered the procurement, or from the cattlemen, also brings a claim for property or grain given for storage, then the Lord, having investigated the case, also (should) transfer it to the discretion of the one to whom the claim was made. claim: he can swear an oath or go out with the plaintiff in a duel or return to the plaintiff in court (property or bread given for storage).
19. If someone seeks to recover property given for safekeeping, referring to boards received long ago, which (moreover) do not contain a name listing (of this property), then his claim will not be satisfied.
20. If someone initiates proceedings against someone on charges of beating or robbery, then, by summoning the defendant to court with a subpoena, the prince, posadniks and sotskys (should) investigate whether there are witnesses (who were at the place) where (the plaintiff) dined or where he spent the night (on the day of the beating or robbery); If the witness identifies himself during the search as his sleeper or having dinner with him, (then one should) also question the beaten person (about the place where he was beaten and robbed, whether he reported what happened (to anyone) so that he can refer to those ( to whom did he declare); If the one who is referred to, coming to the trial, says in good conscience that the beaten person told him about the beating and robbery, and the witness, coming to the trial, gives his testimony in agreement with him, then the case is transferred to the discretion of the one against whom the claim is brought : he can go out to fight with a witness or return (the loot) to a witness in court.
21. If (the one who will have to fight in the duel) against the rumor [turns out to be] old or small, or crippled, or a priest, or a monk, then (he) can (in his place) hire a hireling to participate in the duel with the rumor; the hireling does not expose his rumors.
22. If a witness, whose (testimony) one of the parties refers to, does not appear (at the trial) or, having appeared in court, does not confirm her testimony, or says something contradictory (to them), then this witness ceases to be considered a witness ( of this party), and the claim of the party that submitted it (to trial) is not satisfied.
23. If any party (accusing the other) [of beating] refers to (the testimony of) a witness, and the accused [refuses him (testimony)], declaring (at the same time): “he beat me himself with that witness of his, and now refers to his (testimony), then the witness (should be recognized) is the one who will be confirmed at the trial.
24. If the accused of robbery does not refer to the testimony of a witness (the opposite party), then so that (only) one plaintiff does not refer (to the testimony of the witness), the Lord (should) send his representatives from the court (to investigate the circumstances of the case), and the party who refused to rely (on the testimony of the opposing party's witness) because of (this) refusal not to be found guilty. Let gentlemen not be surprised by this Pskov establishment.
25. If any bailiff is sent to summon a party to court, and this summoned (party) does not come to the churchyard to read the (judicial) summons or (generally) disappears when the summons is handed to her, then read the summons in the churchyard in the presence of a priest; and if the one who is summoned by the summons, having evaded fulfilling (his) duties, does not appear at the Lord’s court, then the Lord on the fifth day (after reading the summons) should issue a letter to the bailiffs (with an order to forcibly bring him to court).
26. If any party takes (such) a letter (to the opposite side), then it (should not), having detained, according to the letter, the disobedient person, neither torture nor beat him, but bring him (to trial) to the Lord; likewise, one brought by letter must not fight with the party (bringing him to court); and if he uses a weapon and commits murder, he will be (judged) as a murderer.
27. If somewhere in the market or on the street in Pskov or in the suburbs or in the countryside, someone is beaten at a feast, and the beaten person will not be robbed, and many people saw this (the beating) in the market, on the street or at the feast, and four or five people will stand in front of us, declaring, “he (he really) beat,” then, according to their testimony, the person who inflicted the beatings will be subject to [monetary penalties] in favor of the beaten one, also collecting (from the offender) a fine in favor of the prince . If the beaten person accuses (the defendant) of robbery, then he must conduct the trial, presenting one witness, because (to resolve the case they may) award a duel.
28. If someone begins to collect a money loan from someone on the boards, presenting in addition a pledge (which the defendant recognizes as his property, denying the fact of the pledge), then the case is transferred to the discretion of the person who will collect the money by presenting a pledge: he can swear himself (that he gave the loan) and take his money, or he can return the collateral to the defendant at the trial, who, having sworn an oath, let him take his collateral. In cases involving loans secured by collateral, no duel shall be awarded, and boards secured by collateral shall not be declared invalid.
29. If a person gives someone documents or something else as collateral for money (taken by him), and he (in turn), unexpectedly, forcibly brings the creditor to court or (simply) begins litigation with him on court, gentlemen, and the creditor who received the pledge will not have a board confirming the pledge, then the person who gave the pledge (money) should not be blamed for this, but after checking his testimony, transfer the matter to his discretion: he can swear that gave money (on bail), or return the bail (to the other party) at the trial, and (that party) let him, having sworn an oath, take his bail.
30. If someone begins to lend money, then without collateral (securing the loan) and without a record (fixing the loan), (should) give no more than a ruble; do not give more than a ruble without collateral and record (loan). If someone collects a loan (in an amount) in excess of a ruble, which is not secured by a pledge on boards, then such boards should not be accepted for collection, and the one against whom the claim is brought (in the case of a loan) should be acquitted.
31. If someone collects a loan of money, citing the boards and presenting, in addition, a pledge consisting of clothing, armor, a horse or something valuable from (movable) property, then upon reference to such a pledge, (which the defendant refuses) , do not initiate litigation regarding (loan) money; If (the defendant) refuses his pledge, saying (at the same time) this way: “I did not pledge this to you and did not borrow anything from you,” then the plaintiff (should) own the pledge, and the one against whom the claim is brought , justify.
