Materials for the history of writ proceedings in Russia

Contents Mating No. 757 Mating No. 758 Mating No. 759 Mating No. 760 Mating No. 761 Mating No. 762 Mating No. 763 Mating No. 764 Mating No. 765 Mating No. 766 Mating No. 767 Mating No. 768 Mating No. 789 Knitting No. 770 Knitting No. 771 Knitting No. 772 Knitting No. 773 Knitting No. 774 Knitting No. 775 Knitting No. 776 Knitting No. 777 Knitting No. 778 Knitting No. 779 Knitting No. 780 Knitting No. 780 Knitting No. 781 Knitting No. 782 Knitting No. 783 Knitting No. 765 The materials printed below are extracts from the cases of the Moscow Court and other orders that I reviewed in the Senate archive of old cases during my service in the Moscow departments of the Senate in the 50s. These extracts and fragmentary notes were made by me for my own needs, in view of the work I had planned to study our old orders. Fate later distracted me from this matter and I no longer have any hope of ever taking it up. But it occurs to me that my notes may be useful to one of the new figures in this field, which I have already abandoned, or provide guidance for further research in the archives. Petersburg. October 30, 1889 From the proceedings of the Judgment Order 1702 February 26 days. According to the petition of Ivan the Great and Ivan the Lesser Puzikov against the wife of their cousin, the already deceased Gregory, Ulyana by her 3rd husband Zarudnaya and against her husband, that she plundered the estate of her first husband, not for her son, but for their nephew, and with her husband arbitrarily disposed of his ancestral estates in the Dmitrov and Galitsky districts - that the husband of her petitioners, according to upon arriving in those villages, he scolded and kicked out, and kept his nephew in his Moscow house; They asked, calling their nephew, to ask: with whom does he want to live? The case began with the interrogation on March 23 of the plaintiffs and their nephew Puzikov. The interrogation is stapled on sheets. - Defendant Zarudny, after listening to the petition, said during interrogation: he brought charges of violence, abuse and beatings against the plaintiff himself and complained about the disobedience of the peasants. – March 23rd handwritten entry in the article for the plaintiffs. We (the bailiffs) have guaranteed that they will be placed in the Judgment Order all day long. – March 23 surety to the defendant on 1 sheet on behalf of the surety; on the back from the lieutenants. - Boyarin Alexey Petrovich Saltykov and his comrades, having listened to these handwritten notes, ordered: looking in the laws, etc.... An extract from the new decree articles of the same year should be made, so that instead of trial and confrontations, they carry out searches for challenges, etc. March 30, to interrogate witnesses against the general exile under the new decree articles. March 31 and May - against the litter, interrogation of witnesses - neighbors who were visiting Zarudny, brought in from detective memory. The serf Puzikov said in question... It turned out that the peasants of the young Puzikov, at the instigation of outsiders, acted against the landowner. On the 20th day of June, a resolution: for the disobedience of the peasants, beat them with a whip and for this purpose, send the good old clerk to the Dmitrov district to the estate, and order him to take several more witnesses for interrogation to Moscow, and even bring such and such, in their different words, with him for confrontations; and if they become disobedient, describe their estate and patrimony to the sovereign. On June 22nd, a memory was given to the clerk with a description of all this, and he was ordered, having completed everything, to submit his memory of his arrival in the Judgment Order; and for this purpose two bailiffs were sent with him, and for punishment a shoulder master. (Sovereign Seal). And to the Dmitrov voivode, the memory is to give the clerk service people, as many as are suitable. – Zarudny’s petition: his peasant Peter came to his yard and said that the village had burned down; attributes this to the intention of the peasants, introduces him and asks to interrogate him. Note about interrogation. June 23 questioning. – On July 5, the bailiff will arrive. Attached is the witness's tale about the rate for the deadline of July 10 in the Judgment Order; and others are given. Drivers are questioned against droppings on arrival. July 10, bid petition of witnesses. On July 13, a fairy tale before the judges of the widow Kireevskaya. Resolution: confront the testimony. Shishkin was also needed for head-to-head bets. Posted on July 15: send a clerk by order, order him, Shishkin, take him to the estate or wherever he finds him, bring him to Moscow; printing duties and runs are corrected on it. This note was made at the request of Zarudny, who announced that Shishkin came to Moscow for confrontation, but left again. Bailiff Kalinin went by detective memory to Shishkin's yard, did not find him, but took him and brought his janitor. The janitor's (owner's) tale: Shishkin lives with him on a residential register, but hasn't been since Epiphany. Since on July 18, one of the witnesses, Kireevsky, confessed to lying in a confrontation, he was ordered to be kept in chains and handed over to the old clerk from day to day. Another witness, Fedora Kireevskaya, was given the bail of a noble person who can be trusted, with a receipt, and she was ordered to take a fairy tale that her person N should be put on the surface for questioning and search. Receipt of a noble person, steward Chelishchev. Fedora's tale. Extract: removed from the case... Extract from the laws. Until after discharge, the decision was made on July 24th. 1702 August 27 d. Petition from the local order of clerk Klim Stepanov Kretov in abuse and dishonor of himself and his wife against Efim Petrov, son of Nosyrev. The petitioner does not explain the claim, but asks the offender to find and interrogate; and if he is forbidden, he points to witnesses to the offense. On September 2nd there was an interrogation of Nosyrev, signed by him and the plaintiff. On January 25, 1704, a peace petition followed the assault of both. The plaintiff undertakes, for himself and for his wife, not to bash himself about dishonor, and the defendant not to look for waste and red tape; condition to whom to pay duty and settlement money from the claim. “And I, Klim, don’t pay for your sovereign’s salary.” These words were added, probably, to determine the price of the claim. 1703 September 16 days. The God-given beggar Naum and his wife dishonored and abused the clerk Rudnev; same request. September 18th interrogation, also signed by both; “After listening to the petition, he said during interrogation.” After the interrogation: “And if it comes to faith, the defendant took it upon himself”... Then: “in addition to that, the plaintiff said,” etc.... Then an extract of the articles. All this is written in one piece, and not on separate sheets of paper. On October 13th, the plaintiff, having entered the order, said that he was reconciling. (The request is written not from the first page of the sheet, but on the second; on the first, an assault is made in the middle, at the top of the mark. And after the request, the proceedings on it are written on the same sheet). 1703 December 15th. Kirill Pushchin about the dishonor inflicted on him on September 23 in the city of Shatsk by the local governor Kaftyrev and clerk Gerasim Mikhailov and his comrades. – Published in “Historical and legal acts of the transitional era of the 17th–18th centuries, collected by K. P. Pobedonostsev,” pp. 5–41. See Readings in Emperor. Society of Russian History and Antiquities for 1886, book. 3rd and separately M. 1887 1703 January 15th. According to the petition of Irina Yakovleva. Her nephew exchanged the patrimony of the Seversky district for the Donskoy monastery. The monastery began a case with the Kamensky neighbors about forcible acquisition and improper land surveying. This case was decided by the Local Order in favor of the monastery. From the monastery, that patrimony went to her, Irina, through a letter of concession. He asks for the recovery of the owned money from the Kamenskys, since the decree on the ownership of lands was ordered to be repaired in the Moscow Judgment Order. - Her other request is that she believes for herself against her petition during the interrogation with the Kamenskys to the clerk Shatin, for the reason that she has no other relatives. January 18 court speeches. Defendant's response; then: when it comes to faith, the defendant gives the plaintiff per soul. Then: beyond faith, the plaintiff told the defendant the evidence;.. the defendant, having listened to that evidence, said.., Then: the Moscow Court Order then gave soldier N a list of what to collect for the plaintiff and the defendant in the article handwritten records... March 17 handwritten record. Memory from the Court Order to the Local about the delivery of a certificate of the completed case. Petitions from those involved in the case. April from the Local Order response. On August 12th the verdict was in favor of the plaintiff; amend the claim and have the right to send a letter to that city to the governor. On August 19th, the plaintiff’s request that the defendant disappeared from Moscow and to send a memorial to the Local Order so that the defendant’s estates and estates would not be held against anyone for any transactions until the claim was completed. Memory sent. 1705 June 15 plaintiff: Kamenskaya takes refuge, asks the man who is involved in the case to take her and take a fairy tale from him. The fairy tale is taken to put Kamenskaya on time; otherwise the claim is on it. In June 1705, the defendant resumed the case, proving that the Donskoy Monastery, when selling the land to the plaintiff, did not cede her claim for ownership and that during the interrogation, her young son answered unreasonably for her, Kamenskaya. This case dragged on until 1725 and, for some unknown reason, it was carried out in the Supreme Court, which, with a verdict on July 16 of that year, again accused the defendant. It began with a petition for dishonor filed by Somov in the Court Order in 1704 against the former Odoevsky governor Gaiturov. Accomplished in 1712 by the boyar and Moscow governor, Prince Mikhail. Grieg. Romodanovsky and his comrades in favor of the plaintiff: give a statement of legality. He gave a tale about his salary - 1715 in the order of Zemsky affairs (before Alex. Petr. Saltykov). In the same year, at the request of the plaintiff, a letter was sent from the order of Zemsky affairs to Kashira to the landrat about rights from the defendant's estates in Kashira. Then, following the death of Gaiturov, his children were brought in and placed in the office of Zemstvo affairs; but they obtained permission to transfer the case to the Court of Justice. 1704 February 4. Ivan Rumyantsev about the penalty for borrowed memory on the book. Baryatinsky. Top March 17th. 1704 February. Elchukov and Pozhidaev about the serf man according to the row record. A certificate was made with the Local Order. Completed August 8. 1704 A faithful petitioner who believes in seeking and going about his business for himself, but he himself is sick and old. A clerk was sent from the Court Order for examination; It turned out: 80 years old and lying in bed. The defendant in this case, who did not appear, although he presented himself with a delay from the Artillery Order on the occasion of the parcel, this was not taken into account, because the delay was presented to him after the delay. 1704 On a claim for borrowed memory. Began in the Judgment Order; completed in 1711, in the order of Zemstvo affairs - to give an extract for the right. The plaintiff is Prince Chertelsky. Defendant Uvarov. The defendant's people were taken into custody; but the defendant asked to let them go because he had been told to serve. People were released with justice. The plaintiff asks: the defendant came home from service and died, to recover from the heirs on Kashira. A clerk was sent to Kashira to submit an obedient letter to the local commandant, take the serving nobles from him and correct the widow. Widow's request. The peasants survived on the right, but the widow does not pay. The plaintiff asks for unfriendliness to transfer the case to the provincial office. Only in 1715 was an order for assessment and sale followed. In 1729 the money had not yet been recovered. 1704. Claim for dishonor, blow to the chest with a fist during a trial. In claims for dishonor, the judges sentence: correct... and, having inquired about his (the plaintiff’s) salary with the Discharge of Memory, give a statement of legality. The defendant, upon resolution of the case, gives the court a fairy tale that he will bring money to the court on such and such a date; and if he doesn’t bring it, then pay him double. About a runaway man. In Vorotynsky district. In some cases there are no judgments at all. 1704 Moscow priest Aksentiy about dishonor. Here, by decision, the memory of the Judgment Order was given to the sergeant about justice. 1704 Again the book. Cherkassky to Shatsky governor Kaftyrev. We made peace. 1704 November. The case between Ivan, Alexei Miloslavsky and steward Ivan Polivanov about runaway peasants. 1704 Lomov about the leave, that he, having been released from his former master, gave himself up as a slave to Soimonov; and he neither takes bondage nor returns vacation pay. 1704 Durasova: he has a case with the Shatsky voivode, with Osanov, about the conspiracy of the peasants, who are friends with his enemy; asks to take the case to the Moscow Court Order and not order Kaftyrev to bring his people and peasants to justice and reprisals. The case was taken to the Moscow Court Order with the decision of Kaftyrev, with whom Durasov was accused. But the order contained a decision: to set aside the voivode’s note, because the defendant against the plaintiff’s petition had not been found or interrogated, and his peasant was to be taken instead, since there was no landowner. And under the newly-decreed articles, it was ordered to find the defendants themselves... and so on. Beginning 1705 March 19; decided on March 26. 4 witnesses were questioned. The smelter Savva Yakovlev against captain Alexei Tregubov, that he, having arrived at his Moscow yard, entered his house, beat him and mutilated him. The claim was confirmed by interrogation and witnesses. It was decided to correct it. A certificate was made with the order of the Big Treasury about the smelter's salary. Tregubov's man was taken into custody. But then it should have been easy to evade. Tregubov was sent to Pereslavl to collect dates and for this parcel he asked the sovereign to defer his claim. The Tsar ordered him to postpone it, about which a decree was sent to the Court Order (from the Discharge?) in February 1706. Therefore, it was decided in 6 days, but execution was not completed in a year. Then, in June 1706, the plaintiff, not seeing any guarantee or security for the defendant, asked to be prohibited from alienating the estate. 1705 March 22; decided on May 2. About battle, robbery and dishonor between the brothers of the church. sexton and clerk Shchipulins. Petition. The answer is “up to faith.” Plaintiff's evidence; defendant's evidence. After the interrogation speeches, the plaintiff was given a guarantee that he would be given all day. The defendant's bail in the article should have been taken earlier, when summoned to court. The article of the Code on self-recognition applies here. The memory of the right of the Judgment Order was given to the soldier. 1705 Decided 1706 May 16. Shcherbachev against Chicherin about the transport of hay. There are sureties for the defendant and the plaintiff; both to the same number. In the Judgment Order he asks about the violence committed on the Kozelsky estate. In all the cases I have seen so far, the plaintiff asks for a nonresident defendant located in Moscow: “and now he is N in Moscow; I ask, sir, to find him and interrogate him,” and so on... The defendant said in evidence: the matter will not come to faith, because he, the plaintiff, has clear evidence of his plaintiff’s claim - a scribe’s book, etc. The question arose about the boundaries of patrimonial ownership; it is necessary to cope with the Local Order. When a question arises regarding the questioning of witnesses about violence, the court considers this issue in particular, summing up the law separately (regardless of the decision), and a note is made (interlocut.): to question the witness Semyon Patrikeev, the son of Shcherbachev against the plaintiff in the investigation, so that the defendant does not say quarrels and petitions about him (i.e., although he did not refer, he did not refute). After questioning the witness, the decision was made: to acquit the plaintiff, and to accuse him, the defendant, of “howling.” He, the plaintiff, looked for him, the defendant, from the rust from the clearing meadows for hay cuttings and relied on witnesses for this; and he, the defendant, in clearing the petition in those hayfields, locked himself up and did not speak to the witnesses, and did not say any unfriendliness towards that witness. And that witness said in the plaintiff’s defense. And therefore, his guilt, the defendant’s, is obvious: during the interrogation he said in clearing the claim that the plaintiff did not clear the hay from the rust, but in his evidence he said that the plaintiff cleared the rust alone without sharing it with him; and then he, the defendant, said to himself to blame... Wobble about money without bondage. Claim based on a “sealed” (?) petition. We made peace. Comedian Sovetov about dishonor. Printed in the same place as case No. 4, pp. 41–51. About recovery under loan bondage – clerk Ievlev. Memory for the right is given to the soldier of the Judgment Order. The postponement was recorded either directly in court from the words of both parties, or was explained in a special general petition. 1705 About freedom from servitude of a man of the Mungal breed Shemyakin. He was denied and was still beaten by batogs. 1705 July 24. Domna Uvarova beat her with her forehead that she was on Kashira and there at the mass of Akulin Ilyin she beat her; asked to send about her, Akulina, to Kashira and summon her to the Moscow Court Order. Therefore, the following was done: the summer of the day by decree of the great sovereign of the Moscow Judgment Order to the clerk Gleb Nekrasov and the soldier Terenty Zatchensky. They should go to Kashira and to Kashira district for this purpose: in the current July 1705, on the day of the Great Emperor N. hit Akulina with her forehead. And the great sovereign granted it, ordered Akulin to send a clerk to Kashirskaya district on orders with a soldier and in that battle for bail to Moscow in the Moscow Judgment Order and interrogate; and how she, Akulina, will be sent to Moscow for bail, or will commit a crime or be buried, order her people and peasants to be taken and kept on Kashira until she, Akulina, appears and in the article for interrogation to Moscow will collect a bail record on herself. And the clerk N and the soldier, having arrived on Kashira, the steward and the governor, Prince. Give Peter Zasekin an obedient letter to the great sovereign; and according to that great sovereign’s letter, take from him the service people, how many people are suitable, and with those service people they go to the Kashira district to the estate or patrimony where N (the defendant) lives. And before reaching her, take with you as witnesses the local third-party people, as many people as you like; and in the presence of those witnesses, take her N. in the above-mentioned lawsuit in battle, give her bail with a note, and for bail, send her for interrogation to Moscow with you along for the period of July for the current year 705, and go to Moscow and appear in Moscow, and arrive with your own messengers and sewn people and with your own hands, memory and according to the defendant in the article for interrogation, submit a bail note to her defendant order boyar N and his comrades to appear in the Moscow Court Order. Will she be buried or become strong, etc.; .. take her people, etc.... and keep her in the command hut on Kashira until she, Akulina, appears, etc.... 1705 September. 2 another request: that the defendant hid from the clerk, did not go to Moscow and now lives in her village of Kashirskaya; ordered, sir, from the previous vacation to send a clerk with a soldier another time. In September the same clerk was sent another time. Sep. 11 request of the defendant: that her husband is in the service of the sovereign in Veliky Novgorod, and she lies sick in the village and trusts Osip Pestrikov to answer for herself. Sep. 16 the plaintiff’s petition that she believes clerk Nesterov will be in the interrogation of the Judgment Order for herself. At the trial speeches, the defendant referred to the general reference, but added: “if he, the witness, tells a lie, and she, the defendant, will expose him to the lie with clear evidence.” – The plaintiff will point to other witnesses as evidence. The defendant asked others not to question her because there was a common link. Litter: interrogate the general link. – On September 26, the defendant wrote: general exile lives in Kashira; ordered, sir, to interrogate there and send the interrogation to Moscow. Letter to the voivode: call a general exile to the administrative hut, interrogate in front of him (it is written about what) and that interrogation, securing with his own hand, send past the plaintiff and defendant. This letter for delivery to the voivode was given on September 26 with a receipt to the defendant’s brother, who submitted her request, so that he submitted it for the period of October 10; and if he doesn’t give it, then the sovereign’s penalty will be imposed on him. – In February 1706, the request of the plaintiff’s husband Uvarov that his wife in vain referred to Timiryazev: he was not there, but there were others. In March 1706, a signature from the Kashirsky voivode (on stamped paper) with an interrogation attached separately. - Vershenye: accuse the plaintiff, and set aside Uvarov’s petition, for the reason that he wrote in his petition in addition to the general reference, which the plaintiff and defendant did not say in the case. On August 25, 1705, a Moscow peasant, the owner of an inn, wrote that one of his guests cut himself with a knife and asked to be examined and interrogated. On the same date, a clerk was sent and examined and interrogated in front of witnesses. Began in 1705. The case between Tarbeev and Voinov regarding the collection of debt bondage; first it was carried out in the Judgment Order, and in 1710 we see it in the Order of Zemstvo Affairs. In the Court Order, the plaintiff was excused for the failure of the defendant to appear within the period of the amicable reprieve; in the order of the Zemstvo Affairs, the defendant then began to prove that he could not appear because he was held on the right for milking the order of the Big Treasury. He was refused because after 5 years he began to prove his innocence. “He again began to prove that the memory from the order of the Great Treasury, sent at one time, was lost or concealed by the clerks. In 1712 it was refused again. The decision must have been written by the clerk on a special sheet. Below is marked: write in the book. This decision was already made by the boyar and Moscow governor, Prince Mikh. Grieg. Romodanovsky and his comrades, because according to the tsar’s decree, the Moscow provincial ruler was ordered to review and decree in all matters of order. Semyon. Ershov. – In April 1712 the defendant, who was on the right, again renewed his request that the plaintiff be demanded of the fortress, examined and given a trial. According to this request, a note (April 12): take the fortress, and release it to the position of the fortress in the article for a receipt in the article; and inflict punishment on the clerk: why, without taking the fortress, they beat him on the right and add a “fine” to the clerk. In June, the released defendant complains that he is being lost, dragged and dragged to the order, Litter; if a clerk fixes red tape through the judge's mark, he is worthy of punishment; and order the plaintiff to put up a fortress, and until the fortress is put up, the defendant should not fix the red tape. And after all this, the judges, having dealt with the case, again sentence: there is no need to demand from the plaintiff a fortress and be subject to the previous sentence for delay, and they give a memory for justice. Memory to a soldier: to finish the job done. – In September 1712, the plaintiff beats his forehead: the soldier walked around the defendant for many days, and he took cover; ordered, sir, from the soldier, to take the tale from him, and according to the tale, send a clerk and take his wife, the defendant, or one of the children in his house. A fairy tale was taken from a soldier: he stood at the defendant’s yard for many days and he, Fyodor, left the yard or they didn’t leave him. Note: send a clerk. Memory of the clerk: he and the soldier should go to the yard N and, before reaching it, take the witnesses of the trade people, the shopkeepers... and with those witnesses, take him, Fyodor, from the yard for justice; and if they don’t leave his house, take his people, bring them to the Zemsky Affairs Department and present them to Boyar N and his comrades. - In October 1712, the defendant’s petition: again begs to demand a fortress. Litter: take it to task and write it out. The defendant filed a complaint with the Senate, and the order included a request not to ruin it. The case was required from the order to the Violent Cases of the Governor. Senate. On November 10, 1712, senators Gr. Andr. Pemyannikov, Mikh. Mich. Samarin and Raspravnykh dela judge Dmitry Petr. Protasyev, Mikh. Fed. Rtishchev, having heard this case, was sentenced: to correct the claim for delay on Voinov and, having corrected it, record the duties in the Senate office in the parish. A certificate of legality was given to Corporal Dementiy Ryasheninov by the Senate Office with the signature of clerk Fyodor Voronin. A decree from the Senate signed by the clerk and the clerk's right. (The clerks were divided into old ones - the front line, and young ones). Meanwhile, the defendant remained in the Senate and on December 24 was released from the Senate on a signature to the overseer Pyotr Voinov that he would appear in the Senate office on January 8 (and therefore released from rights for the holidays). Then the plaintiff in the Senate asks for waste and red tape. Dismissed from the case. Meanwhile, the plaintiff's attorney (“who goes after the case”) filed a request that he made a deal with the defendant; the matter was completed and a note was made on the request in the Senate. According to the Maslovs’ petition about the battle and wounds; began in the official hut of Pereslavl Ryazansky. Fights and wounds took place in the retreat courtyard of the village of Fursovaya, where petitioners came to invite the elected judge Luka Savvich Savvinov to visit. On the petition note by the hand of elected judge Luka Savvich Savinov: inspect. The inspection was done in the presence of outside witnesses; signed by watched people and witnesses. The money in question was taken at 4 altyns per person and arrived at the parish of the clerk's hut with a receipt from the clerk. – No more production is visible; and in 1706 it was requested by the Court Order because in another case the defendant Tsenin dismissed the plaintiffs' witnesses because he had a business with them. At first, the file was not found in any clerk's hut and the defendant was accused of a false tale. The defendant began to prove that there was definitely a case, the clerk reported incorrectly... Sureties for the plaintiffs. - (The extract was not made in the order for every case, but when it was necessary to review a rather complex certificate from a previous proceeding to which a new petition related; then under the petition a statement of the circumstances of the previous case was attributed (on stamp paper) under the title: “against this petition written out” or “and from this petition written out.” The contents of the papers were placed here with some abbreviation. – After resolutions or notes, when the outgoing paper had to be sent, a draft document, for example, a mandate, etc., was immediately assigned, which served as a leave - When it was necessary to interrogate a local resident or a clerk from the clerk's hut, for example, sometimes the person to be interrogated was requested from Moscow to the order, for which purpose a soldier was sometimes sent from the order, or in important cases such an order was made. Usually, at the request of the petitioner himself, the soldier had to, having arrived in the city, submit a letter to the governor (the soldier was given an order) and bring the required person with him for bail to Moscow). - In this case, Voivode Mikhailovsky did not send a clerk, making the excuse that, by the sovereign’s decree, he had been taken to another city for digging work; but on his arrival the soldier writes that it is not true: the clerk lives on Mikhailov and sits in the official hut. Following the arrival, the petitioner submitted the same request. The court order ordered to send a clerk to Mikhailov and order to take that clerk, and if he is buried, his wife and children, and bring him to the order; and to the voivode for disobedience, add a fine of 25 rubles and bring it to the Court Order, so that in his first letter about the clerk, the voivode wrote that he had been in the digging business since 1702. (All this is based on petitions). - (After being written out for justice, the greeter usually took the people and peasants of the accused and then reported to the order about the consequences. The consequences for the most part were that the people and peasants stood up for the indicated dates on the right, and then neither they nor the landowner brought money to the order. Then comes the recovery from the estate. First of all, it was necessary to make known the estate of the accused, which was usually pointed out in his petition by the plaintiff, who followed the progress of the case and was steadily pursuing the case. Based on such petitions, sometimes a direct order was made to inventory the estate, and sometimes a certificate was issued about the estate with the Local Order. Here is a sample: summer of 1709... by decree of the great sovereign and thoughtful clerk Avtomon Iv-chu Ivanov and his comrades. the great sovereign indicated: in the Local Order to write out for Vasily Ivan., son of Tsenin, that crossbreeds and estates, and peasant and bobyl households and in which cities and counties; and then the extract, having written out everything authentically, should be sent to the Moscow Court Order to the Moscow Court Order to Boyar N and his comrades for assessment on the completed case of the great sovereign for duty money and for the claim and for eating N (the plaintiff). And according to the decree and order N, to do this according to the decree of the great sovereign. – To evaluate the property of the defendant, a clerk and his witnesses were sent from the Court Order with an order (for noble property - nobles). - They came to the village of Fursovo to the house of the defendant Tsepin and the decree of the great sovereign on the interrogation of her husband, whether there was anything to pay the claim N and duties, and in the mansions the decree of the great sovereign on the interrogation was read and read by the clerk to his wife, Vasily Tsenin; and his wife told the clerk in front of us that she was not allowing her to be valued, and the people wanted to beat her attesting witnesses and did not let her into the yard. The witnesses gave a fairy tale about this. – Assessment: witnesses N and with them the village of Mashkova pop N in the village of Fursov were also, by decree... in the lawsuit N... Tsenin’s yard was appreciated. And in that yard (so many upper rooms)... a fence, 4 dilapidated people’s huts, and in that yard there are servants (by name)... there are only 27 people, and on the threshing floor there is milked and non-dairied bread;.. and in that village there are so many peasants (household inventory). At the end it is indicated that they were truly valued according to the Gospel commandment, etc. (signature). In the order, the clerk was ordered to first, upon arriving at the yard, ask the defendants if they had anything to pay; and if he has nothing to say, then evaluate his village Fursova. But if he becomes strong and does not allow him to appreciate it, he is ordered to take a fairy tale from people who understand him and then appreciate it. – The plaintiff’s request: the estate has been assessed, he asks that the claim be dismissed and that a clerk be sent to refuse it. Note: for the claim... to give and refuse to the plaintiff and to hold it according to the price books until the decree of the great sovereign, and in which places he (the defendant) will not bring that claim and duties to the order or until such places as he (the defendant) against that plaintiff’s claim and duties will be interrogated; and send rejected books. (Refusal fees were charged to the plaintiff). But the defendant submitted a request to the Siberian order that he was sent from the Siberian order for the sovereign’s business - to expel working people from the Mikhailovsky district to Ivanovo Lake, and in his absence a clerk arrived, did not take away from him the question of whether he had anything to pay, and valued his property at a low price; and if it is necessary to take duties and a claim, then he, the defendant, is ready to pay without assessment; - asks to send a memory to the Court Order, so that his estates are not given to the plaintiff in the lawsuit. The following memory was sent from the Siberian Order: the sovereign did not order to give, because the defendant was in the service in the parcel and, without interrogating him, his estate should not have been valued. - (On the right, when a defendant was taken on bail, the guarantors were obliged to place him in the order for a period of time; if this person became ill, then the guarantors filed a petition for this in the order that they represented another defendant, a peasant). About the dishonor between the clerk you. Dmitriev and Suzdal resident Iv. Fedorov. Dmitriev's claim. 1705 December. There is a petition to the Pereyaslavl-Ryazan voivode: the steward Verderevsky’s man complained about the flooding of the mill and his landowner’s meadows due to the alteration of the neighbor Miloslavsky’s pouring mill; He asked to inspect it, and said about the losses that his landowner would indicate them in his petition. Arrival and inspection in December. According to the instructions of the governors, the clerk, the bailiff, and the witnesses traveled. In February 1706, a new request showing losses. An urgent tale of the parties when to become interrogated in the Prikaznaya Izba. (There are handwritten notes). After interrogation (in March) of the litter: send the clerk another time for inspection. A new arrival has been delivered. Note: to be written out from the decrees of the great sovereign. Extract from the Code. Then the verdict (copied in full and signed by the governor). In October 1706, according to Miloslavsky’s petition, the case was requested from the Prikaznaya hut to the Judgment Prikaz. In June 1708, Verderevsky struck with his forehead in the Judgment Order that the case was not being decided and asked to put the case on the table and issue a decree; The court order soon after confirmed the verdict of Voivode Yazykov. In December of the same year, Miloslavsky asks for a new inspection, since the previous one was at an inconvenient time of year and was done incorrectly. In May 1709 there was a note: to carry out the inspection again, for which purpose to send a messenger from Moscow, a nobleman. From July 7th, a memorial to the steward Polivanov and the clerk; and about the dacha of clerks and service people, an obedient letter to the governor. The arrival was submitted in January 1710. On it was a note made by the clerk: take for vacation; after which he was recorded as a clerk in the notebook. – Next, the matter was transferred (?) to the office of Zemstvo Affairs, which Verderevsky’s man asked in April 1710 to issue a decree. Litter: take it to work and put it on the table. A discharge follows assault; after it there is a note: write a decree on the protocols. The decision followed in 1720 - The opinions of each member were written separately. Each one ends like this: having written it, I commend it to the highest for better reasoning. The opinions are followed by the verdict (of the Office of Zemstvo Affairs) of the Ober-Landrichter and his comrades: to set the plaintiff free. The verdict was signed by all members on August 19. In August 1720 the plaintiff (a peasant from Verderevsky) asks to send a decree: who they should contact is not in Moscow; and therefore asks to send a decree to Pereslavl. As a result of this request, submitted to the College of Justice (?), a decree was sent to Pereslavl-Ryazan judge Luka Protasyevich Nikiforov to finalize the claim against the people and peasants of the defendant. This decree was handed to the petitioner himself. On June 20, 1728, the peasant Verderevsky asked the Moscow Provincial Chancellery to make a decree of waste and red tape. In 1730, his son repeated the same request. An extract was compiled, from which it is clear that there was no response to the decree of 1720. This request was resolved in September 1730 in the Judgment Order. The decree was sent (according to the protocol) to Pereslavl and the office of the Voivodeship Administration and was handed over to the petitioner with a receipt. In February 1707 of Sadovaya Sloboda, Ivan Markov Khmelev complained in the order of Zemsky affairs against the clerk of the Ivgermanland chancellery Nikitin for underpayment of money on the deed for a house on Ordynka and forcible seizure of that house. On February 6, the defendant was found, but did not go into interrogation, saying that he was being interrogated at the Ingermanland office of honey collection from inns. February 12 – betting. The plaintiff complains that the defendant has been found and is in custody for 7 days, but does not go to interrogation; then to accuse him of being late. A decree was issued on February 4, 1700, sent from the Discharge to the order of Zemstvo affairs: if against whose petition the defendant in the order is found and will not beat the great sovereign with his stubbornness about the deadline, and that defendant will be kept in the order, having written down in which number, against whose petition, in what claim in the order he will be taken. And if that defendant, sitting in the order for 7 days, does not file a petition against the plaintiff, and that defendant in that plaintiff’s claim, without interrogation, will accuse him and the claim, and from that claim the duties according to the Code will be added to him, the defendant. And if a plaintiff files a petition against someone in some lawsuit and doesn’t go against that petition for a week, and the defendant is found for questioning, then that plaintiff’s claim will be denied. On February 14, the defendant was released on bail in the article. On August 2, 1711, the plaintiff’s petition for a decision. Litter: write out. According to the extract, the decision was made in January 1718: to accuse the defendant. After the note about the decision, it was “scheduled.” (There is a difference between the extract and the receipt; the receipt is a calculation of the amount of collection, how much “will happen” to be taken and how long to stand on the right). – An extract from the Zemsky Affairs Order was given to “Zemsky” Ivan Sinyavin. (Proceeding petition, when the plaintiff renounced his claim or the awarded penalty to a third party. On such a petition, note: write it down in a reference book and take it to the case). According to the previous decision, it was ordered to amend; but there was no right until the plaintiff filed a special petition on September 29, 1713. Then the defendant signed in the order that he would become lawful on such and such a date. · – In September 1713 the defendant filed a petition, justifying himself 1) on the merits of the claim and 2) lack of jurisdiction. In November of the same year, by decision, he was also denied the article of non-jurisdiction, on the basis of the decree of January 24, 1701, but which ordered all Belomest and Chernoslobod residents to be in charge of courtyard affairs in the Streletsky Prikaz, which is now the order of Zemsky Affairs. 