32. If a person guarantees for another, guaranteeing payment of the money borrowed by him, and when the creditor collects his money from the guarantor, the debtor will refer to the receipt, saying: “I, brother, paid you the money secured by the guarantee, here I have and a receipt" (that the creditor should not recover this money from either the debtor or the guarantor), then this receipt (should) be declared invalid if there is no list of it in the (Pskov) archive, and let the plaintiff (creditor) recover your money from a guarantor who guaranteed payment (of the loan money).
33. The guarantee secures loans (size) up to a ruble; (for loans) larger than a ruble, the guarantee is not security.
34–35. If any Pskov resident is robbed in Pskov, or in the suburbs, or in the countryside, then (should) report this to the elders, neighbors or (in general) strangers; if (theft happens) at a feast, then (should) be reported to the organizer or participants of the feast; the owner of the premises where the feast is taking place should not be sworn in; and a Pskovite [person from] the (Pskov) volost, (suspected of theft), in Pskov does not take a voluntary oath: he (should have the person) whom he suspects (of theft) bring for the oath to the church located (in the area) where the theft occurred. Also, a resident of a suburb or a village cannot call a Pskov resident to take the oath in the suburb; he should take the Pskov resident to take the oath (to the place) where the theft occurred.
36. If a woman or a teenager, or an old man, or a sick person, or mutilated in some way, or a monk, or a nun, begins to collect a debt from someone, citing the boards, then they can hire (in their place) a hireling (to participate in duel), in which the parties swear an oath, and the hirelings (only) fight (in the duel); Against (such) a hireling, the defendant can fight (in a duel) himself or put up his own hireling.
37. If a duel is awarded to a person and in the duel either side defeats the other, then the victorious side receives what it seeks from the other; in the case of murder (in a duel of one of the litigants), money (in the lawsuit) is not recovered, (the winning side) only removes (from the killed) the armor and other (clothes) in which (the killed) fought; the loser of the case (must) pay a fine in favor of the prince and an additional 6 money to two bailiffs (if the fight took place); and if the parties make peace (before the fight), then the bailiffs will be paid 3 money each, and the prince, if neither party receives (material) satisfaction for the claim, will not pay a fine.
38. If someone collects a trade loan from someone, referring to the boards, and the defendant in response to this presents a receipt (for repayment of the loan), but there is no copy of such a receipt in the (Pskov archive) of the Trinity Cathedral, then this receipt (for loan repayment) is invalid.
39. If any craftsman, carpenter or (anyone at all) hires, works out (stipulated by the agreement) the term (of work) [and leaves the master], having completed his work, [then he (should) receive] from the master (payment for the work), and (if the latter refuses) to publicly collect the payment (due to him).
40. If any employee (who worked) in the master’s courtyard leaves the master without completing his term (stipulated by the agreement), then he (should) receive payment for (the work) according to the calculation (according to the time worked for the master) ; he can collect his wages within a year (after leaving the master), at least (at the same time) he collected wages even for all five or ten years of work, if he did not receive it from the master before; but if more than a year passes (after his departure), then he loses the right to collect (payment) from (his) master.
41. If any hired carpenter, having not completed his work, begins to collect payment (for it) when leaving, declaring to the master: “I have completed my work,” and the master says: “No, you have not completed all your work,” then, in the absence of a record (containing the terms of the hirer’s work), the master can at the trial return what he claims (hire) or swear an oath (in support of his testimony).
42. If any gentleman wants to refuse his gardener or gardener or nomad, then let this refusal take place in the Filippov order. In the same way, if an ivornik wants to refuse to work on a plot of land or (if he wants to refuse) a gardener or a nomad, then let the exit take place at the same time; No other (period of) refusal (should) be assigned to either the master, or the izornik, or the wanderer.
42a. If the izornik or gardener or kochetnik denies the fact that the master has given them a way out (within the prescribed period), then after they are sworn in (by which they confirm their testimony, they should) refuse to pay the master a quarter (of the harvest paid by the sharecropper upon termination of the dependent relationship), or part (of the harvest) from the garden or part of the fish catch from the fishing area.
43. If any nomad or any other sharecropper does not use the spring (for fishing) for his master, then he (still must) pay his master a part of the spring catch, as others (fishermen) paid from the same fishing area.
44. The master may publicly demand from the izornik or from the gardener and from the kochetnik help with money and all grain, precisely (listing) whether spring wheat or winter wheat, both in the case of an exit that occurred on the initiative of the master, and in the case of an exit that occurred on the initiative himself (the sharecropper).
45. If someone collects a trade loan or money on a surety or property deposited for storage or (ordinary) loan or escheated property without a name transfer (of this property), then his claim will not be satisfied.
46. If a person recognizes any of his missing things from another person, and the latter declares: “I bought (it) at a trade, but I don’t know from whom I bought (it), then (should) be brought ( bona fide purchaser) to swear (that) he actually bought (the identified item) at an auction and did not share (the profit) with the thief; If (the defendant) does not present to the court (the person from whom he bought the identified item), and he himself (moreover) does not turn out to be a thief, and did not enter into a transaction (with the thief), then the claim against him is not satisfied.
47. If someone bought something in the city (but not at a market), or in a foreign country, or finds it somewhere (someone else’s thing), and someone lays claim to it, then the matter will be decided (so same), as (in the case of a claim regarding a thing purchased) on the market.
48. If someone brings a claim for the return of remuneration (for legal assistance) to the volosts who (allegedly) took off their clothes or took away a horse, declaring at the same time that: “to pay for the bribe, he took off (clothes) or took away the horse,” then those who took off ( clothes) or those who stole the horse should be judged as persecutors.