1706 March 6. Clerk Posnikov to clerk Ivanov in money according to a loan letter (“and in that borrowed money he gave me a loan letter to the order of serf affairs”). Whether the loan letter was presented during the petition is not visible, but the message has been made: take the fortress and interrogate. On April 25, the plaintiff in a petition indicated the place of residence of the defendant, whom they could not find, and asked to send for him again. A tale was taken from the soldier sent earlier that he could not find the defendant anywhere. Then a clerk and a soldier were sent to the indicated residence so that if he himself did not leave, he would take his father or his people from the house. On April 26th, the defendant’s father appeared and told him that he would put his son on trial on May 5th. (What did it mean: to set a deadline? This period is not defined in the law. I think that in this case it is only meant to determine the date, the period for which a private person is obliged to appear, to bind this person to a certain date. Therefore, the summoned defendant had, it seems, the right to set the date himself, to say: I will appear at such and such a time; and in this case, his guarantors were obliged to put him on that number, otherwise they themselves would be subject to the collection of a claim, duties and red tape). – In the present case, instead of the usual guarantee, we see that the father alone undertakes to provide his son. Let us note that the defendant himself has not yet been released, and no formal guarantee has been taken for him. It is hardly necessary to see in this case any special privilege of the father; in other cases we see that if, for example, in the absence of a defendant a person was taken, then this person also gave an obligation to put such and such in prison. On May 12, from the Discharge (the defendant was a clerk of the Discharge Order), a memory was sent that the Great Sovereign ordered a delay for him, so that he, along with the Discharge, was sent to serve in Rostov in a regiment with regimental orders. (It is clear that in such cases the defendant could always apply for such an order). Meanwhile, before this postponement, the defendant paid half of the claim, and gave the rest a fairy tale that he would bring to the order on June 1st; As a result, at the request of the plaintiff, the remaining money was ordered to be recovered in May 1703 from the returning defendant. He included them in the order. In March 1707, the Prince’s case began in the order of Zemsky Affairs. Lvovoy and Troekurov about the runaway peasants, whom the plaintiff, upon her return, presented to the order. An extract was compiled in 1709; at the end of the resolution: extract from the Code and the newly-decreed articles and from the example cases. At the end it is written out how much should be collected, if the great sovereign indicates. In 1713, the sentence replaced the previous litter. At the end it says: write down this sentence in the notebook. It was ordered to collect the elderly money and bring people to justice. The defendant filed a petition that the village in which the fugitives lived did not exist behind her, and asked to consult the Local Order. Litter: to cope with the Local Order, for someone the village was denied dachas after the boyar Prince. Troekurov, and that controversial petition and that a dispatch was made against that petition. After the certificates and discharge in 1715, a new verdict followed in confirmation of the previous one. A new request from the plaintiff, a new certificate and a new verdict. In 1717, the case was taken to the Provincial Chancellery following Troekurova’s petition, where the parties reconciled. (Landrichter made a mark on the petitioners). 1706 Khonenev's claim against his father-in-law for a conspiracy. The plaintiff was required by order to have the dowry he had taken and inspected (“trading people from the silver and rag row were taken for inspection”) and compared with the painting. There turned out to be things similar to the painting and dissimilar; To evaluate the former, trading people were taken. According to the assessment, the dowry was given to the plaintiff, and the rest had to be collected from the defendant against the total price indicated in the list. They were ordered to interrogate the defendant - will he take that dowry for himself or give it to the plaintiff? 1706 August 26. Polonsky against Yurasov for violence. The defendant’s residence was in Bryansk and the action that gave rise to the claim took place there. In the petition, the plaintiff complains, among other things, that in a man’s hut he was interrogated in the dungeon with partiality, which was not possible, because it was a judicial matter, not an investigative one. The summons to the defendant was made by means of a letter to the Karachevsky voivode at the defendant’s residence in the Karachevsky district (“having found him, send him to Moscow; and if he goes into hiding, then his people and the peasants”). According to the plaintiff's new petition - from the order in February 1707, a clerk was sent with an order and an obedient letter to the governor. In March 1709, Yurasov entered with a petition that he was sick and asked for a delay. Certificate from the voivode regarding the examination of the patient. In March, the clerk arrives. The governor's reply. In May, the plaintiff asks: if the defendant is sick, order him to take a letter from him, whoever he trusts to be interrogated. Letter to the governor to send the required people. The governor's letter about Yurasov's disobedience. In March 1710, the plaintiff asked to accuse the defendant without interrogation. Litter: take the case and put it on the table. Discharged. In March, the defendant was sentenced. At the request of the plaintiff, on August 18, 1711, a notice about the right was sent to the Kyiv governor. September 5, 1706 Naryshkin’s petition on the book. Dolgorukova about old money. Judgment on September 25. After the settlement, the plaintiff in October laid down the fortresses presented to the defendant, who, after listening to them, said... In January 1708, a note: against the words of the plaintiffs and defendants, cope with the N order. Discharged against litter. Letters were sent to the orders of 1) the Kazan Palace - (how many were there for N peasants in Kadomsky district?); 2) Zemstvo affairs - (in year N, were there such and such area clerks and wrote them?); and 3) Local – (certificate of the decree relied upon by the defendant). Upon receipt of responses, it was written out from the Code and the newly-decreed articles. May 26, 1708 petition of a person to the prince. Vlad. Vlad. Dolgorukova: Naryshkin demands the people who lived with him, calling them fugitives and based on the Code and new decree articles regarding fugitives; but these articles do not go to the point at all, because people lived with him according to the progress record and according to the record of the completed case, and the plaintiff did not discredit those fortresses in any way during the interrogation. And therefore, boyar Saltykov and his comrades ordered only to consult those fortresses with orders; but after Saltykov, he was marked under his mark to interrogate Murza Aseidar (from whom the act was committed) - and this is contrary to the new decree of Articles of 205: about lands and people and peasants, the decree is to be carried out according to fortresses, and the search is ordered to be carried out not in serf affairs, but all our business is serfdom. In June 1708, the interrogation of Aseydar in the Judgment Order. 1713 decision in favor of the defendant Prince. Dolgorukova. 1706 October. Plaintiff Ilya Zalomov against Andrei Toneev for attempted murder and mutilation: he came to him by express order, having escaped from the sovereign service from Pereslavl-Zalessky and that he does not live in the service, but in his Suzdal estate. (Claim in the Discharge against Boyar Streshnev). From the Discharge, a letter was sent to Pereslavl-Zalessky to the governor, so that according to the lists looked at, so-and-so was registered for the visit and ordered him to be sent to Moscow to the Discharge; and on which date did you sign up and from that date in Pereslavl without vacation or from which date to which was you on vacation? On November 22, according to a new petition, the plaintiff was ordered to send a clerk to order the defendant. On November 25, the defendant brought a petition in which he presented a counterclaim for forcibly reaping bread, accused Zalomov of hiding from service, justified himself and wrote about the shot that “he shot in self-defense.” – Same date of birth: to appear for interrogation and evidence on November 26; and if anyone does not, he is to blame. Both sides signed this note. On November 26th the judgment speeches were recorded; and under them: “and after interrogation about the collection of handwritten records, the list was given to the rank son of the boyar Sava Kryukov.” On the 10th day of December, he submitted the written notes (dated December 1). Under the handwritten notes it is written: 1) December 3 – for a letter 5 alt. taken and recorded in the book and 2) another note (in the Rank) December 10: after examining, the old clerk... take it to work. Then, after thoroughly rewritten interrogations, articles were written out. New note: extract from the decrees of the great sovereign, and a new extract from the new decree articles of 205 that instead of courts and confrontations in grievances and ruins, carry out searches. After discharge - adoptalio ad rem: but the defendant did not rely on the above-mentioned witness, whom the plaintiff relied on; and he didn’t say any quarrel or unfriendliness behind him, only that he was a witness, Andr. Petin, went with him, the plaintiff, from his estate to the above-mentioned wasteland to help him. Litter in January 1708: interrogate a witness under the newly-decreed articles. In February 1708, the witness of the Sytny Dvor, the clerk, was interrogated in the order. The interrogation was first written down in rough form, signed by a witness and then copied out completely. (The case was carried out in the order desk of the Rank Order and the discharge required a certificate “from the Moscow office from the tenant list” about the plaintiff’s service). On February 23, Toneev asked for an additional search for violence, and Zalomov in March “made a decree” on the claim. Litter: put on so. In June 1709, Zalomov again asked for the same thing; the same litter followed. On June 26, 1709, the culmination of the Discharge: punishment was inflicted on Taneyev for unauthorized departure from service. And that he, the defendant, shot the plaintiff on the land on which with a arquebus, and ordered that the land be reported to him in the Local Order; and from whom on that land the enthusiasm started in advance, write about that from the decree of the great sovereign. Based on the last words, Taneyev considers the matter not finished and in February 1710 asks for a solution. Litter: put on the table. A short summary of one subject. Then the laws were written. Zalomov in June 1714 asked for a decree to be issued. Litter: write out and take to the table. Finally, in February 1715, the plaintiff asks that the case be resolved in the Senate or that a list of that case be given to St. Petersburg for the sexton's signature. Litter: put on the table. In April 1715 a decree from the Senate to find the real case in the Discharge Cases in order to send it from the Discharge Cases to the Moscow province for execution. A decree on sending that case was sent from Sepat to Moscow to the office of the Senate Board to clerk Okunev. In May, the office of the Senate Board sends the case to the Provincial Office. From Taneyev’s petition in May 1720 it is clear that the case was transferred to the office of Zemsky Affairs and there he, Taneyev, was cleared; but the work was carried out by different clerks; asks to take him to a clerk. Litter: take it to one clerk and arrange an extract. From Zalomov’s petition in 1724 it is clear that the case was already being carried out in the Court of Justice, and he complains that even after the verdict of the Discharge, Voivode Arsenyev did not inflict punishment on Taneyev. Litter: after writing it down, report it. An extract follows (on stamped paper) and the case is already in the Court Order with Secretary Bashilov. In February 1736, a detective memory was given to a soldier of the Judgment Order with his comrades to search for Taneyev and his lieutenant Molchanov to put their hands on the extract. When the soldier began to look for him, he was told in the yard that Taneyev had died for the 5th year already, a son remained and lived in his father’s homeland in Suzdal district; but Lieutenant Molchanov was not found. A decree was issued on November 4, 1730 (in P.S. 3. November 6). In February 1736, it was ordered: to expel Taneyev’s son from Suzdal for assault, to write about this to Suzdal to the office of the voivodeship; and if he is not found, take his people, etc.... In January 1787, Zalomov complains that the decree has not yet been sent to the office of the Suzdal governor; and now he is his man, Taneyev, who takes care of business, and his lieutenant in Moscow. Litter: take that person. Memory of a soldier. On January 26, the soldier brought the Jewish lieutenant Ivan Molchanov and put him under guard. February 1, Molchanov's fairy tale. February 1737. The court order, having listened to the article about the convict, ordered Molchanov to be released on receipt for cheese week. In March, Molchanov asked to be completely released from responsibility. Additional statement. Zalomov asks Molchanov to assault him. Additional statement. In March, the guard reports about Molchanov’s illness; examined through the clerk. Resolution: release with a receipt until recovery. In August, Molchanov hits him with his forehead - don’t force him. In November, the resolution was: to find out about Taneyev’s death; and if he died, send his son away. They asked the owner of the house in which Taneyev died. Molchanov was released under arrest. In October 1739, Zalomov asked to find Taneyev’s son. Discharged. In November: send a soldier to expel Taneyev. A decree was sent to the office of the voivodeship. Instructions for a soldier. In November, Zalomova’s believing petition to warrant officer Bezhin. Bezhin is obliged to sign - to have the matter carried out without excuses. In January 1740, a soldier reported that the governor did not send for Taneyev and did not take his people; and upon his arrival in Moscow, Zalomov showed him his man, Taneyev, whom he represented. Questioning a peasant - where is his landowner, how was he taken? It turned out that Zalomov, tired of waiting, set off from Moscow and in the Kostroma district, meeting a Taneevsky peasant who had come to sell firewood at the auction, took him and put him in a sleigh with a soldier of the Judgment Order and took him to Moscow; and he doesn’t know where his two horses and all his property are. What's in the Judgment Order? The leading peasant was put under guard to attach his hand to the extract. In February 1740, the Court Order, hearing the article list, released the peasant on receipt for the sake of cheese week; then he released me for Holy Week. In February, the peasant in the petition explains that his master is in the service of the Putivl Dragoon Regiment and asks to be given a deadline until Putivl so that he can summon his master or deliver a believing petition from him. Removed from case again. Resolution: release the peasant for a term of imprisonment. In May, a peasant’s tale says that he will stand on the verge of a petition with an attorney. In June 1743 publication: the peasant left and did not show up; If Taneyev or the peasant does not appear in a week, then the extract will be heard without him, since, according to repeated decrees, the case was ordered to be completed without continuation. Published with drums beating at the Spassky and Nikolsky Gates. There was no success. An extract from the decrees follows. Finally, in 1744, based on a new petition from the plaintiff, the extract was heard and, due to lack of evidence, it was ordered that the court should examine it separately. 1706 October 31. Belevskaya landowner Beklemisheva for herself, daughter and son asks Ivan Beklemishev to take possession of land, people and peasants and forcibly mow the meadows; asked to call the defendant. Note: take a fairy tale from the petitioner: who is he hitting with his brow in the army or in the service... or is he a minor and according to his dress... should he be ordered? She said: along with the war, there is no place for him to serve... Then he was ordered to give a letter according to the decree. A letter was given to Belev to the voivode about the expulsion of the defendant. In January 1709, the plaintiff’s petition: the governor sent 2 clerks and service people, but the defendant was disobedient, did not go to Belev, did not give a written note in the article; They took 2 peasants from him into the official hut, but the governor, being his friend, did not write about it and freed the peasants; - asks to send a clerk. A clerk was sent (take an urgent tale) and an obedient letter to the governor. On January 21, 1709, the clerk arrived: ... arrived with witnesses to the house, found Iv. Beklemishev;.. and after listening to the decree, he did not go with me to the city of Belev to collect the handwritten note and did not give the fairy tale by hand and did not give it to the peasants, he became disobedient. And at that time Ilya’s wife Ivanov Beklemisheva Katerina Ivanova’s daughter arrived and (sent) her people. And those people, having come to him, said that he should not go to the city with me and should not tell me fairy tales, should not see her, Katerina; and they took Ivan and me and brought her to Katerina in the yard, leaving the servants behind the gate, which they locked. And she, Katerina, having listened to... g. Decree, she didn’t order him, Ivan, to be given fairy tales, she kept him, Ivan, with her, she didn’t give him to the city to collect the handwritten note, and she ordered her man Semyon to escort me, and she ordered the servants to be beaten from the gate with a club. And those witnesses and servants then, fearing her, Katerina, did not lay hands on it. - In November 1709, he asks to send a third letter, and to interrogate the previous messengers. A third letter was sent (November 6) to Belev to the governor, so that he would send a clerk and service people and so that Ivan would be taken with witnesses, and the witnesses would be interrogated, etc. In January 1710, the governor’s unsubscribe. He sent a clerk three times with service people; but they did not leave him, but took three peasants from him as guards; and the previous people who traveled with the Moscow clerk have not been found. Attached: 1) Arriving to remind Belevsky's clerk (November 29, 1706) that they did not leave Ivan, but his man said that he and his people were not in the house, but had gone to Moscow for treatment. 2) Another arrival in 1708, January 6: they did not leave it in Sinegubov; the courtyard wives said that he had gone to another estate. Makrischevo. Let's go to Makrishchevo; they said that he went to Kozelsky district to another village, Satoninka. We went to Belev and met him, Ivan, on the road. But Ilya’s people, Beklemishev, did not allow them to reach Ivan to tell him the decree, taught them to scold them with obscenities, chased them with spears and clubs, beat the plaintiff’s man (who probably traveled with messengers for instructions), beat them with a club and, tying them up, took them with them to Kozelsky district. 3) Third arrival - December 31, 1709: they did not leave for Sinegubov; they said that Ivan went to Moscow; They took several peasants. 4) Fourth arrival - January 8, 1710: did not leave; his wife said that he had gone to Moscow and would appear at the Court Order. They wanted to take the peasants; but Ilya Beklemishev’s people came with clubs and flails and didn’t let them, they wanted to beat them and take them, the messengers. They were brought to the courtyard of Ilya Beklemishev’s wife Katerina, who wanted to put him, the clerk, on a chain. 5) Arrival January 13, 1710: did not leave; but the people and peasants became strong and did not allow themselves to be taken. – In January 1710, the plaintiff asks for a decree to be issued according to the Code. Litter: take it to task and write it out. Against the discharge of the litter: 1710 March 24. Write out for example the top and (will) others such cases are and whose, and what claims, and which cities. Extracted from three example cases of disobedience by defendants (1701 and 1706). (Including: in 1704, December 24, worker Ivan Savelyev of the Dorogoshansky monastery beat Yablochkov’s people against Pavlov’s people in battle and robbery of the monastery. peasants - about sending his petition and traveling memories, about a letter to Meshchovsk to the governor. And in 1705, January 24, Meshchovsky wrote to the great sovereign the governor and sent three travel memories; in the 2nd drive it is written that about those peasants, his man Pavlov Matvey Ivanov said that the peasants of his landowner were with him in his service, and in the 3rd drive it is written that Pavel Yablochkov himself said that on January 31 he would beat the sovereign with his forehead to send a soldier. And the soldier sent on arrival wrote that a priest came out of Pavel Yablochkov’s yard and said that Pavel Yablochkov was not at home, and they would not give people and peasants; But don’t go to the village, and if they go, they will be beaten to death. In the 5th arrival it is written that the man Pavlov said that Pavel was in the service, and did not give people. The defendant is charged in the Judgment Order). Then a list was made of the amount of recovery from Ivan Beklemishev. Verdict: March 26, 1710, the defendant is accused of March 31, 1710, the plaintiff asks for food and red tape. Written out and scheduled. Note: write out articles. Note: on the defendant to correct the waste and red tape from sending the 1st, 2nd and 3rd certificates for the months in which those letters were sent. In 1716, the plaintiff Beklemisheva asked the office of Zemsky Affairs that the claim had not been completed, and the plaintiff lived in the village; asks to send a decree to the voivodeship office and to the landrat; and how can he, Ivan, and his peasants stand on the right of the indicated numbers (therefore, there was no right yet at all), evaluate his estates and estates and give her a claim. Note: take, write, bring to the hearing. June 14, 1716 litter: send to the landrat the memory of the rightful person, and then... describe and evaluate. On July 20 a letter was sent. In January 1719, the plaintiff filed a petition: the governor has not yet completed the claim; and now my people have caught the defendant peasant N; introducing him, he asks for justice. Interrogation of the driver. The peasant was soon released without a receipt from the office of Zemsky Affairs. In April 1719, the plaintiff wrote in a petition: according to that decree (to the Landrat), the defendant’s peasants were taken to Belev for justice and beaten for justice. And on September 21, 1716, the defendant falsely stated that everything about his disobedience was not true, and he was then lying sick in his house. But, according to his nature, Beklemishev, with Belevsky Landrat Melgunov, sent a decree from Kyiv from the Provincial Chancellery, so that, setting aside this accomplished matter, they would seek a fictitious petition against him, Ivanov. And as before, through my petition, his peasant was brought to the office of Zemstvo Affairs and survived for the indicated number; asks for an inventory of the estate. – In June 1719, a decree to the Kyiv governor: to amend; and if he says that there is nothing to pay with, - about the inventory and assessment. “That’s where the production ends.” March 1, 1708 Chikhachov’s petition for a loan letter. Note: against this petition, having found it, interrogate it. But the parties began not earlier than February 26, 1710 and amicably postponed. On March 7, the plaintiff filed a petition that the defendant did not. In January 1712, the plaintiff asked for a decree. January 25, the top: to double, because in the deferred tale it is written so... The form of the deferred tale: N of the N day of the N order in front of the steward N and his comrades, the plaintiff N and the defendant N, having talked among themselves, amicably deferred in order to become him, the plaintiff N, for evidence, and for the defendant to be interrogated in the claim of his N for a period of N years of the month on N day. And if one of them does not come to the interrogation and to the evidence for that above-mentioned period, and he, the plaintiff, is deprived of his claim, and the defendant is guilty of the interrogation, and that claim is doubled and from that claim on the guilty great sovereign the duties are doubled and eat up and red tape... this petition and at the end of the case by decree without any dispute... According to a new petition, a decree was issued on food and red tape. 1708 April. Danila Myasnoy to Naryshkina in old money for a runaway peasant; asks the man who takes care of business to take her and interrogate him against the questioning speeches of his peasant. In May 1708, a believer petitioned Naryshkina, whom she believed to be responsible for herself. May 25 interrogation river drafts. February 19, 1720 in the Zemstvo Chancellery - handwritten entries in the article on all days and in absence by the authorized Naryshkina and by the plaintiff. The judgment speeches of 1708, completely rewritten. In May 1720, the plaintiff asked for a decree. Note: having written it down in a book, take it to task and, having written it down, report it to the honor of Mr. Ober-Landrichter and his comrades. The defendant submitted to the case an extract from the order of the Zemstvo Affairs, stating that she was not ordered to collect elderly money from her for the peasants of her deceased husband. Extract. In December 1720, the decision of Ober-Landrichter Topilsky and his comrades: by decree... they listened to the extracts... they sentenced... The verdict was signed: the notary Ilya Maksimov testified with the extract. June 1708 Sulmenev asks in the Judgment Order to divide him with his stepmother in his father's lots and complains that his stepmother offended him in people and peasants. Therefore, from the Judgment Order a letter was sent to the governor in Zaraysk, so that he would divide them and report them. - January 1708 Anton Ratkov on Semyon Popkov in a runaway peasant driven in reception, marriage and belly. Believing petition of the defendant. A confidant's tale. In February, respite is a love story. The deadline was set for February 7 at lunchtime. Judgment speeches - February 7. The defendant placed two fortresses for interrogation. On February 11, the driven peasant was questioned. March 7 from the Court Order to the Local Order for a certificate with census books: is the peasant recorded? On March 8, the plaintiff filed a response from the Local Order. Litter: ask the driver. On March 31, the defendant’s petition: the driver was sitting in his shop with goods, and when they took him, the goods remained; asks for inspection, inventory and evaluation. A clerk was sent with a soldier: take witnesses, take fairy tales from merchants, describe them and hand them over to the defendant with a receipt. Semyon Popkov gave a tale that in the shop where Timofey was sitting, the goods were definitely his. In April 1708, the clerk arrived about the inventory. In February 1709, the plaintiff asked for a decree. Another certificate with the Local Order. The plaintiff sought interrogation. The defendant said that he got the disputed peasant by receiving a note from the Kostroma landowner Aristov and put the note down. The peasant said that the applicant lives 1/2 verst from the plaintiff. They were looking for Aristov and first took his wife, but then released him. Finally, following the petitions of the plaintiff to search for Aristov, the peasant was ordered to be shackled, sent with a clerk and a soldier to Kostroma, so that he would indicate that applicant and bring him to Moscow; and if he is gone, so will his estates, Iv. Aristov, write it down to the great sovereign, appreciating it, and what will be written off, write it in a book. The clerk is given a detective memory. In October 1709, the verdict was: the plaintiff should be sent back in old money, and the defendant should deal with the applicant. It began in June 1708; completed in June 1709. Fyodor Fateev dishonored a guest in Moscow. The witnesses were interrogated by the clerk. In February 1709, the Moscow Court Order, following Kryukov’s petition, ordered that his claim for stolen things be amended against his comrade Krapivensky governor, Begichev, for the fact that he had released the agreed upon people who were responsible for that robbery. A letter about this was sent to the Krapivensky governor. In March, following a petition from the plaintiff, a memorial was sent to the Local Order, so that no one would be recorded for me and the actions of Begichev’s villages until he paid that claim. In September, Begichev filed a petition that he had released people on receipt, and then they wanted to take them, but they fought back; that the governor Levshin deliberately wanted to accuse him, that he filed a petition in person against Levshin; asked to take the whole case to Moscow for the search. A clerk was sent to do the job. In December, the clerk arrived that the governor had not given him the case. The governor was ordered to pay a fine of 50 rubles for this, and legal action from Begichev was stopped; the case is requested again. Following Begichev’s petition, the ban on him in the Local Order was lifted. (There are often requests to transfer affairs to another clerk, because “he is friendly and strives”; the resolution is always: take it to another clerk). In March 1710, Kryukov asked to continue to correct on Begichev; and Begichev asks not to rule from him. In March 1710, in the order of the Zemstvo Affairs, the decision of the new judges and the clerk (without waiting for the case to be sent): to be according to the previous verdict - to correct Begichev, and to set aside the mark of the previous clerk; Begichev, in any case, was wrong that he freed the convicts; ordered to give an extract for legal status. Begichev asks again: not to decide idlely based on an incomplete extract and not to rule from it past one of the stipulated people who is presently located. Litter: take it to task and put it on the table. April 15, 1712 note: to follow the previous verdict of Saltykov and his comrades - to take the case to Moscow, and not to rule with Begichev. Then - “and no letter was sent against this mark because no one is following up on that matter.” May 28, 1719 Begichev’s petition to the office of Zemstvo affairs - an objection to Kryukov’s new petition July 6, 1719 Landrichter and his comrades’ verdict - to again amend the claim against Begichev. A letter was sent to the Krapivensky governor. In October 1719, Begichev’s new petition was about taking up the case and searching for it. Litter: put on the table for examination. Kryukov asks for recovery. A fairy tale was taken from Begichev, which will be performed all day, and a guarantee. New achievement: finishing up on Begichev. Following Begichev’s petition, the case was sent to the Court of Justice, and legal proceedings were stopped. In September 1708, the Kaluga landowner Mishukov spoke about the forcible seizure of land and grain by the peasants of the neighboring landowner Durnov, the headman Maxim Markov and comrades. (No price). The claim was brought not against the landowner, but directly against the peasant. From the Judgment Order he was sent as a clerk on orders to take that peasant with bail and bring him to Moscow to answer. In October, the clerk, returning, said that the Kaluga governor did not give him service people, saying that they were on dispatch; and he drove back, but on the road he met that Maxim Markov, took him and brought him. Markov and he, the defendant, went to court with the plaintiff; but, as you can see, there were no guarantees for him and the order stated that he was detained. On November 29, the parties adjourned until December 7. After this reprieve, the defendant was released and served no time. The order on the petition of the plaintiff accused Markov of delay. A letter of legality was sent to Kaluga, and then (at the request of the plaintiff) to the Przemysl voivode. – What was awarded to the plaintiff when he did not file a claim? Awarded dishonor on salary. September 1708. Claim of the Rank Clerk Khmelev on the Sretenskaya Hundred - Ovsyannikov for the seizure of land, for the destruction of the building, for the upholstery of pears and apples and for the loss of birds; priced at 15 rubles. The claim was brought at the Town Hall. Following the petition on September 30, an inspection was made of what was broken and damaged in the courtyard through the Town Hall. clerk in the presence of witnesses; it is not clear whether there was an accused person. On October 20, there were judgment speeches in the Town Hall before the Chief Inspector of the Town Hall Board, Alexey Alexandr. Kurbatov and his comrades. On the draft speeches it is written: after interrogation on the plaintiff N and on the defendant N, lists were given to the Town Hall soldiers: on the plaintiff so-and-so, on the defendant so-and-so. Soldier's receipt. (What was the list? Was it not a signature for those people who took on the guarantee? The form of the surety notes is as follows: first, the year is written, the date of such and such, in such and such a claim, it was guaranteed that it will be filed all day until the completion of the case, will not move, etc.; followed by the signatures of the guarantors and witnesses. Then a note about the collection of fees for the letter and about the entry in the book of serf affairs. Following this, it is written in a different order: years, dates, such and such vouched for such and such in such and such a claim; and if... we are exposed to such and such. This recording had a witness - the clerk N wrote. Then the record was brought to the order, where a note was made on it: take it to the case... or: having looked out, it will be collected according to the decree, take it to the case...). – The notes were written on October 21 and 25, and the court speeches were on the 20th. These are guarantees in the article after appearance, I don’t see any guarantees for appearance. In March 1709, the plaintiff filed a petition objecting to the defendant's excuses; he refers among other things: “according to your sovereign decree, according to the correct book of the Greek law, 38th line against Article 50, it was ordered to build from someone else’s building according to the specified article in 6 steps”... He also complained about the participation of the defendant’s children in violence; now indicates that they are underage and should be taken into service. Yes, he complains that he, “the defendant, does not work on the case for many days, but drags me along and loses money in vain.” Note on May 6: take the list from the defendant to his yard from the fortress, check with the original one, and give the original one to him, as before, with a receipt; and write out from the decree of the great sovereign which articles are appropriate for this matter. A soldier with a detective memory was sent for the defendant, but on May 14 he did not bring him back and said that he was burying himself and being strong, but was not affecting himself at home. On May 19, the defendant submitted a petition and lists from the fortresses. The Town Hall demanded from the Zemstvo Affairs Order a certificate of the measure of land from the scribe and census books. In October, the plaintiff asks in the order of Zemstvo affairs to speed up with a certificate and proves that all courtyards and courtyard affairs are reported in that order, and not in the Town Hall. The order of the Zemstvo Affairs demanded that the file be sent in memory. In April 1710, the plaintiff asks for the case to be sent from the Town Hall. In May 1711, in the documents of the defendant, the plaintiff indicates discord and a lot of receipts with the scribe books. The matter is already in the order of Zemstvo Affairs. According to the order, a clerk was sent to measure the yard in the presence of witnesses and in the presence of the defendant. A drawing has been made. The plaintiff complains about incorrect measurements, that they measured and wrote without him and were not shown to him, and that in the Zemsky Prikaz the matter was carried out by the clerks, who previously sat in the Town Hall. It was ordered to take him to another clerk. In July, the defendant complains that the first inspection was incorrect. Discharged again. The plaintiff asks to request more documents from the defendant; ordered - demand. On August 3, the defendant was interrogated, against the plaintiff's petition. August 21, the note: send an old clerk to those lands and order him to inspect and describe those lands of that settlement with the headman and the best people, both the plaintiff and the defendant. In November 1711, the defendant complains about the delay, that the plaintiff does not go to the inspection, and asks to take a fairy tale from him. Litter: take a fairy tale from him - which number will become him. On December 4, Khmelev gave a fairy tale in the order that the measure would become on December 7; and if he doesn’t, he’ll be guilty beyond measure. This tale is called respite. On December 7, he became a member of the Zemstvo Affairs Department and gave a new tale about what would happen to the measure on the 8th. On December 8, the clerk measured, and submitted the inspection and measure in the order. Then the case is written out. In February 1712 Verkhne: refuse the plaintiff: the general link said he doesn’t know, I’m not against his exile. In July, the plaintiff asks to reverse, proving that the general reference said according to him; asks to be written out again because it was written out incorrectly. August 25th: take action against this petition and order the petitioner to have a hand in correcting it. On March 18, 1713, a new decision was made: the plaintiff should be acquitted, but the previous sentence should be set aside, because many of the articles that serve to justify the plaintiff were not written down and the clerk reported inauthentically. (Note that at this time the plaintiff served as a clerk in the Senate office for accounting affairs. In June, the defendant complains to the Senate office. In August, Senator Mikh. Mikh. Samarin and Rasprasnyi delos judges sentenced - to be according to the previous verdict of the governor and his comrades in 1712, and to set aside the second sentence, because the original claim was written without a price and a trial on it should not have been given, etc.;.. and he, The plaintiff, after the petition, filed many petitions in addition and in retail - profit articles... 