49. For official trips of princely people or subordinates, travel duties are charged (at the rate of) one money per 10 versts (path); Even if two or three went on a trip, they (should) pay the travel fees as one. If a prince’s man or a servant does not agree to travel for such a fee, then the Pskovite can send (someone else) for the same travel fees.
50. The princely scribe must collect fees when writing a summons, writ of execution or extrajudicial charter, according to established custom; if he wants to take more than what is customary to pay (in such cases), then he can write (this document) somewhere else, and the prince (should) attach a seal (to it); if the prince refuses to apply the seal, then it (should) be applied (in the archives) at the Trinity (Cathedral), (and) this will not be considered a violation of custom.
51. If the izornik denies receiving help from his master, saying: “(I) lived in your village (for some time), but I don’t owe you anything (i.e., I didn’t take help),” then the master will respond to this (should) put forward 4 or 5 people (witnesses), who (should) be told in good conscience under what conditions (isornik) actually cultivated the land in the village, (after which) the matter is transferred to the discretion of the sworn master, who can take his (help) or agree with the testimony of the prisoner. If the gentleman does not produce witnesses who would confirm that the izornik was cultivating the land in the village (having received help), then he (should) refuse the claim for help.
52. If the plaintiff does not recover anything on charges of theft and robbery, then the prince does not receive a fine (for the part of the claim that was not satisfied).
53. If a son does not support his father or mother until their death, leaving the house (of his parents), then he does not receive even a part (due to him from the property of his parents).
54. If during a trial or taking an oath (a bona fide purchaser of someone else’s thing) points to the person from whom he (it) bought, then the plaintiff must conduct legal proceedings against this person, and whoever has removed (the suspicion of theft) acts as a guarantor (for the person indicated by him) during the investigation (of the person).
55. If a claim is brought against someone regarding property that was part of an inheritance received from a father or under a will (from someone else), and this is known to a number of persons, of which 4 or 5 people, coming (to court), will say according to conscience, that (this property) was indeed received by inheritance from the father or by will (from someone), then the claim against the defendant, in whose favor there was testimony, is not satisfied (even) without the latter taking an oath; if there are not 4-5 witnesses who would say in good conscience that (the disputed thing) was really received (by the defendant) by inheritance, then the defendant (should) be sworn in (to confirm his testimony).
56. If also someone buys (something) in the market and (at the same time cannot indicate) from whom he made the purchase, (since he does not know the seller), and (about the purchase) it will be known to people who enjoy trust, from If 4-5 people say in good conscience, “He made a purchase in our presence at the market,” then the defendant, in whose favor there was testimony, (should) be acquitted (even) without taking an oath; if he cannot produce witnesses, then he should be sworn in, (after which) the plaintiff’s claim (should) be rejected.
57. If someone takes a bailiff from the prince or the mayor to (investigate) a case of theft, then the prince and the mayor (should) send people who enjoy trust, who will carry out a search in the case of theft. If these bailiffs say: “when we came to investigate a case of theft in the yard (of the suspect), he did not allow us to search, did not let us into the house and kicked us out of the yard,” and the one who needed to be searched, he will say this: “Dear gentlemen, I did not have these bailiffs,” or he will say this: “I had these bailiffs, I let them into the house, but they, without making a search, left (my) yard on their own, and now I am falsely accused of having driven them (from the courtyard),” then (in this case) the prince and the mayor (should) ask the bailiffs: “can you confirm in any way that you were driven from the courtyard,” and in response to this, the last (i.e., the bailiffs) should present 2-3 people (witnesses). If these witnesses, having come to the trial, say in truth: “in our presence, this man drove the bailiffs out of the yard, not allowing them to conduct a search,” then (the bailiffs should be sworn in, and the person (who did not allow the investigation) should be recognized thief; if the bailiffs (do not present witnesses), then they cannot be considered by the bailiffs, and the claim in the case of theft of the person who took them (for the search) was not satisfied.
58. At the trial, the presence of persons helping the parties to conduct the process is not allowed; Only litigants are allowed into the court premises; none of the parties (should) put forward intercessors in their place, except for women, a teenager, a monk or nun, a very old or deaf person, in whose place intercessors (may) act (in court); if anyone begins to help someone (in court), with the exception of the above-mentioned persons, or tries to forcefully break into the court premises, or hit the doorkeeper, then such (the person should) be put in stocks and a ruble collected from him in favor of prince and 10 money in favor of the doorkeeper.
59. And these doorkeepers (should) appoint one person to the prince and one person to Pskov; they must swear that (they) will not condemn the right and justify the guilty; from every court settlement they (should) collect one money for two from the party that lost the process.
60. Do not trust the testimony of a thief; and if (he) accuses someone (of theft), then (he should) conduct a search in the house of the accused; if he is found red-handed in his house, then he is recognized as a thief, and if nothing is found in his house, then he is released (from further participation in the process).
61. The prince and mayor do not (should) declare invalid letters drawn up in the form; but forged documents and boards, having carried out a true investigation, (should) be declared invalid at the trial.
62. If someone collects something from someone, on the basis of boards or pledges, and, having agreed with him in court or even at the oath, (he) limits himself to collecting part of his claim, then he will not be fined for this; (the same should be done even if) if he completely renounced his claims against the defendant, without taking the latter to the oath.
63. If any izornik leaves (from a state of dependence) from the master whose land he cultivated, or the master grants him the right to leave, then the master (should) receive from him half (of the last harvest) collected by the izornik, and the izornik (receives another ) half.