1708–1711 A claim against the tax collector of the Barashskaya Sloboda, Vasily Andreev, from the girl Anna, the daughter of his deceased father-in-law, for taking possession of belongings and the yard after her father; first presented at the Town Hall, then the case was transferred (it is unknown why) to the Zemstvo Affairs Order, where it was decided. The defendant was accused and the soldier was given the memory from the order to complete the claim and duties, the money was received by him, brought to the order and from there with a receipt given to the plaintiff. But there was no such obedience when, at the petition of the plaintiff, the order sentenced her to food and red tape. At first the soldier’s memory was given to be corrected; but the plaintiff complained that the defendant was hiding from the soldier and did not leave the yard. A tale about this was taken from a soldier. Then the clerk was given the memory to go to the defendant’s yard, where the petitioner will indicate, and, before reaching the yard, take witnesses and with them take the defendant and bring him to the order for justice. The defendant's clerk did not leave, but took his man. The man was given to the soldier on a signature that he would be given his right for all his days. When the defendant was hiding, the plaintiff used another means: having met him on the street, he shouted guard and announced that there was a petition against him in the N order. He was brought to the Amusement Court, where a fairy tale was taken from him, and according to the fairy tale, he was taken to the order. “On the 3rd day of July 1711, soldiers Ivan Ivanov, Pyotr Shchelokov, and with them the Barashskaya Sloboda drafter Ivanovo’s wife Solodovnikov’s widow Stepanida, Trofimova’s daughter brought the living hundred of Danil Blinov to the Poteshny Dvor from the Myasnitsky Gate of Timofeev’s regiment of Bibikov. And the driver of the Barashskaya settlement, the drafter Ivanovskaya Solodovnikov’s wife, the widow of Stepanida Trofimov’s daughter, said: she took that stranger because there is a petition against him in the Zemsky order, and which one is clearly in that order; and he is hiding from that petition, for this reason the guard shouted. And instead of his driver, there is no one to lend a hand. – And the driver of the hundred Danila Blinov said: the above-mentioned driver’s petition is not in the Zemsky order against him, and he is not hiding from that petition; but why she shouted guard, he doesn’t know. Danilo Blinov put his hand in. - Litter: August 1711, in the 4th day, by decree of the great sovereign, the steward, Prince Fyodor Yuryevich Romodanovskoy, having listened to this drive, ordered to take the drive money according to the decree and, having registered it in the parish, send the order to the Zemsky and give it with a receipt. - A note in the Zemstvo order: to accept and question the prisoner and the prisoner...” On August 5, Blinov was released from the order of the Zemstvo affairs, having given a fairy tale that he would appear on August 7. On August 7, he stood up and said that he would be on duty on August 11. On August 11, he stood up and said that it was impossible for him to eat up and pay the red tape because he was now in the sovereign’s business in the Moscow tax yard, working as a stall at the parish of the monetary treasury, and was now not counted in that treasury. Litter: release him on a signature and send information to the Town Hall - is he really a stall keeper? Submitted to the merchant's receipt for the Ambassadorial order, that he be put on all days and not move out, etc... On August 16, the plaintiff hits her with her forehead, so that they don’t believe him, Blinov, and take from him a fairy tale about clearing debts after her husband, which they wanted to give her from serf affairs. Litter:.. and in cleaning... if in the interrogation it is said, interrogate. On September 16, a message was sent from the Silver Money Yard that “in the smelter there appeared the residual annual rubbish of the head of the last 707 of the living room of the hundred of Alexei Borovnikov and his comrades, and that rubbish must be washed off to clean that smelter and to find the silver; and Alex's head. Borovnikov is dead, and his living room comrades are hundreds of Willows. Krupenin, Ekaterininskaya Sloboda, you. Andreev was taken for that wash and that rubbish was washed away. And the stall you. Andreev had not been to the Money Yard for 5 days; and after soldiers were sent from the Money Yard and according to a fairy tale, they are kept de him. Andreeva in the order of Zemsky Affairs in the plaintiff’s claim. And behind that stall, the washing of silver from the yearly rubbish came to a halt, because it was impossible for one person to inspect the silver; and the great sovereign ordered the above-mentioned N from the order of Zemstvo Affairs to be sent to the Silver Money Court to the steward Mikita Osip. Kakovinsky and to visit Semyon Pankratiev.” Litter: take a fairy tale - how long will it take to wash it. You. Andreev said: ... there is a lot of residual annual waste ... and there will be work for three months. Litter: release and take a fairy tale that after 3 months he will be due. (The scribe’s chamber was in the Town Hall Petition. It was written down, that is, items were written out separately from the case, which should have been paid attention to - what is and what is not, what is asked and what was answered). A sample document for the transfer of a loan obligation “On the issued bond”. In the summer of January 1707, on the 25th day of the living room of the hundred, Alexey Vasilyev, son Bogomolov, gave this given to the Ingermanland office of yasak collection to Grigory Kirilov, son of Araslanov, in that last 703 he borrowed from me, Alexey Barashskaya Sloboda, Peter Maksimov, son of the Bateevs, money 300 rubles and in that he gave me a loan bondage. And now I, Alexey, gave up to him, Grigory, that loan bondage to him, Peter, for his Grigoriev’s house money for 300 rubles, and I, Alexey, gave that loan bondage to him to Grigory; and according to that bondage of mine given and this one of mine given about that borrowed money, to hit him, Peter, with his forehead, to him, Grigory, and look for him in his own name. Alexey Bogomolov had a hand in this action. At this public settlement, Timofey Gavrilov was a witness and had a hand in it. This actionable N was a witness and had a hand in it. This actionable N was a witness and had a hand in it. This was written by the clerk of serf affairs, Vas. Leontyev 707 February. For a letter 13 alt. taken and written in the book. Signed by Ivan Chernev. – 1708 November a claim against the borrower of a taxable person and together with the lieutenant on him for bondage. (It is clear that cases and lawsuits against townspeople were carried out in the Town Hall). On November 29, a soldier with a detective memory was sent. On December 15 he said that he did not find the yard. At the request of the plaintiff, in March 1709, another soldier was sent. On May 15, he said that he had not found the borrower’s yard, and the lieutenant was hiding. On June 9, a clerk was sent to bring witnesses; They did not leave the lieutenant himself and took his wife. The wife said that her husband left for Pskov. And about the borrower Badeev himself, the following report was filed: Mikhail and witnesses went to Badeev’s yard and they didn’t leave him in the house, but they left his wife Petrova. And at that time the Town Hall Clerk Prokh was in their house. Grigoriev, and his wife, Petrova, he did not let the clerk take, but wanted to install him, Pyotr Badeev, in the Town Hall of that day; and he, Peter, did not install. And he, Mikhailo, according to that order to take him, walked around him, Peter, a second time, and he, Peter, went into the house; and took it and took it to the Town Hall. And what will happen to him, Peter, at the All Saints Gate, and Peter shouted the guard and said that it was as if he had his sovereign’s many taxes on him in the order of the Great Treasury. And at that gate the guard soldiers, taking them, led them to the Red Porch to a note; and from the Red Porch they were sent to the Amusement Court. And now he, Peter, is being kept in the Amusement Court. On June 18, Badeev was sent from the Amusement Court. He said at the Amusement Court that they were keeping him on guard at the Great Treasury; he went with the bailiff to buy bread for all the prisoners, and then they took him. At the Poteshiya yard the President General and Moscow listened to the drive. Commandant and Siberian Provinces Judge Prince. Matvey Peter. Gagarn and comrades. Upon questioning the clerk at the Town Hall, he said that all his property had already been described for the payment of the debt to the order of the Great Treasury; but he recognized his bondage. After that, a list was given and a manual entry was collected in the article on the plaintiff. But the defendant Badeev did not order a written list of the meeting on his own, did not give the paper, and did not say anyone was a guarantor. The wife of Lieutenant Stepanov was given a receipt, which is put to her in that lawsuit in the Town Hall until the end of the day; and when the husband arrives, put it there. Sample (it seems) list: 1709 June 24. By decree of the great sovereign of the tobacco customs soldier N. To collect for him, etc.... a record for N that he should be given N against his petition, that he hit N with his forehead in that... until that matter is completed, stand in the Town Hall all day and without the decree of the great sovereign, you cannot leave Moscow anywhere. And if... it is not taken into account or without a decree, etc.... and for that he will be deprived of his above-mentioned claim and will be guilty of paying the duty to him, the great sovereign. On July 7, a decree was sent from the order of the Big Treasury to send Badeev there for justice. On July 29, the plaintiff filed a petition and shows that everything is a lie: Badeev is not at all on the right in the order, but lives at home; they took him from the house, and not at the Spassky Gate, etc.... The Town Hall sent a memory to the order of the Great Treasury, demanding detailed information about Badeev (against the plaintiff’s instructions); and as he incidentally referred to the fire devastation, then the order of the Zemstvo Affairs to deal with the fire. On September 7, the order of the Great Treasury repeated the same thing in response; and the Zemsky Prikaz wrote about the fire from the fire register of 1704 and found Badeev’s yard burnt down. In October 1709, the order of the Great Treasury repeated the sending of Badeev. In November, the decision was made: to send Badeev to the order of the Big Treasury, and for the plaintiff to seek his claim against him in the same order of the Big Treasury. (From the correspondence it is clear that Barash Badeev, among other things, described book goods in the order of the Big Treasury). In June 1711, the case was taken from the Town Hall at the request of the plaintiff, who indicated that such cases were ordered to be dealt with in the order of Zemsky Affairs. In August, the plaintiff again asks in the order of the Zemstvo Affairs: according to Badeev, in the order of the Big Treasury there should be lieutenants who should be responsible for him in the sovereign’s money; asks to cope with serf affairs, where these lieutenants should be recorded. In September, the plaintiff writes: all lies and pretending, clerks in the order of the Big Treasury; debtor to him. Pyotr Badeev was released from there, because the sovereign’s debt is not on Peter, but on Ivan Badeev; Clerk N is to blame. Another memory has been sent. 1708 On dishonor between petitioners in the writ of judgment; the lawsuit is in the same place where the case happened. A servant about giving vacation pay upon the death of his master. January 16, 1709 in the Izhersk office. The plaintiff is a clerk in the same office, Garyainov: his brother, who was a clerk there, was taken by decree to the office of Hetman Mazepa to learn business and writing, and was captured; after him there were things left that were handed over to Kapiton Durnov, and this one, instead of handing them over to relatives, sent them to his Kaluga village. And when a clerk is sent from the Izhersk office to the sovereign’s inventory offices in Aleshinsky and Suzhdensky districts for a search, he would order the clerk to write in the order about the seizure of those things. – January 20, aka: the defendant lives in the Kaluga village; asks to send a soldier to Kaluga, past the governor, who is in unfriendliness with him, the plaintiff, to the typesetters and to send a memory of obedience to those typesetters to the Local Order. A decree was sent from the Izhersk Chancellery with a soldier to the typesetter and ordered to find Durmov and interrogate him. In memory of the Local Order. This was not carried out because Durnov appeared in Moscow. Durnov's father-in-law's man was taken, interrogated in the order and spoke about the things he had seen. In May, the owner of the junk himself presented the painting and asked to send a messenger to Kaluga; (Durnov gave part of it to his brother in Moscow in front of witnesses). A decree was sent to the governor - to interrogate and take the junk. The voivode reports: the defendant said that he did not accept any junk. In June 1710, the plaintiff asked to take the defendant to Moscow. June 12, 1710, by decree of the leader. sovereign d. and v. k. Petra Al., v. V. and m. and b. R. s–tsa and by order of the Most Serene Roman and Russian states, Prince of Izhera lands, His Royal Majesty of the states. secret affairs of the Minister and Field Marshal General Alexander Dan. Menshikov - it was ordered from the Izhera chancellery to send a clerk with a soldier to Kaluga - take him with witnesses with a dress and bring him to Moscow on guard. But the plaintiff appeared. Without interrogation, the decision is to amend the claim. For justice, a soldier from the St. Petersburg chancellery (which probably replaced Izherskaya) was sent to Kaluga. On September 26, the defendant’s father beats him with his forehead: my son is in the army and the plaintiff is too, and his brother asked for him in the Izhersk chancellery instead - and the defendant was accused without interrogation; and according to the decree, the army was ordered to beat the forehead in the army. The soldier sent for justice returned with nothing: no one left, and the people did not allow themselves to be taken. A reply was received from the governor in the same sense: “but it is impossible to send more service people, because there are few of them in Kaluga, and they are all in the service in parcels. The plaintiff complains that the defendant is not in the army, but in the village with his father. The defendant's father, being interrogated, said that his son was in the army, and for a time he was sent to Moscow and other cities for service. In October, the resolution was: to send a messenger to Kaluga - to evaluate the estate and take it to court, since from the request submitted to Durnov by a third party (Karpov) it is clear that he lives in the village, and not in the army. The voivode writes: the controversial items were delivered to him by a third party, who had them in storage. In May 1711, the sent soldier filed a complaint that “the governor of the village of Selivanova did not allow me to value it because he asked me for 5 rubles of money. And he, the defendant Ivan Durnov, having arrived in Kaluga from the village, began to tell me that if you come again with any decree, I will order you to be beaten to death. And I verbally beat that commander with my forehead in order to catch him and keep him on guard; and he, the governor, did not say anything to me and ordered me to be exiled from the courtyard.” And the governor (in June) writes that he sent a clerk to the village with service people and pricers; but the elected headman and the peasants did not allow it to be written off and valued, but they said that by deed the village already belonged to Repnin. The plaintiff in December 1711 asks for justice to send the entire case to the Military Main Chancellery. Note: send with memory, leaving a list of the case. In February 1716, the plaintiff asked already in the office of Commissar Affairs. – (Izhersk Chancellery horse table). 1709 Naumov peasant about dishonor against the walking man Lopatin. The plaintiff was the headman of the estate of the steward Naumov, he searched on his own and it does not appear that the permission of the landowner was required. An excerpt from the case about the courtyard of the widow Afimia Andr. Kaftyreva. In the decree of the great sovereign, which was sent from Voronezh on March 3 (1709), it is written: the great sovereign indicated: according to the personal decree of his great sovereign, Colonel Prince. Yurya, Prince Vladimirov's son Dolgorukov, Prince Peter, Prince Mikhailov Dolgorukov, but from the houses of the children of their people do not have to become soldiers; and those who go to their houses - to please and give vacation pay. That great sovereign decree was handed down by Admiral Fyodor Matv. Apraksina. On this basis, Dolgorukov’s people submitted a signature to the Court Order to receive vacation pay. 1709 March 11 “painting for people of the book. Yuri Vladim. Dolgorukov's courtyards, who after his death remained in the house and went to the name of the children of his prince. Yurya and Prince Ivan Yuryevich." There are 18 people on the list; against some it is noted - on the order, against others - sick, against others - in the patrimony. “And besides, the above-mentioned people are not in the house and no one has been sent to other houses.” The cash people gave a fairy tale: .. how they will be given vacation pay from the Judgment Order, and they will give those vacation pay to the children of the deceased prince. Vacation pay was given, according to his tale that he went to the yard to visit Dolgorukov’s children. April 16, 1709. From steward Sheremetev, his fugitive peasant was brought to the Court Order and questioned. During the interrogation, he said, among other things, that he lived on the run for the Miloslavskys, who gave him up as a recruit for their peasants. For this reason, the entire matter was transferred to the Local Order. 1709 Bulgakov about the concealment of a purchased peasant. Here there is a bill of sale of 205, according to which one peasant was bought by two different and alien persons. 1709 May. The case of a runaway peasant woman between Sheremetev and Zezevitinova began in the Court Order. In 1710 it was transferred to the order of Zemstvo Affairs; in January 1711 it was decided. It began with the fact that Sheremetev asked for a soldier to be given from the order to capture a runaway peasant woman. She is brought in and questioned; then the defendant was summoned for questioning. 1709 June 8th One of the defendants brought to the Court order, the peasant Larionov, informed with a verbal petition that when he was brought to the order, on the porch of the Town Hall clerk Belikov took off his doublet, which contained money - 5 rubles. Belikov immediately said that he took off his camisole for a debt. On June 9, Belikov gave a tale that he would be wanted on the 10th, but if he didn’t, then a lawsuit would be filed against him without being wanted. The plaintiff was charged for failure to appear. (Many proceedings end only with a ruling or a statement of rights). 1709 June 21. A man from the landowner Ordin-Nashchokin asks for a vacation pay from the Judgment Order: his master has gone to work for the 10th year and has gone missing; after him there were no relatives left. He is in indentured servitude and is dying of starvation; asks to interrogate his master’s confessor about him. And without the vacation pay from the order, they won’t accept him to live anywhere. The confessor, in questioning before the judges, confirmed for sure that in 700 Nashchokin, leaving for service, ordered him: as soon as God sends him to his soul, order his people to be released; disappeared without a trace and had no relatives left. A fairy tale was taken from a man that he has a wife, but no children except his son. A decree was issued on the 16th (in 11. P. 3. 7) September 199, which also mentions the order of the Serf Court, the place of which in this case was occupied by the Judgment Court. “On June 21, against the decree of the great sovereign, that peasant and his son were sent to the Preobrazhensky Prikaz for inspection,” and on June 22, with the decree of the great sovereign, he was sent from the Preobrazhensky Prikaz to the Judgment Prikaz. The decree says: by decree of the great sovereign from Preobrazhensky sent from Moscow. The court order NN was sent to Moscow for review. The court order is still there.” Vacation pay was then issued. July 8, 1709 Miliukov against attorney Lotarev in battle and dishonor. July 14 interrogation speeches. The plaintiff was given a signature on the article to a third party, and a written note was collected for the defendant. Witnesses have been questioned. On November 21, a note about the decision was made in the Judgment Order, and on March 1710, a note about the plaintiff’s salary was already made in the Zemsky Affairs Order. Extract for the right: summer of the day. By decree of the Great Sovereign, the memory of the order of Zemstvo affairs to soldier N. To add to him the completed case against defendant N and plaintiff N in a lawsuit for battle and for dishonor 55 rubles; and in advance of that claim, add a fee of 5 rubles from that claim of the great sovereign. And having completed those duties and the plaintiffs’ claim, bring it to the order of Zemsky affairs and announce it to the nearby steward Ivan Bolshoi Ivanovich Buturlin and his comrades.” In July 1710, the defendant petitioned for an incorrect decision. Litter: take it to work and put it on the table. July 25, 1709. Petition of the landowner Ivashkin against Mansurov in the Tula and Venev districts for the seizure of land and peasants. In the order of Zemstvo Affairs, judicial speeches began on January 26, 1711. The parties, having been interrogated and not completing the interrogation, postponed January until the 30th. (Delays in speeches also occurred if the speeches were not completed on one day). On January 30th they began and postponed until February 30th. On February 3 they began and, without completing the interrogation, they postponed it. And in the deferred tale it is written: that the defendant will become the evidence, and the plaintiff will have to lay hands on him, as the current great sovereign’s service will pass. And if one of them... like a blowjob... service, does not have a two-month leave, he, the plaintiff, is deprived of the claim, and the defendant is guilty in the claim, having not completed the evidence; and eat up the red tape from both the claim and the Great Sovereign’s duties on the guilty party, and eat up from the beginning of the lawsuit upon completion of the case a hryvnia per day without any dispute. And January 24, 1712, the defendant’s bid petition. Then both parties stood in order to inspect the seal and unseal the case. Before that, the defendant claimed that the plaintiff had returned from service to Moscow and was taking refuge in his home for 2 months; He asked that they send him and take him as an order to open the case, and if he begins to hide, take his man. A soldier was sent and brought a man. Then the plaintiff himself appeared and gave a fairy tale about what would happen on January 23rd. On January 28, 1712, the decision was to refuse the plaintiff for failure to appear according to the fairy tale. Here, instead of Belova’s note, the sentence was rewritten with the note: write it down in a book. This verdict was confirmed by steward Grieg. Grieg. Komynin, namely: write it down in a book. In 1714, the acquitted defendant asked for food. Dismissed from the case. The soldier was awarded and given a certificate of legal authority under the clerk's affidavit. In March 1714, Mansurova petitioned. A Soldier's Tale. Ivashkin takes cover and does not leave the yard. Send a clerk to the yard as ordered. On March 10, Ivashkin said in an order that he would bring money; and if he did not bring it, the sovereign would order the estate and votchina to be described and appraised, and the appraised property should be submitted to suit. But in March 1714 Ivashkin’s son (trick) argues that his case about the peasants and the land should have been carried out not in the order of Zemstvo Affairs, but in the Place; asks to convey. Litter: put on the table. March 24 verdict: dismiss Ivashkin’s claim for forced possession; but it was immediately added: “And in the land and in the peasants, they are in charge of the fortresses in the Local Prikaz for the sake of the fact that in the peasants and in the land the decree is carried out in the Local Prikaz, and not in the order of Zemstvo Affairs. In April 1714, Ivashkin brought money. The duties are handed over to the clerk, and the receipt is recorded by a special clerk in the receipt book. Mansurov left for St. Petersburg, and his wife asked him to give her money instead; issued upon conviction. But on October 9, Mansurov argued that it was in vain that in the verdict of March 24, the subjects of ownership and land were separated and the latter subject was left to be dealt with in the Local Order; The plaintiff also asked for land. On October 30, the verdict was: to be in accordance with the previous verdict, and the verdict on March 24 was set aside, because the plaintiff also asked for land, and not for just one piece of property. In November 1714, Mansurov asked that in future, for the sake of argument, to give him the right copy of the case. I was told to give it. 1709 August 18th Plaintiff, shipbuilder Chaichikov against the stoker Bobrovnikov in abuse and dishonor. The plaintiff did not name a witness, but promised to incriminate the defendant as a witness if he was prohibited. August 20 judgment speeches. The defendant locked himself out. The plaintiff named a witness. The defendant did not communicate not out of unfriendliness, but because he did not know the witness. Ordered to interrogate. The parties are given in the article for a receipt instead of a written entry. The witness said according to the plaintiff. September 22 verdict: plaintiff to be acquitted. The plaintiff’s tale about the salary: the salary is 84 rubles and from the Preobrazhensky order he is given 17 rubles. except for bread wages. On September 28, the defendant made excuses that the witness was a frame-up and spoke falsely and that he, the defendant, was not present during the interrogation. The plaintiff argued that this challenge should not be accepted. October 26 litter: take a fairy tale from the defendant - why did he say during the interrogation that he didn’t know about the witness, but now he knows? After the fairy tale in November, the verdict: refuse the defendant. 1709–1720 in the order of the Zemstvo Affairs about the Polonyannik, later a clerk, Iv. Kharitonov. He was sent to the Zemsky Prikaz from the Ambassadorial Prikaz to satisfy the request for a salary for full years. 1709 October. The claim of Semyon Renov against the Moscow people Voronov for dishonor and confiscation of junk - first in the Court Order, then transferred to the Order of Zemsky Affairs. They delayed it 3 times. The case was with the clerk Chrysanf Fomin. It must have been that in the event of illness or absence of the clerk for whom the work was being done, it was not transferred to another, because there are requests that the clerk has not been on duty for a long time and that the case be transferred to another clerk. Here it happened that between the delays the parties wanted to make peace and called the clerk who had the business to their house, and with him the defendants gave the plaintiff the junk that they had and which the plaintiff had appropriated. The clerk wrote them a receipt of acceptance, but then the plaintiff presented this receipt to the court as evidence of consciousness in the claim. The defendants, considering the case settled, did not appear in court on time, and the plaintiff managed to accuse him of failure to appear. 1709 October 11th Began in the official hut of Pereslavl Ryazan due to the petition of the Krapotkin princes against the Krapotkin neighbors in the ruin of the courtyard, in abuse and in dishonor. On the same date, a clerk was sent with service people to capture and bring in the defendants. He brought some defendants and on October 15 they were interrogated. On the 15th, the memory of the order was given to the servant of the hut, N, to collect the instructions for the plaintiff and the defendants, what to put by them, etc.... This must have been called a list, on the back it was written:. I was the plaintiff N against this list and had a hand in it; witness... who wrote, etc... Then: October 15, 1709 by decree of the great sovereign for a letter and for a note and for an extra page for 5 alt. 2 money per person taken; and this handwritten entry in Pereslavl Ryazan was recorded in the books of serf affairs. Signed by Matvey Grigoriev. Litter in the official hut. Verbal petition. There was a general reference to a witness. The plaintiff, seeing this witness, announced this verbally and asked to bring him in and interrogate him. However, this was written in the form of a petition, signed by the petitioner: to this verbal petition... A witness, Lyapunov peasant Stepan Nikiforov, taken at the plaintiff’s direction at the auction, was interrogated on October 20; in the interrogation it is written that he was interrogated in the official hut in front of the governor and his comrades. He said that on exactly such and such a date he walked past the yard and saw how they were plundering and beating and scolding, etc.; in a word, he completely said according to the plaintiff. In the interrogation it was written between the lines - without reservation - and signed: together with Stepan Nikiforov, he put his hand; but whoever contributed it is not indicated. In July 1710, the defendants beat their foreheads in the official hut: it was as if they had a common reference to that man, only the plaintiff took him to his village and, having taught him, brought him to the city without service people; and at that time the governor was not in the administrative hut: he went to the district. And clerk Kozma Kirillov interrogated the man not in front of judges. And according to the Code, it was ordered that the general exile be interrogated before the judges and the speeches recorded by the old clerk; and he, Kozma, was taken to the official hut to write from the land collection and without a letter (?) and he did not have the opportunity to do such controversial things. He asked to send a person again and interrogate him according to the rules. July 19 litter: he will not be interrogated in front of the governor and he... will be found and interrogated. The orderly's orderly was sent to Lyapunov's village and, taking Stepan Nikiforov with an attesting witness, brought him. On July 30, he was re-interrogated and testified that he did not know or hear anything; and last year, after the Intercession, he fled from his master Lyapunov and came to the man Prince. Krapotkin (plaintiff) through acquaintance and spent the night. And the next day the landowner gave him something to drink and brought him with his man to Pereslavl to an inn, where he spent the night; and the next morning they gave him something to drink again and brought him to the official hut. And on the way, the man persuaded him to tell him according to the plaintiff, in return the landowner would save him from escaping. There was no governor then, but the clerk asked and wrote, which he didn’t say, etc.... (In all interrogations in general, the participation of a priest and a formal oath are not visible. On August 19, 1710, the verdict: to accuse the plaintiff according to the general reference. Then the subject of forgery was separated. It was ordered to find the plaintiff, the person who brought the witness, to the search and with a general reference to confront them in the dungeon; and to inflict punishment on the clerk who interrogated him, beat him: not interrogate without a commander. Tsepina with Maslov. From this it is clear, 1) that the Court Order ruled on the recovery from Tsenin in favor of Maslov for the inventory and assessment and surrender of his estate to the claim. The inventory was made, but the defendant, bypassing the Court Order (“bypassing the real case”), turned to the Siberian Order with a request; and a letter was given from the Siberian Order so that the Maslovs would not be denied that village for him. Tsenin brought that letter to the Printing Order for printing. Then Maslov submitted a petition to the Judgment Order, asking that the Printed Order be informed not to print that letter and send it to the Judgment Order. It has been reported, but no response is visible. 2) Maslov appealed to the Court Order with a request for an inventory of Tsenin’s belongings and movables remaining in his village, for food and red tape. At this request, a clerk was sent by order, and an obedient letter was sent to the governor. But when the plaintiff brought the document for printing to the Printing Order, they stopped printing at the request of the defendant. The plaintiff again asked the Court Order to inform the Printed Office so that it would be sealed and sent. Reported, but no response visible. About vacation pay; similar to No. 8. 1709 in October began in the Judgment Order according to Pyatov’s petition against Dashkov about the peasant. The peasant was given to the plaintiff; he began to look for his wife, children and bellies. A clerk was sent to the village of Dashkov and the plaintiff himself was with him. Here, on the threshing floor, a fight broke out with the peasants of Kryukov; hence the investigation arose in the Tula administrative hut. They awarded dishonor to Kryukov. The case of Pyatov’s petition was taken to the Court Order. (In 1715, in the order of Zemstvo affairs, there was a Zemsky table, where census books were kept for the Moscow courts, indicating the transfers and grounds of ownership and measures. In case of need, inquiries were made with that Zemstvo table through memory: “Let the clerks of the Zemstvo table sign on this - and write about that to the Judgment table.” This was called: “reference letter”). In November 1709, collection began in the Kaluga prison hut on the loan bond issued by the peasants of the Kaluga landowner Kartashov in Bryansk. The soldier was sent out of memory; did not leave and took the right-wing peasants. The driving licenses were given to the headman of Kartashov for signature. In November, the plaintiff attacks the landowner Kartashov in Kaluga in order to extract from him an urgent tale about the delivery of the defendants. Kartashov gave a slip about delivery on time. In December, Kartashov stood at the petition. On December 10, the peasants during interrogation refused the loan and bondage. There were judgment speeches. The plaintiff put down the loan letter and lists and asked to interrogate the scribe and handler. December 13 manual entries for the plaintiff; (not visible from the defendant). In March 1710, one of the peasants was handed over to the headman for signature. On June 12, 1710, correspondence began about the evidence of the loan letter with the Bryansk commandant. “Pyotr Zybin hits Mr. Ivan Alekseevich with his forehead.” There follows a statement of the case, a description of the receipt and those who participated in its preparation, in order to interrogate them. On June 30, a response was received from Bryansk. “Ivan Rzhevsky hits Mr. Pyotr Kirilovich with his forehead.” - Interrogations attached. It turned out that the area clerk who wrote had died; but his son and the handbrake were found and interrogated before the governor. The son (clerk), looking at that receipt, said that it was from his father’s hand. And that receipt was compared with other letters... from his hand, and it turned out to be similar. The handbrake also confirmed it. Upon receipt of the formal reply, the laws were written out in the Kaluga Prison House and it was noted that in August the governor, having listened, sentenced; and what is not visible is interrupted. Apparently there was no decision, because in August 1726 the plaintiff asked for a decision in the office of the Kaluga government. An extract has been made. Decided on June 9, 1728. Here the form of the verdict is more detailed: the circumstances of the case and the explanations of the litigants are stated; it already consists of a copy of the protocol. To carry it out, a soldier is sent to the village of Kartashova to capture the peasants. In December 1709, a case began in the order of the Zemsky Affairs about the courtyard in Stolovaya Street, which remained after Pyotr Zlobin and was in the possession of his widow and after her her second husband, Martin Shestakov. Pyotr Zlobin's brother Zakhary Zlobin demanded this courtyard as an inheritance. There was no trial in this case, but first a certificate was made with the census scribe books of the Zemsky Prikaz about the measure and ownership. There was a note: having found out who now lives in that yard, interrogate. Shestakov appeared and was interrogated. Then there was a thought: to interrogate Zakhary Zlobin - was his niece N married and how long ago did she die? (According to circumstances from Shestakov’s interrogation). Zlobin appeared and was interrogated. Then he presented the fortress when asking. Then, upon discharge, subscriptions were taken from all the clerks to see if they were doing any business about that yard. A clerk was sent to the place and ordered to measure the yard and make a drawing. Then, by re-measuring, the difference with the scribe books was noted. Then various petitions were submitted, an extract was made, and on February 20, 1712, the decision was made: to approve the courtyard for Zlobin and give an extract. In 1712 in the same month, after the death of Martin Shestakov, his cousin Yakov Shestakov asks to approve the court for him. New extract. In 1719, a new petition from Yakov Shestakov in the office of Zemstvo Affairs. Then: in this matter the petitioner said (interrogation); pointed to the new documents. According to this instruction, a new reference was made to the scribe books. May 14, 1719 a new peak, by which the previous one was set aside. The yard is approved for Shestakov. It is remarkable that at the same time the court, examining successive transfers of property and counting the widow's and other parts, also determines the right of those persons from whom there were no petitions, for example: the relatives of the widow of Peter Zlobin for the part that should have gone to her after her first husband. The basis for the decision was taken, regardless of the fortresses represented by the parties, and a certificate of transfer of property with census books. The verdict was signed by Ober Landrichter and two commissioners. (On March 20, 1708, the following decree of the great sovereign was issued in the order of Zemstvo affairs: “if anyone ... will begin to beat with his forehead about the note on deeds of sale and on mortgages or on kinship about escheated yards, and about those yards the clerks will make statements according to the positions, as it should be, this is determined, and in other areas, except for his own level, not to make notes; and to those extracts all the clerks put their hands on those courtyards, disputes and petitions from who has whose. And don’t put those extracts on the court table without the clerk’s hands.” In May 1722, after the death of Yakov Shestakov, his nephew Ilya asked to be approved; The petition is already in the Supreme Court. Discharged from the case; At the checkout, the petitioner said that he is the only heir, and I am not staying closer to him. In September 1722 the verdict; it is no longer said to be a person with his comrades, but the Court of Justice was listening. Approve for Ilya. Signed by one Ober Landrichter. Meanwhile, during the case in 1713, Zlobin sold the house to Kharlamov, who settled in it. A request to compel Kharlamov to leave (act. possess.) was also submitted to the Court. It was ordered to summon Kharlamov and interrogate him. Kharlamov, for his part, submits a petition in refutation. Then in 1725 a new petitioner appears, another nephew of Shestakov, who was in the service during the case. A new statement has been compiled. This is where things break down. From the production of the Shuya orderly hut. When the bailiff was given the list for the collection of the written record, what was the order? The Shuya bailiff on December 2, 1709, before the voivode, said: he went N with him, Stepan, (the defendant) in Shuya on the square and in many places to collect the trash record of November from the 30th to December to the 2nd, and for him, Stepan, no one vouched for that claim; and this December 2, because of his, Petrov, guard, he, Stepan, ran away from Shuya, and instead of him, he took him, Stepanov, a man and brought him to the official hut. In the administrative hut the man was interrogated. Then the plaintiff asked to blame the defendant. The voivode accused the defendant of 1) for the fact that, justifying himself with a regular record, he did not present it to the court; c 2) that when the plaintiff called his entry compound and incorrect, he did not incriminate him in any way; c 3) that he fled without collecting bail. The case was about the seizure of land and peasants between Chikhachov and Khmetevsky. The fleeing defendant stated in the court order that he had unfriendliness with the governor and that he was placed not in Shuisky, but in Suzdal district; then to take the matter into the order, and not order the Shuisky governor to be in charge of any matters. Then the defendant Chikhachov submitted the recording itself to the Court Order; and, moreover, he argued that he presented both her and the guarantor to the governor, but the governor, out of unfriendliness, did not accept her. He also presented a surety on November 30, 1709, recorded at the serf affairs with the certificate of the clerk of the Shuya Prikaz Izba. In the Judgment Order, the voivode’s sentence was set aside, because in the court speeches the defendant asked for a full deadline for the supply of people and fortresses, but he was not given, but should have been given. In such cases, matters were not sent, it seems, to the governor for a new decision, but were turned over in the order itself. The note only says: give time to the plaintiff and defendant. 