64. If any bailiffs, whoever they may be, princely people or (city) guards or Pskovites are sent to summon (the parties or witnesses) to the court, as well as to impose or remove shackles, then (they should) collect travel duties (calculation): for 10 versts one money.
65. If any bailiff goes to investigate a case of theft, then he (should) collect travel duties in double the amount paid by the person recognized as a thief; but if the bailiff (during the investigation) does not find the stolen property, then the bailiff and door fee will be recovered from the one who sent him (to the investigation).
66. If any bailiff or nobleman takes a horse or something else from someone for travel duties due to him, then (this thing should) be bailed (to someone) to a stranger; if (no one) takes (her) on bail, then he (i.e., the bailiff) can (temporarily) take her into his custody, and the travel fees (subsequently) are paid by the one who loses the process.
67. If the plaintiff, having arrived with a bailiff, takes by force something from the defendant to secure his debt, then (should) consider this (violence) robbery; and for robbery to be judged and subject to a monetary penalty; (in this case) the party that loses the process also pays an additional amount.
68. No posadnik (should) act as an intercessor in anyone’s affairs, with the exception of his own (and matters relating to) the church of which he is an elder - in these matters he can take part.
69.And every volost (also) should not (should) act as an intercessor in anyone’s cases, with the exception of his own.
70. But neighbors do not act as intercessors [in matters] regarding church land; Elders act on matters concerning church land.
71. During the same day, the same petitioner cannot speak in two trials.
72. If a will leaves real estate to a person under the terms of lifelong use and he, having taken possession of documents for land or fishing grounds, sells this land or fishing grounds or anything else, then when this person is convicted (of illegal sale ), he (should) buy this land or fishing ground or something else, but (in this case he) loses his rights to use this real estate.
73. If a person collects (a loan) from someone according to a record in which, in addition, the obligation to pay interest (to the creditor) is recorded, informing the Lord about this within the time limit (set for repaying the loan), then he has the right to collect interest due to him even after the specified period; If the application is not made to the Lord within the time limit established for repayment of the loan, then after its lapse the creditor loses the right to collect interest.
74. If someone collects money from the defendant before the expiration of the term (repayment of the loan), then he loses (at the same time) the right to receive interest. If the debtor wants to return the money (borrowed by him) to the creditor before the expiration of the term (its repayment), then he is obliged to pay the interest that the creditor (should) receive upon settlement (for the time elapsed from the issuance of the loan until its return).
75. If any izornik presents a board to substantiate his claims against the master, then such a board (should) be declared invalid.
75a. An old-timer is obliged to pay underwater duties in favor of (his) master.
76. If any izornik runs away from the plot of land he occupies outside the Pskov land, or somewhere else, leaving his (movable) property on this plot, which can be taken by (his) master to repay the help he gave to the izornik, then the master (should), having taken bailiffs from the prince and the mayor and called the volost elders and strangers, sell off this (movable) property of the izornik in the presence of bailiffs and strangers and take the (proceeds) towards the help (which he gave to the izornik). If (the proceeds) are not enough (to repay the help) and the izornik shows up after a while, then the master is not prohibited from (recovering from him) part of the help (not repaid during the sale of the izornik’s property). The isornik (upon his return) cannot recover from the master his (movable) property (sold for help), but collects it from Pskov...
77. And Pskov judges, and mayors and elders from the suburbs (should) also swear that they will judge truly in accordance with the oath; and if (they) do not judge fairly, then may God judge them on the terrible day of the second coming of Christ.
78. If one of the princely people happens to go along with the sotskys to resolve land disputes, then he (should) also swear allegiance.
79. If during litigation (in cases) about the ownership of land or water (both litigants) present letters (in confirmation of their rights), then the letters of one side (should) be read to the princely clerk, and the letters of the other party (should) be read to the city clerk ... If a letter is received from the suburbs, then this letter (should) be read to the city clerk.
80. If someone fights with someone in Pskov or in the suburbs or in the volost at a feast or anywhere else and (having fought) makes peace with him without calling him to court with a bailiff, then in this case the prince does not (should) pay a fine.
81. On matters under the jurisdiction of the bailiffs, and to verify the testimony (of the parties or witnesses), princely people must travel simultaneously with the Pskov auxiliaries.
82. If a princely scribe writes a summons (on a lawsuit) about land, then he (should) receive (for this) 5 money, and for drawing up a judicial summons - money, and for attaching a seal - money, and for drawing up a court summons and an addendum they also charge for money. If the prince's scribe wants to (receive) more than what is customary to pay (in such cases), then he can write (these documents) somewhere else, and the prince (should) attach a seal (to them); if the prince refuses to apply the seal, then it (should) be applied (in the archives) at the Trinity Cathedral - this will not be considered a violation of custom.
83. If any person (happens) to take from the prince or (posadnik) a letter containing permission to travel outside the (Pskov land) on his business, then the princely scribe (should) receive money for drawing up this letter and fees for attaching a seal , in the amount of money.
84. If any izornik dies, being the holder of a plot of land (received by him from) the master, and after him there will be no wife, no children, no brother, no relatives (in general), then the master should also sell off the (movable) property the prisoner in the presence of bailiffs and strangers and take (the proceeds) towards the assistance (which he gave to the prisoner); subsequently, neither the brother nor (other) relatives of the izornik can recover the movable property of the izornik from the master.
85. If a person, a master, who lives under the record and is obliged to help him, dies, after whom a wife and children (not mentioned) in (this) record die, then the wife and children of the painter are not exempt from (payment of) the master’s help , which they (should) be reimbursed according to the (mentioned) entry; if the izornik did not live with the master by appointment, then the matter will be decided by the court (according to) Pskov customs.