1709 December. Between Kondyrev and Voinov about the Maslovsky yard, on Kulishki. The case began in March 206 in the Zemsky Prikaz following a petition from the solicitor of the Fodder Palace Voinov about the court of his dear uncle, about his note for him according to the Patriarchal Order. In August 207, Voinov - that the steward Kondyrev lives in that yard and owns it is not known what fortresses - to interrogate him and reclaim the fortresses. The peasant Kondyrev was found and said that his master was in the village of Kolyazni. In January, another peasant was found; said that Kondyrev was in Moscow and was ill. (Search, not trial). Voinov asks to take him with witnesses. A clerk was sent with the lattice clerks as ordered. The clerk wrote in a letter that he went to the yard with witnesses; Kondyrev’s wife came out onto the porch and said that her husband had gone to Vologda, and all the people were sick. The clerk was sent another time. Kondyrev turned out to be ill and said that once he recovered, he would be ready for interrogation. In February, Kondyrev asks: he owns his father’s deed of purchase from Vereshchagin; then there is nothing more to interrogate him about; and let Voinov lay down his fortresses, and then he, Kondyrev, will put his evidence on those fortresses. Litter: interrogate whoever he hits with his forehead and lay down fortresses, and write them out from the deeds of sale books. But it was not written out because there are no fortresses from Kondyrev. But Voinov laid down his own, and it was written against them. In March, Voinov asks: to take Kondyrev and collect guarantees that he will lay down his fortresses and evidence. The old clerk was ordered to interrogate Kondyrev in the courtyard about his fortress and take the list. But Voinov strikes with his forehead: Kondyrev died; interrogate his wife. The wife was questioned outside; She referred to the fact that all the fortresses belong to the solicitor Sumarokov, whose husband ordered his soul. In 1700, the widow was ordered to build fortresses, because Sumarokov was not in Moscow. In July, Voinov asked to interrogate the man Sumarokov, who is involved in the case, and to issue a decree based on the interrogation. On May 30, 1710, the verdict: 1/2 of the courtyard, according to the charter of the Patriarchal Order, should be approved for the Voinovs, and the other 1/2 should be assigned to Kondyrev’s wife for a fortress. In July 1710 Voinov: Vereshchagin’s wife, after Ignatiev’s second husband, has not yet built a fortress; asks to interrogate her husband. In the office of Zemstvo Affairs in 1717 Voinov: the fortress had not yet been established and there was no interrogation; Ignatiev is located in the Tula district. Ordered to send a messenger from the soldiers on our orders to interrogate: does he care about the court? And to be sure, they ordered our man to be with that parcel, so that Ignatiev would not buy off those sent with his intrigue and dacha; and they sent an obedient letter to the Landrat. In August 1717 litter: will... send. In February 1719, Voinov asks: send; not sent yet. Commissioner's mark: if marked, send. In August 1719 Voinov: Ignatiev was not found in Moscow; send him to the village to take him. Secretary's note: write down. But instead of a new extract, it is noted: described in this case above this. 1720 April 5 resolution: send... In July 1720 Voinov: send it! Litter: who is the petitioner, having found and interrogated. In 1723, Voinov asks, it seems, in the Supreme Court, that there used to be an office of Zemstvo Affairs. (The note is made at the top - when it is served; at the end - what to do: after writing it, offer it to the top. Signed by Colonel N and another N). - In April 1725, Voinov writes: the clerk has not yet been sent, but Ignatiev died and left children; send for the children. Note: propose for hearing. In the Nadvorny Court on September 28, 1726, surveyor Ignatiev asks: tell Voinov to talk to Kondyrev’s relatives. Note: propose for hearing immediately. Scheduled. Attached to this extract. January 10, 1727 protocol: take information from solicitor Sumarokov. The authentic one was secured by: Major General Vasily Zotov, Captain Pyotr Tolstoy and Captain Alexey Eropkin. In February 1727, Sumarokov responded: he has no fortresses. In the Moscow provincial chancellery in October 1727, Voinov was asked to interrogate the Kondyrevs, because Ignatiev had made peace with him. Note: from the record made (about the world), take a copy from the serf table. The provincial office communicated with the College of Justice with a report to send a certificate from the Fortress Office. In January 1731, Voinov enclosed a letter from Ignatiev as an assurance of peace in the Judgment Order. 1707 About the leading man whom Basargina brought to the Moscow Court Order, she called her own and sought it out from the landowner Kudryavtsev. Upon questioning, the person brought in was handed over to a third-party townsman for receipt by the plaintiff and the defendant. The horse brought with him was evaluated and the memory of the Moscow Horse Site was given to the collector and his comrades about the evaluation, so that he would be cordoned off with the horse dealers. (Price memory). The dealer appreciated it and put his hand in; the horse was given to the driver for receipt. (Description of the connection between papers in proceedings. The case was always sent with an inventory). Meanwhile, a case against the same man began in the Vladimir clerk's hut at the request of the clerk Topilsky against the landowner Basargin, that he had taken that man from the son of Ivan Filippov by robbery. Basargin was called three times but did not get through; they took people. Then Basargin turned to the Court Order and asked to take the case from the governor. The case was requested; sent in February 1710. In May 1711, Topilskoy asked for execution in the Zemsky order. Then, at Basargina’s request, a certificate was made with the census books of the Local Order about that peasant. The case is described (all by litter). Communication with the Local Order through management. In 1714, the litter: to request Basargina and people for questioning. But detective memory was not found in Moscow; correspondence began with Vladimir. Basargina brought the peasants who were questioned. In August 1714, the decision was made in favor of Basargina (Saltykova and her comrades). The steward sealed the sentence: write it down in the book. Then in 1721, based on Topilsky’s petition, the case was taken to the Nadvorny Court. Given the chaos at that time, such a transfer of the case could serve as a means to postpone for an indefinite period the execution of the appealed decision. So here, after the verdict of 1714, Topilskaya, without paying the awarded costs and red tape, transferred the case to the Court of Justice and did not bother to petition for a decision; and without his intercession no one cared about this. In the Moscow Nadvorny Court in 1721 The vice-president of the Nadvorny Court and the Moscow province, Vice-Governor Voeikov, and the judges of the Nadvorny Court presided. Decrees were sent from the Nadvorny Court to the Zemstvo Chancellery. The case remained pending until 1725. In April 1725, Basargina, pointing out his lack of petition, asked Topilsky to be refused. In June, she points out that the clerk in charge of the case is ill, does not go to the office, and therefore the case lies unproduced. In August he asks for a decision to be made. In June 1726, the Supreme Court ordered the office of the Voivodeship to send Topilsky to submit his hand to the extract. 1711 In the order of Zemsky Affairs of Mansurov about the capture of his runaway girl, who fled from the Moscow district to Kolomensky; a clerk was sent for her. If the clerk who was ordered to go did not go because of illness, then another was not always sent; We see requests to send another clerk. The people were ordered and handed over to the petitioner. This was followed by a request for the elderly and wages. In the order of Zemstvo Affairs. On the collection of a loan from the lien in the absence of the debtor himself; between Moscow people. The case is about a controversial person; accomplished in the official hut of Tula. At the request of the accused defendant, in 1711 he was ordered to be sent to the Zemsky Affairs Department. (Sending the case from the voivode to the order was often slowed down by the fact that the voivode was usually ordered to keep the list of the case). From the Tula governor the case was handed over to the petitioner; and the man, having driven into the village, fell ill. Then the petitioner, having learned about this in Moscow, asked for a deadline in his order to deliver the case. Decisions on violation of deadlines are very common. These terms are mostly illegal, but determined by the parties’ subscription. For example, in the case, Mikhnev undertook to deliver the case and lay down his fortress on time, for failure to provide which the governor accused him. He did not put the fortress in the order at that time, but asked for a certificate to be made with the census books, and for this he was accused, and the governor’s sentence was confirmed. - The case of the peasant was carried out by a search, and the case of elderly money by the court - and was separated (was it always?) from the first. 1711 March 12 Stolnik Levshin, former governor of Krapivensky, against the people of the neighboring boyar Romodanovsky for robbery and robbery in the Krapivensky district. He asked to find Romodanovsky’s man Yakov Knyazev, who is taking care of his business, and to take from him a fairy tale to put on the wanted list of the named people who were involved in the robbery. In the same petition it is explained that the petitioner submitted to Prince Romodanovsky in a letter a well-known report about the search; but he did not accept. In the order of Zemstvo affairs (Grig. Grig. Komynina) there is a note: to find Yakov Knyazev,... in the supply of people... take a fairy tale. On April 12, another petition about the same thing. However, this tale was not taken and there was no search; and on May 7, upon Knyazev’s appearance, there were ordinary interrogation speeches between the plaintiff and the defendant. June 25, handwritten entries in the article on Knyazeva and Levshina. In the interrogation speeches there was a reference to the case being carried out in the Local Prikaz and in the Provincial Chancellery as proof that the parties had a previous unfriendship, a quarrel and a case in the neighborhood on the estate. December 13 message to the Local Order; then on July 4, 1712 to the Provincial Chancellery. In November 1713 Levshin due to the friendship of some judges with Romodanovsky and because now, by the personal decree of Your Majesty “through St. Spirit" such cases were ordered to be handled by the nearby boyar and governor A.P. Saltykov in the Provincial Chancellery - he asks to take the case to the Provincial Chancellery; As a result, the Provincial Chancellery took over the case from the order of Zemstvo Affairs. “Written out on the list.” After the discharge of the litter of 1716: write down the plaintiff’s petition for an increase and decrease in the evidence. And according to the information from the above case about the various speeches of the plaintiff, etc... March 31, 1716, the verdict (of the nearby governor and Moscow governor Kir. Alekseev. Naryshkin with his comrades): to refuse the plaintiff, because he did not support his claim with anything and was discordant in his speeches, and he was not ordered to look for him without red-handed and pagan. milk and so on... and robbery is not ordered to read a neighbor's quarrel; and in the offence, the defendant and the plaintiff are interrogated. – See “Historical and legal. acts of the transitional era of the 17th–18th centuries, collection. K. P. Pobedonostsev." M. 1887, pp. 60–72. 1711 in April in the Zemsky Prikaz the petition of the steward of Prince F. Yur. Romodanovsky. It was given by the man Knyazev, who takes care of business; in the case everywhere he is called a solicitor. One should think that such a petition was always accepted when there was no dispute. A claim about a runaway peasant against steward Levshin. May 31 interrogation speeches. July 9, 1711 Levshin in a petition asks for a delay in presenting the fortresses. The extension was given until August 1. But the note added: to announce this with a note to Romodanovsky’s solicitor. On June 26, Levshin presented the fortresses. Note: send a message to the man of Prince Romodanovsky so that he immediately appears to serve the fortresses; and when he appears, take the real fortresses from Levshin, inspect them, and announce them to the judges. Elsewhere it says: come to the unsealing of fortresses. Consequently, they remained sealed until the appearance of the other party. Copies from the fortresses remained on file with the signature of the presenter. July 10 manual entries. On the part of the plaintiff, the entry is according to Knyazeva, and not according to Romodanovsky. In September, Knyazev asks the Local Prikaz to deal with the previous case, from which Levshin’s untruth is visible. Administration to the Local Order. Answer with a certificate from the case of runaway peasants; in this case, a man and a woman were given a confrontation in the dungeon, according to their different testimonies, and the case was called an investigation. In December 1711, a certificate from the Moscow Provincial Chancellery. In 1712, by means of a question letter to the Zemsky Affairs Order, a certificate was made from the Judgment Table with the Serf Table about an extract from the books of the former Serf Order, the cases of which were transferred, apparently, to the Zemsky Order. 1716 March 20th Vershenye (Governor Naryshkin and his comrades): accuse the defendant. In January 1717, Levshin’s man asked the Provincial Chancellery to reverse the matter (complaining about Landrichter Pavlov). Litter (the petition was sent from the army on plain paper): having accepted the money for stamp paper... make an extract;.. and take a fairy tale from a person - does he have the landowner's permission to argue about those accomplished matters? The tale of the man Peter: he filed a petition with the knowledge of the landowner, and when the landowner leaves the service, he himself will bring evidence to that end; but he, Peter, will not answer without his landowner and he is not ordered to argue about that matter and he does not have a believing petition. (See ibidem). 1711 In the Order of Zemstvo Affairs. About the dishonor and battle of the petition of a boyar peasant who traded in Moscow against another of the same kind; ended in peace. In the order of Zemstvo Affairs. May 31, 1711 foreigner Paul Westhoff against Krasnoselets (vegetable row) Semyon Fedorov about borrowed money for bondage. He writes that he petitioned the big Moscow customs office for the same thing, but the decree was not carried out; and now all sorts of executions are ordered to be handled in the order of Zemstvo affairs. The found defendant was given guard duty to the elder. (The procedure for execution and collection could change due to the contractual conditions of the parties; for example, in this case, the defendant, cited in the order, gave a fairy tale that he would bring money on such and such a date; and if he did not bring it, then pay twice, and if there was nothing, then describe his yard and goods in the lawsuit). So, according to the delay and according to the plaintiff’s petition, the order is to send a clerk to the vegetable row by order, order the defendant’s shops and goods under the headman and that row of merchants to be sealed until the decree and order that headman and that row of guards to take care of them. And his courtyard, the defendant, and all his belongings, having been copied, be sealed before the decree in the presence of witnesses and order him, the defendant, to be brought to the decree; and if he is not in the house, take his son.” (In the order of the Moscow province, the governor is Chief Commissioner Vas. Sem. Ershov and his comrades). The clerk took zemstvo soldiers with him; he sealed the shop, but did not inventory the goods, because the headman asked for a special decree about the inventory; in the courtyard the mansion and courtyard buildings were rewritten. The defendant's son was brought in; a fairy tale has been selected: his father is in debt to the sovereign in a large customs house. On June 13, the plaintiff asks to describe and evaluate. On June 14, the defendant appeared and said there was nothing to pay. A clerk was sent by order to evaluate it in front of the headman and the local merchants through the ordinary people. The plaintiff was there and agreed on some things with the defendant and what time to accept them; such things were no longer valued. On June 20, a petition was filed in the Zemsky Prikaz of the Cesar Land by the merchant Miller against the same Fedorov about the debt for the dishes sold to him (without bondage). - On July 2, Fedorov was interrogated against this and said that Miller definitely sold him 7373 vessels, but for how much he did not remember; must be listed in the Moscow Big Customs; Yes, there are milking duties and barn money on it at the Moscow customs. It was ordered to issue a certificate with the order of the Big Treasury. Meanwhile, Fedorov’s contractual deal with Westhof on the price of the ware (from steward Komynin) was ordered to be set aside due to the fact that there are other claims that will not be paid with. And according to the judge’s testimony, he, Westhof, gave 2 altyns, 2 money, for that dishes; and if he gives you 2 altyns of 4 money, then give it to him. And take duties from all the defendant's belongings according to calculation. This proposal was presented to Westhof at home through a clerk; he agreed. Here in July the 3rd plaintiff of the Alekseevskaya Sloboda, Vasily Lazarev, appears: the defendant Fedorov (Panin) owes him, and on him, Lazarev, there is a tax for non-delivery in the order of the Artillery and in the Izhora Office of Uniform Affairs; and the dishes were ordered to be given to Westhof. He asks not to give it away, but to give it to him; and he is ready to add one money per vessel above the estimate for dishes, and 10 rubles for vegetable goods. In August 1711, Miller asks the following money to be handed over to the secretary of the Caesar's embassy, ​​Males do Verly (220 rubles). In September 1711, Westhoff's wife Sophia W. refutes Lazarev's claim: that all deliveries are made with guarantees and the lieutenants must answer; and besides, Lazarev is related to the defendant and conspired with him; foreigners were also ordered to be satisfied first. An extract has been compiled. In September 1711, there was a note: to send an old clerk with forest price tags to evaluate the Fedorov yard in truth and to evaluate the bellies of good trading people in front of outside noble people. The memory of the glassware was sent to the head of the vegetable row, so that, taking the best trading people, he would bargain for the vegetable goods and glassware beyond the markup - who gives what; but in the case of trading, whoever gives more from that valuation or no one will take into account trading, and you should give the knowledge of this for your own and the trading people’s hands. In October, the headman's review: repaired the bargaining of the above-mentioned trading people; but they didn’t take it, they said it wasn’t necessary. Signatures of the headman and those trading people. In August 1711, Lazarev asked to take the case to the Provincial Chancellery. The provincial chancellery requires jurisdiction over the matter; (in the Provincial Chancellery is the chairman the same Ershov?). On September 5, the case was sent. In August 1711 the fourth plaintiff is a Kadashevite Zubkov: he, together with Fedorov, bought dishes from Miller at customs and transferred the duties to himself. All Fedorov took that goods from him and undertook to pay duties, but did not pay, and now they rule on him, Zubkov; let Fedorov respond with goods. On September 25, the Provincial Chancellery asks the order of Zemstvo Affairs: what is Westhof’s debt to a serf or non-serf, and not to give any belongings to the claim without a decree from the Provincial Chancellery. At all times, the debtor was kept in the order among the convicts. October 26 Sophiae Westhoff petition for preferential satisfaction. November 2, 1711 verdict: the yard, belongings and goods are to be valued and sold at free trade; cope with customs: is there a duty on the defendant of 210 rubles? And if there is, and from the above money, from the yard and property, take from the plaintiffs the sovereign's duties in full, and customs duties of 210 rubles; and the rest to the claim of the foreigners Westhof and Miller, from the rest to Lazarev. And if the claim against the foreigner is not enough, then divide the foreigners against their claim: Westoff for 800 rubles. 