86. If the izornik has a brother or any other relative who makes a claim to (his movable) property, then the master (should) collect from them the help (given to the izornik); neither the izorika’s brother nor his (other) relative (should) make claims against the (izorika’s) master, accusing him of appropriating (the izorika’s) grain in tubs and baskets; if (after the izornik) a horse or cow remains, then (the heirs of the izornik) can bring a claim against the master.
87. If an artist brings a claim against a master for (movable) property, and the master proves during the investigation (his) rights to that (thing) that the artist declared to be his, and strangers and neighbors will know that the (disputed thing) belongs to the master, then the isornik’s claim is not satisfied, but the master is justified.
88. If a man’s wife dies without leaving a (written) will, and after her there remains immovable property, then her husband (should) use this immovable property for life, unless he (re)marries; if he (re)marries, he loses the right to lifelong use (of this property).
89. If a woman’s husband dies without leaving a (written) will, and after him there remains movable or immovable property, then his wife (should) use this property for life, unless she remarries; if she (re)marries, then she loses the right (to use this property).
90. If someone’s wife dies and the widower (re)marries, and the mother or sister or any other of the wife’s relatives begins to collect (her) clothes, then the husband (should) in good conscience give (all) what is really left he has (his wife’s) clothes, but he must not bring the husband to the oath that all the wife’s clothes (have been returned) without any remainder. Also, if a husband dies, and his father or brothers begin to exact (from his wife) his clothes, then in good conscience she (should) give back the clothes that were actually left after him, and swear to the oath that all the husband’s clothes (are returned) without a trace, the wife do not bring.
91. If someone’s son dies, and after him there is a daughter-in-law who begins to exact jewelry or clothes that belonged to her from her father-in-law or brother-in-law, then the father-in-law or brother-in-law (should) give (her) the jewelry or clothes; If the daughter-in-law demands more than what was returned to her, then (the matter is transferred) to the discretion of the father-in-law or brother-in-law: he can swear the oath himself or in court return to the daughter-in-law (what she exacted).
92. If someone begins to recover from someone the money invested in (any) joint venture, except a merchant’s, or anything else, presenting a board in confirmation (of his claims), then the matter is transferred to the discretion of the one on whom the recovery is made: he he can swear an oath himself (thus confirming his testimony), or return to the plaintiff at trial (what he is looking for) or go to a duel with him.
93. If someone’s debtor, (whose obligations are recorded) in the record, disappears without appearing (for payment) within the specified period, as well as if an izornik, (whose obligations were recorded) in the record, tries to hide, due to which losses will be caused and legal costs (i.e., additional, commandment), then all this, along with the iron, (should) be recovered from the guilty, (that is, from the one) who hides.
94. If an older brother lives in the same household with a younger brother and (they) are required to pay their father’s debt, and there is no record (presented) confirming their (father’s) debt obligation, then the older brother should be sworn in, (and if he confirms father's obligations, then) let him pay from the joint property (with his brother) and divide (with him) the remainder (of this property).
95. If a younger brother or cousin, living in the same household with an older brother or (cousin), tries to use the money of his (sibling) brother (or cousin) and refuses (this), then let him swear that he did not use ( with this money) and will make (with his brother) a division of property.
96. If a murder occurs somewhere and the murderer is discovered, then the prince (should) collect a ruble fine from the murderers.
97. If a son killed his father or a brother (killed) his brother, then the prince (should pay) a fine.
98. If a person comes with a bailiff (to someone) to the yard to arrest a thief or to search for cases of theft, or to arrest a debtor, and at this time a (pregnant) woman miscarries the child and begins to accuse the bailiff or the plaintiff in murder, then this (case) is not considered murder.
99. If any party fails to appear to (take) the oath in court, then (he should) pay (the required amount to the other) party, who is exempt from (taking) the oath; at the same time (paid in full) everything is in accordance with the plaintiff’s claims.
100. If any person, during his life or before his death, gives his nephew with his own hand something from clothing or from (movable) property, or from real estate, and at the same time issues letters (to him) in the presence of a priest or strangers, then that (nephew should) own this donation, even if (the donor) did not draw up a (written) will.
101. About trade loans and obligations of guarantors. If someone seeks to recover from someone a trade loan or the fulfillment of the obligations of a guarantor or something else, then the matter is transferred to the discretion of the one who was sued: he can fight (with the defendant) or return in court (the object of the claim).
102. If any master collects a fee from a student for training, and the student refuses (to pay), then (the matter is transferred) to the discretion of the master (i.e., the master): he will be able to swear himself (in support of his claims) for tuition fees or let him believe the student’s testimony.
103. The client is allowed to collect a loan or something else from the master.
103a. If anyone has a dispute with someone regarding (a debt) recorded in the record or secured by a pledge, and subsequently the person who was obliged (to pay the debt) according to the record or according to the pledge, presents to him (the counter person) a claim (in another case) about a loan or property given for storage, or about something else, referring to the boards, or about a trade loan, then these cases should be judged in accordance with Pskov custom.
104. If any plaintiffs present (to the heirs of) the deceased (claims, referring to his) pledge, (consisting of) two, three or five documents (which confirm his rights) to land, or to water, or only to the yard or a house, and those plaintiffs who (have) a pledge (consisting) of letters, in addition, will have records recording the obligations of the deceased and his fact of pledge, while other plaintiffs will not have (such) records, but only a pledge , (consisting) of letters, then after they (i.e., the latter) have been sworn in, if close relatives (of the deceased) want to redeem the pledges, let (the plaintiffs) divide (the amount received from the redemption of the pledges), in shares, according to the amount money (given by each of them on bail): how much money (gave) money (on bail), so much (owed) to him in (his) share; If any claimant (has) a mortgage of the deceased and records (confirming the debt obligations of the latter), then he (should) not (should) swear in support of his claims.
105. If any foreigner brings a claim against (another) foreigner (on charges of) beating and robbery, then the case is transferred to the discretion of the one against whom the claim is brought: he can himself swear that he did not beat or rob the plaintiff, or at the trial return to him (what) he exacts from him.
106. If someone starts a lawsuit with someone about land or land with hives of wild bees and presents documents proving the duration of his ownership (of this land) and his bill of sale, and his letters of sale will concern the lands and land with hives of wild bees of a number of co-owners, who will all appear together at the trial, each (separately) defending their rights to the land and land with hives of wild bees, present to the Lord (their) letters, take surveyors and demarcate in the presence of the old residents the plaintiff’s part (of the land or land), according to his deed of sale, then the plaintiff takes an oath (in confirmation of his rights) to his part (land or land). The oath is taken (by the plaintiff) once; if someone swears an oath for all the co-owners, then he receives a judgment (only) for (that) part (of land or land) about which he swore the oath.
107. If someone gave something as collateral for money (borrowed by him) and subsequently begins to give (this) money back, demanding the return of his collateral, and he (the mortgagee) denies receiving the collateral, declaring: “( I) did not give you money and did not take collateral from you,” then the matter can be resolved in three ways at the discretion of the one against whom the claim (for collateral) is brought: he can swear himself, thereby confirming his denial of the fact of the collateral, or he can return to court the cost of the bail, or go to a duel with the plaintiff (mortgagor).
108. If any incident is missing from the Pskov law, then the mayors (should) make a message (about this) to the Pskov residents at the assembly and write down this incident (in the law). If any incident from this law is undesirable for Pskov residents, then it can be excluded from the laws.
109. Priests, and deacons, and the mallow maker, and the monk, and the nun (should) be judged by the viceroy of the archbishop. If (a priest or a deacon is on trial, or (the process is initiated) against a monk or nun, and both (parties) are not laymen, but people under the jurisdiction of the church, then (they) should not be tried by either the prince, or the mayor, or ( other) judges, for they are subject to the jurisdiction of the viceroy of the archbishop. If one of the parties is a layman, (that is), if a person subject to the jurisdiction of the church brings a claim against a person not subject to the jurisdiction of the church, then (should) be judged by the prince and the mayors together with the viceroy of the archbishop; the same way (should be judged by other) judges.
110. If a person is sued for a horse, or a cow, or any other livestock, or even a dog, and he declares: “this (animal) is mine, home-grown,” then he (should) be sworn to the fact is that (the controversial animal) is really home-grown, (which decides the matter).
111. If one of the parties at the court of the master hits the other, then she (should) be subject to a monetary penalty in favor of the person (who was struck), and also fined in favor of the prince.
112. And for a ram, according to the court, 6 money is collected, for a sheep 10 money to (its) owner, and court fees are 3 money according to the old law. And for a gander and a goose, the court collects 2 money from the owner (and) court fees of 3 money. And for a duck and for a drake and for a rooster and for a chicken, the court will collect 2 money each.
113. And brotherhood (can) judge like a judge.
114. If someone with someone exchanges something or buys something while drunk, and when they wake up, one (of the participants in the transaction) is dissatisfied, then they (should) exchange (what they previously exchanged), and to the oath (they) should not be brought before the court.
115. And the princely people (even if) do not run taverns in courtyards either in (itself) Pskov or in the suburbs, and they do not sell intoxicating drink either by the bucket, or by the ladle, or by the barrel.
116. If someone brings a charge of arson against someone, and no (direct) evidence is found, he can (the accused) be summoned to take a voluntary oath.
117. If someone tears out a tuft of beard from another, and this is confirmed by a witness, then (the latter should) take an oath and go out to duel (with the offender); if the witness defeats his opponent (in a duel), then for damage to the beard and for beating (should) be awarded a reward of two rubles; there should be (only) one hearing (in such matters).
118. If (someone) buys a cow by amicable agreement, then after (completion of) the trade transaction (from the seller) the calves cannot be recovered; if a sold cow begins to bleed, then such a cow (should) be returned (to its owner), even if money was paid (for it).
119. In litigation between women (should) be awarded a duel, and none of them can put up a hireling in her place.
120. If someone brings a claim against someone for beating, and in the case of beating, five or ten people or any number of (people) will be sued against five or one (person) and (as a result they) will win trial, then all of them (should) be awarded one ruble for beatings (no matter how many people they were inflicted), collecting (from those who lost the trial) a fine in favor of the prince in a single amount.
Monuments of Russian law. Issue 2.
Monuments of the law of feudal fragmented Rus' of the 12th–15th centuries.
/ Ed. S.V. Yushkova. M., 1953.
NOVGOROD JUDGMENT LIST
The Pskov Judgment Charter is the largest monument of feudal law from the era of feudal fragmentation of Rus'. It was a new stage in the development of Russian law between the editions of Russian Pravda and Code of Laws of 1497.
The Pskov Judicial Charter contains 120 articles, which included norms of civil and criminal law, provisions on the judicial system and judicial process. From her articles we learn about many aspects of the socio-political system of Pskov.
Ownership according to the Pskov Judicial Charter
More than half of all articles of the document are devoted to the norms of civil law. It contains a number of articles regulating property rights (real rights). First of all, literacy distinguishes between movable property (life) and immovable property (fatherland). Real estate includes arable land, land under forests, apiary, yard, and cage. The charter knows the right to purchase alienated land, which does not apply to other types of property. The right of redemption was limited by the statute of limitations and the procedure for resolving the dispute: the person who owns the land decides for himself whether to choose a judicial duel or an oath of the plaintiff to resolve the dispute.
The Pskov Charter regulated the institution of prescription. So, according to Art. 9, ownership and use of arable land or a fishing area for 4-5 years already in itself presupposes the emergence of property rights. If someone initiates a dispute, the owner must confirm ownership of the land with the testimony of 4 or 5 witnesses: “And if there is a judgment with someone about the land for fullness, or about water, ... and he guards and owns that land or water for 4 or 5 years, Otherwise, the plaintiff will be referred to a neighbor of 4 or 5 people.”
However, this method of acquiring ownership by prescription does not apply to cases of dispute over land under a forest. Art. 10 proposes to resolve the dispute on the basis of studying the land deeds presented by the disputing parties. Then the court appointed land surveyors to establish boundaries between the litigants' properties. After this, the litigants were awarded a duel.
There is such a legal institution as “feeding” (temporary use of someone else’s property), indicated in Article 72. This right was enjoyed by the surviving spouse, who owned the movable and immovable property of the deceased for life, provided that he did not enter into a new marriage. Otherwise, he was deprived of the right to use this property. The same article prohibits any property received by inheritance. In the event of a sale, the spouse had to buy back what was sold. Then he lost this property. Continuing Articles 88 and 89 Art. 90, provides for the next of kin of the deceased to sue the surviving spouse for the clothing of their relative. Property disputes between a daughter-in-law and a father-in-law or brother-in-law are discussed in Art. 91.
Feeding can be classified as a method of acquiring property by inheritance. Obtaining property rights by inheritance is also discussed in Art. Art. 14, 15. Art. 55 regulates the norms of inheritance law The article talks about frostbite - inheritance by law and about writ - inheritance by will. In case of dispute, witnesses had to be present when drawing up the will. In Art. 100 refers to the receipt of property by a nephew through an act of donation. For the validity of this act, the presence of a priest or “outsiders” was necessary, in whose presence the transfer of property and “handwriting” (deed of gift) was carried out.
However, in Art. 53 speaks of depriving a son of an inheritance if “the son does not feed his father or mother to death, but leaves home.”
It should be noted that Art. 94 provides for the transfer of the father's debt obligations to his sons, who were obliged to pay the father's debt from the common property, and the remainder was allowed to be divided.
In the subsequent article. 95 talks about the division of property if the shadow of suspicion creeps into the relations of brothers living together against one of them in the selfish use of common property.
Types of contracts under the Pskov Judicial Charter
The law of obligations has also received great development. There are three known ways of concluding contracts: oral, “recording” and “board”.
When concluding oral contracts, the presence of witnesses was required. This was important if a legal dispute arose later.
The “record” was a written document, a copy of which was deposited in the archives of the Trinity Cathedral. Such a record was a formal document in legal disputes that was not subject to challenge.
In contrast to the "record," the "board" was a simple household document written on a board or birch bark. A copy of such an agreement was not archived and therefore its authenticity could be disputed.
The law of obligations regulated contracts of purchase and sale, pledge, loan, barter, luggage, and rental.
Art. 114 concerns contracts of sale and exchange. According to it, a barter or purchase agreement concluded while drunk is declared invalid if, having sobered up, one of the parties wants to terminate it: “and whoever, while drunk, decides what to do or what to buy, and then they sleep it off and one plaintiff will not like it.” , otherwise it will be exchanged...”
Considerable attention (namely Articles 14-19) was paid to the agreement luggage(storage of property). The deposit agreement was formalized by recording. Article 16 states that if the deposit agreement was concluded in conditions of disaster, then it is not necessary to make a record; however, in this case it is difficult to get your property back. Article 17 provides for cases of loss of property given for storage due to fire, hurricane, or in transit. Article 18 concerns a deposit agreement concluded by a person living in a rural area and belonging to the lower social classes.
The general procedure for concluding a deposit agreement is defined in Article 19: “But whoever is looking for observations on the nameless boards of old times, otherwise he has not found it,” - i.e. The agreement must be drawn up in writing; it must indicate by name the things given for safekeeping, as well as the period for which these things are given.
The letter of judgment regulated the loan agreement in some detail. A loan agreement is a more common type of agreement than a deposit agreement. We find one of the ways to formalize a loan agreement in Article 28. This article states that the mortgagee can file a claim against the one who took money from him for a debt, if the latter denies the fact of concluding an agreement and refuses to repay the debt.
When concluding some contracts, a surety bond was required. The guarantee secured a debt amounting to up to a ruble inclusive. If the lender brought a claim against the guarantor, then the matter was resolved at the request of the plaintiff: he could enter into a legal duel with the defendant or, placing the price of the claim at the cross, give the defendant the opportunity to swear allegiance. In case of escape, the debtor was given his head to the guarantor.
The charter distinguished between the pledge of movable and immovable property. When pledging movable property, the pledged item passed into the possession of the pledgee until the debt was paid. When real estate was pledged, it remained with the owner.
The provisions relating to the pledge of property are outlined in articles 31 (which shows the role of the pledge as a way to ensure the fulfillment of an obligation), 104, 107 (in which the creditor - pledgee denies the fact of receiving the pledge) 103 (this article provides for the right of the defendant to sue the owner), 30 (establishing the general procedure for concluding a loan: “And whoever has the right to lend silver, otherwise give up to a ruble without collateral and without recording”), Article 43 (which determines the ability of a nomad to pledge part of the income that will be received in the spring fishery).
The debtor who repaid the debt was supposed to have a formal payment receipt from the creditor, which was kept in the archives of the Trinity Cathedral.
The judgment letter mentions a personal rental agreement. Articles 39 – 41 are devoted to the regulation of relations arising from a rental agreement. According to Article 39, the contract is concluded for a time (“will defend his lesson”) or to perform a specific job (“will finish his job”). The contract, as a rule, was concluded orally; in this case, the law allowed hired workers to demand their earnings by calling out. However, Article 41, which regulates the relationship between the owner and the hireling - the carpenter, mentions the recording. Art. 40 appears as a special case of Article 39, when the contract is concluded for a period. The article draws attention to the status of the hired servant, determined both by personal freedom and the loss or reduction of economic independence. The same article establishes a limitation period of one year.
There was also a property lease agreement. In the judicial charter there is only one article devoted to this type of contract, although it can be assumed that such transactions were carried out often in a large trading city. Article 130 says: “And the custodian, but the sovereign, is a judge or something else you are free to look for.” A “tenant” is the tenant of a house or part of an estate. He had to pay for the hire with his work. Therefore, the subordinates were economically dependent on the owners of the house, and the law considered the subordinates as one of the categories of dependent people. The charter of judgment in this regard goes a step further, allowing claims to be brought against the owner of the house regarding the obligations arising from the rental of premises.
The execution of such agreements as collateral, loan, deposit and rental agreements can be considered as another step towards the stratification of society: the rise of the ruling class and the oppression of the lower strata of the population. This happens because only wealthy people could afford to lend money and rent out a large plot of land. Very often they charged interest on the loan (as well as the mortgage). Not everyone could repay the debt. In this case, it was necessary to resort to the help of the court. Although some articles, such as 107, 103, 41, provided for the suing of a master by his employee or debtor, not everyone could afford to pay the cost of the claim. Thus, the Pskov Judgment Charter, like the Russian Truth, was a link in the chain called “Eslavement of the Peasants.”
Types of crimes and punishments according to the Pskov judicial charter
For the first time in Russian law, the Pskov Judicial Charter understands the crime as causing damage not only to individuals, but also to the state. However, the charter does not contain a special term to designate the concept of crime.
The subjects of the crime could be all free and feudal-dependent people. The Pskov charter does not mention slaves at all.
The Pskov charter distinguished between guilty and innocent acts. In any case, the law provides for the exclusion of those responsible in the absence of guilt. So, according to Article 98, if a bailiff comes to the house of a person suspected of theft to conduct a search, and a pregnant woman living in this house gets scared and has a miscarriage, then there is “no primary fault”, i.e. The bailiff cannot be accused of killing a child.
In accordance with the change in the general concept of crime, the Pskov Judgment Charter provides for a more complex system of crimes.
For the first time, state crimes (“perevet”, i.e. treason) appear, as well as crimes against the order of government and court.
According to Article 58, if a witness of one side or another tried to force his way into the premises where the trial was taking place, or beat the gatekeeper, the court had to put the culprit in the stocks, collect a ruble fine from him in favor of the prince and 10 money in favor of the victim.
The Pskov Charter considered property crimes in more detail than the Russian Truth. Pskov law knows arson, theft, robbery and discovery. One of the most dangerous crimes was arson, for which the death penalty was imposed. If someone was suspected of arson, but there was no direct evidence, he was released from responsibility, swearing that he did not commit the crime.
Tatba could be skilled and simple. The qualified Tatba included the Krim Tatba, i.e. theft in the Pskov Kremlin, horse theft and theft, committed for the third time. A simple theft was considered a theft committed for the first or second time, with the exception of horse theft and theft from the Kremlin.
According to Art. 34, 35 the victim himself searches for the thief and takes him to the oath. According to Article 52, the perpetrator had to pay the sale to the prince and a reward to the victim. Article 60 suggests not believing the thief’s testimony. But, nevertheless, a search was carried out at the person against whom “the thief would arise.”
In Art. 1 mentions such a crime as finding, i.e. robbery carried out by a gang. All accomplices bore responsibility. The perpetrators of the discovery were punished in the same way as for robbery and robbery.
The judicial charter defined crimes against the person. According to Article 27, a person can complain to the court if he was beaten during a fight that took place in a public place (in this case, at a market). Article 111 provides sanctions for beating the plaintiff at trial. The monetary fine went in favor of the prince, and the beaten person was paid moral damages. The most serious crime against a person was considered to be pulling out a beard, as well as murder (golovshina), which is mentioned in Art. 96, 97.
The Pskov Charter provided for the following types of punishment: death penalty and sale.
A person was sentenced to death for horse theft, arson, high treason, theft of church property or property from the Kremlin, theft in a posad and for committing a crime three times.
The methods of carrying out the death penalty are not indicated in the charter. However, the Pskov chronicles recorded several cases of capital punishment, namely by beatings and torture, hanging or burning.
The second type of punishment was sale, prescribed by most articles of the judicial charter. It did not exceed 2 rubles.
In addition to the sale, the defendant had to pay a monetary reward to the victim or his relatives.
Sufficiently large fines ruined the poor, the urban lower classes and brought them into bondage to moneylenders, boyars, and merchants.