2 shares, Miller for 405 rubles. and with what was paid to him according to the calculation, give him a third. And Lazarev and Zubkov should deal with Fedorov, for they were ordered to settle the debts of foreigners first. And if the plaintiffs take the property from the auction, then first take the duties. Lazarev asks to give priority to his claim because the government debt must be paid from it. Then the case was again sent to the order of Zemstvo affairs. After new requests from the plaintiffs in the order of Zemstvo affairs, the verdict: November 1712, 29: the yard and property, and the goods should be rewritten and assessed at the merchant's fiscal and according to the assessment in the order of Zemstvo affairs, we want to give bargaining to people with a note. Take first the duties, then Lazarev's money, which goes to the treasury, and from the rest satisfy the foreigners, first Miller, then Westhof, since he, Pavel Westhof, is a Moscow resident and is counted among the Moscow residents in the hundreds (as it turned out according to a certificate from the Town Hall). At Miller's request, the case was requested to the Senate office. January 10, 1713 Senators Grigory Andreevich Plemyannikov, Mikhail Mikhailovich Samarin and Raspravny Cases judges sentenced: to appoint bargaining in the Senate office; correct first Miller, and then Westhof and Lazarev; and according to Lazarev there should be lieutenants. Signed by: Nephews, Samarin and Dmitry Protasov. For execution, memory was given to the fiscal and the Senate clerk. According to the inventory of the yard, they ordered the neighbors to take care of it and sign on the gate: whoever wants to buy that house, so that they come to the Senate office. Whoever came to the Senate office announced the price and gave a fairy tale. According to the fairy tale, the senators ordered to ask the headman of Kadashevskaya Sloboda: do they need that yard? And when you don’t need it, sell it at auction. Tales of eager people in the Senate: June 11, August 1, August 20; more, more, more, August 21st. In 1713, Miller asked the Senate: not to deduct from the proceeds the duties that follow from the claim of Westhoff and Lazarev. Judicial fees (court, trial, right ten) were taken according to the Code. In August 1713, the Senate granted the request, because Westhoff and Lazarev would not yet be satisfied. Then the announcement of the extra charge for dishes and goods was also in the Senate and in the same order, due to a sheet nailed in the Senate. – Feedback from the plaintiffs was selected to see if anyone would like to keep it at the last price; refused. Upon approval of the sale, the property was unsealed and handed over to the chief fiscal Mikhail. Zhelyabuzhsky, and provincial fiscal Stepan Shepelev, and fiscal Stepan Vasiliev. In October 1713, the Town Hall, in a report to the Senate office, made another demand from Fedorov for renting a shop. The Senate already has Secretary Lyubim Sudeikin. Extracts for each new request. The one who bought the yard, at his request, was given ownership of it from the office of the Senate. Senate resolutions on such issues are made in notes. (See “Historical and legal acts of the 17th–18th centuries,” pp. 203–204). 1711 March 1st. In the order of Zemstvo Affairs. Deacon Timofey against Ivan Petrov in abuse and dishonor. Plaintiffs very often do not indicate the rank of the defendants, but write: “I don’t know what the rank is”; their residence is almost never mentioned. Probably, these items were determined by the verbal explanation of the plaintiff with the bailiff who was sent for the defendant (the steward of Gr. Gr. Komynin). The defendant was found the next day; turned out to be a medical student of the Pharmacy Order. May 2 speech. The speeches here consisted of several lines, because there was a reference to the general truth. May 8 – manual entries. After the court speeches, they were written out in full: the law was summed up and notes were made about further orders of the court, for example: to interrogate the general exile. The general link showed that the abuse was in absentia. On June 12, the plaintiff was denied under the article about the guilty. 1711 June. In the order of Zemstvo Affairs, Romodanovsky, (again Prince Solicitor), against Levshin in holding his wife, whom he took by force. June 18 manual entries. Correspondence with the Local Order and the Order of Serf Affairs, with the Serf Table. The petition is marked: take it to the point, if it is not written in a political manner. When a petitioner complained about transferring a case from one clerk to another due to unfriendliness, for the most part they simply ordered the case to be taken over by another clerk; and here they are ordered to interrogate the petitioner, what kind of unfriendliness is this. Is it because the petitioner’s opponent was Prince Romodanovsky? In this case, the defendant added the vacation pay to the file, but the plaintiff lied and called it a compound one. The defendant lied to the plaintiff's record and beat his forehead about the search by the scribe and witnesses and the certificate with the (Serf) order. In 1718, the verdict in the office of Zemsky affairs: the plaintiff was acquitted. Signed by: clerk Vasily Drukovtsov, clerk Nikifor Druzhinin, commissar Mikhei Nebolsin. July 1711 in the Zemsky Prikaz (Ershov). Foreigner Semyon Kandybin on Sadovaya Sloboda Tychinin in borrowed money for bondage. The defendant did not go to interrogation, but signed a subscription to bring money for a period. According to this tale, it was ordered that the defendant be given a receipt on good bail. In August, the plaintiff requests recovery for the delay; and it was ordered to exact it from the lieutenants. In the order of Zemstvo Affairs. Deacon of the Office of Uniform Affairs Iv. Lebedev caught and brought his fugitive peasant. From the book Khovansky. It began in 1711 in the order of Zemstvo affairs about the fugitive peasants of Toropov and Vrassky in the Dmitrov district. In this case, a reference was made to the proceedings of the Military Chancellery and a certificate was issued with it, from which it is clear that in the Military Chancellery in 92 (1684) a trial was held on the claim of Grigory Vrassky against Nikita Gorodetsky about fugitive peasants. On what basis jurisdiction was determined in this case is not noticeable; but the trial was carried out according to the general procedure. Of all the proceedings I have examined, it is not clear whether and in what order the bails were collected during the preliminary proceedings based on the attached memory; but from this certificate in the office it is clear that upon submission of the additional memory, a list was also drawn up for the defendant to give bail when appearing in court. Here the defendant in court speeches says: “in the list, according to which, instead of an additional memory, it was ordered to collect a written record, Vedorkina’s daughter-in-law is not written, but it is written in the claim.” From this the defendant deduces an increase and a dissimilarity in faces. To this, the plaintiff objects: “then he, the plaintiff, is not evidence, because from him, the plaintiff, to him, the defendant, in his lawsuit, the plaintiff, instead of an additional memory, his petition, the plaintiff, and against that of his, the plaintiff, the petition was ordered to collect on him, the defendant, a surety record for the court; and his, the plaintiff’s, petition is similar to his claim, the plaintiff’s, petition in his claim, the plaintiff’s, similar”... Here the plaintiff distinguishes between the “plaintiff’s petition” and the “claim petition.” 1713. Rank affairs were in this year, apparently, under the jurisdiction of the Senate, because for reference with the Rank books, the order of Zemstvo affairs was presented as a report to the Senate office. In October 1714, the verdict was in the order of Zemsky Affairs (Moscow Governor Saltykov). But Saltykov was also in the Moscow Provincial Chancellery. In March 1715 the son of the accused defendant Vrassky, who was at that time on the right of the order, hits the top of the Zemsky order with his forehead to the same Saltykov, who was in St. Petersburg at that time, or hits the king with his forehead, and the request was transferred to Saltykov (?); at least, a note on the request was made in St. Petersburg on behalf of Saltykov by clerk Savostyan Germanov. In Vrasskaya’s request, (corporal of the Preobrazhensky regiment, son of the defendant), he complains that the steward Chirikov wrongly and out of unfriendliness accused him of ordering Zemstvo affairs and asks to take the case to St. Petersburg. Litter. According to the decree, Saltykov “ordered: this petition should be sent to Moscow to the gentlemen of the landrators, so that they would order this case and the case of the convicts to be taken from the Zemsky Prikaz to the Provincial Chancellery, and to make an extract from it with a genuine clearing for the arrival of the governor; and that case was not completed before the arrival of the governor, and the villages were not handed over to the lawsuit before the decree. And his father, Petitioner, ordered to be given bail." The case was taken to the Provincial Chancellery upon the arrival of Saltykov on July 6, 1715. beats his forehead about the accomplishment; but in the Provincial Chancellery Saltykov and his comrades ordered: to send the case again to the order of Zemstvo Affairs and to issue a decree to the Landrichter and his comrades in the order of Zemstvo Affairs. In the order of Zemstvo Affairs, where the petition was sent, Commissar Mikhei Nebolsin made a note on it. In 1715, a second decision was made in the Zemsky Prikaz, consistent with the first, with the difference that in the first the entry on which Vrasskoy was based was found to be false, but responsibility for forgery was not mentioned; and in the second decision it was proposed to carry out a decree for theft and a letter was sent to the Moscow landrat Komynin about the expulsion of Vrassky from the village (the Moscow governor was Kirill Alekseevich Naryshkin). - From the Provincial Chancellery to the Zemstvo Prikaz, management of affairs, from the Zemstvo Prikaz to the Provincial Chancellery, reporting. 1711 In the order of Zemstvo Affairs (Ober-Commissar Ershov) Kadashevets Popov against the peasants of Volynsky undergrowth for a penalty under a contract. Instead of the peasants, the answer was Volynsky’s man, who takes care of business. Vershenye 1712 (Moscow governor Prince Mikhail Grigorievich Romodanovsky). 1711 In the order of Zemstvo Affairs. About dishonor and battle; ended peacefully. 1711 The clerk, a messenger from the order of Zemsky affairs to the estate of Miloslavsky to inspect and compress the disputed grain, was beaten by disobedient peasants and fugitive soldiers. The Zemsky Prikaz reported those fugitive soldiers to the Provincial Chancellery so that a decree could be issued about them. 1711 In the order of Zemstvo Affairs. Turov and Timofeeva about unpaid money for the house. It began in 1711 in the order of Zemsky Affairs - Ignatiev with Prince. Troekurova about runaway peasants. Judgment on March 31, 1715 in favor of the plaintiff for the elderly money. A legal statement was given to the soldier for execution. Troekurova’s man was brought in for justice; he survived the indicated numbers. The plaintiff asks to find Troyekurova’s man, who takes care of business, and take a fairy tale to see if she has anything to pay her with. A detective memory was given to a soldier who did not find anyone. Then in 1719, at the request of the plaintiff, it was ordered to send a clerk. But according to the prepared order, there was no parcel for the fact that the plaintiff does not go about that business and the tales from her man, the defendant, who goes about the business, were not taken from the litter. And then on August 19, 1719, a man was sent from the garrison to the office of Zemstvo Affairs to take care of business. From the All Saints Gate he was led to the office of the Moscow garrison by a guard soldier and with him the man who indicated him, Ignatievsky; This last one shouted to the guard, “and for what, he will say at the note.” The tale was taken (in the garrison) from the driver and from the driver (does not know). The paper about this was called a privod: the privodets (driver) put his hand in. On August 20, the Moscow chief commandant Ivan Petrov Izmailov, listening to this drive, ordered: take the drive money and send people to the office of Zemstvo Affairs. (In 1719, in the Office of Zemstvo Affairs - Privy Councilor Senator, President of the College of Justice, Count Andrei Artemonovich Matveev and his comrades. In 1720, in the Nadvorny Court, the foreman of the Moscow province, Vice-Governor and Vice-President of the Nadvorny Court, Ivan Lukich Voeikov with comrades, of the Office of Zemstvo Affairs, Ober-Landrichter Ivan Petrovich Topilsky and 3 assessors). In 1724, this case was decided in the Supreme Court. 1711 In the order of Zemstvo Affairs. Kruchinin against Zakharov for helping scammers steal 20 rubles from him. There was a trial and speeches. The case of prisoner Kolesnikov in a lawsuit against the merchant Levin, whose shop he was sitting in. In the order of Zemstvo affairs, 1711 began on April 20. The claim was that when Levin released Kolesnikov from him, he arbitrarily decided to keep him in the shop without him being there at night, scolded and beat him and took various things that outsiders had deposited with him for savings, including one hundred rubles. April 26 judgment speeches. Then the order questioned dozens of witnesses. On August 18, 1711, the verdict was made: the plaintiff should be freed in battle. And as for the 100 rubles, how the defendant defended himself, saying that he paid with this money in front of the witnesses and that the plaintiff did not tell him that that money was someone else’s - the witnesses said that in front of them the plaintiff mentioned other people’s bellies, and not about money - the witnesses, in any case, testified about the bellies, therefore, their testimony cannot be a complete exoneration of the defendant (not a justification for the defendant, but the plaintiff is not to blame), and therefore create faith in that money; especially since the defendant went to the shop alone, although it was sealed by both of them, and, having opened it without the plaintiff, put another man in it, etc. Levin complained about this verdict in September 1711 in the Moscow Provincial Chancellery that the judge Lavr Chicherin (and in the verdict Ershov and his comrades are indicated), administered a week in addition to the interrogation of a general exile of one hundred rubles marked faith. The case was ordered to be taken to the office of the Moscow province (the same Ershov was in the Moscow Gubernia office). December 23, 1711 a new verdict (Ershova and her comrades, probably in the Provincial Chancellery): put aside faith, the general reference showed that the seals were removed on both sides, therefore, the plaintiff did not go to the store without the defendant and he had nowhere to get that kind of money; the goods for correspondence from the shop were laid out by a third party according to their preference, the goods were also copied by a third party favorite, and the money was 100 rubles. did not appear, and the plaintiff did not announce them at the correspondence. And therefore, “there is no point in causing harm to souls.” It seems that for execution the case was transferred back to the order of Zemsky Affairs, because on January 1712, 31, in this order Levin gives a signature on the bringing of money and duties awarded from him under other articles, and the defendant gives a tale about his article (for dishonor). And in February 1712 we see that by decree of the sovereign and by order of the governor, Prince Mikhail. Romodanovsky and his comrades in Kolesnikov’s petition were ordered to take the case to the Provincial Chancellery. Levin, for his part, submits requests so that they are not ordered to believe the plaintiff and that the money from him, Levin, has already been added to the order. November 3, 1712 a new sentence, where it is not visible (Romodanovsky and his comrades, must be in the Provincial Chancellery): to be according to Ershov’s previous sentence of August 18 - give faith. The plaintiff said about the luggage, but whoever knows about that luggage did not write; and besides faith, there is nothing to separate. And what is said in the second verdict that the witnesses did not hear the plaintiff talking about money when transferring the goods, clerk Nikifor Druzhinin noted without actually inquiring, because he, the plaintiff, had no reference to a hundred rubles. there were no witnesses, but a reference in the product; and leave that litter aside. And the verdict does not have the hands of Vice-Governor Ershov and other comrades; and to the faith to write a memorial of the cross to the Archangel Cathedral by decree. In January 1713, the case was taken to the Senate office. In the Senate, Kolesnikov was given to a third party to sign the article but all days (When the written notes in the article could not be collected, the person was given to sign). Levin asks in Sepat, pointing to new evidence - a prison record. March 30, 1713 the verdict in the Senate (Plemyannikov, etc.): to refuse 100 rubles to the defendant, and the verdict of Ershov, which Kir noted. Chicherin, and Romodanovsky’s sentence, which Chirikov noted, should be set aside and faith should not be given; and to be the same as the clerk Druzhinin. For the same reasons. From the extract it is clear that the case was submitted to the Senate from fiscal affairs. There is a copy of the report from the fiscal affairs on the judges of the Zemsky Prikaz, on Kirill Chicherin and Iv. Chirikov “convicted of their wrong judgment and marks” (an example of prosecutorial supervision). “The Honorable One rules. Report to the Senate from fiscal affairs. And on the judges.... and so on.. End: and their wrong judgment and markings according to this fiscal conviction were clearly revealed, for which they are subject to the points of the decree; and that’s the case with the same report. And that's what the Rules say. Senate, whatever they please. December 22, 1712. Signed by registrar Ivan Baroneev. Litter: 1712 December 22. Having written the case in the book, examined it, accept it. 1711 October 10. The case of a runaway peasant woman. It began with a drive from the Amusement Dvor to the Zemsky Affairs Department, where there was a petition in person about the escape of a girl with theft. But it turned out that this girl on the run married a dragoon of the Siberian province. This dragoon made a request to the Main Military Chancellery to take the case there. The Military Chancellery demanded a file from the Zemsky Prikaz in order that the dragoons and soldiers were in charge of all sorts of affairs in the Military Main Chancellery. They also demanded a file about another runaway girl - the dragoon's sister-in-law - from the outgoing yard, which was in charge of Prince Yeletsky. In the Military Chancellery (Captain Yuri Stepanovich Neledinsky-Meletsky), after interrogations, a note was made on February 11, 1712: to send the case to the Siberian Prikaz, so that her husband would be reported to the Siberian Prikaz. But instead, the case was sent on May 16 to the Zemsky Affairs Department, because all sorts of investigative cases were carried out there. There, the plaintiff was required to provide fortress for the runaway girl. 1714 March 14 top; ordered to collect 50 rubles for bearable stomachs. in favor of Zarudnev from the sister of the runaway girl Anna, who kept her and married her off. This Anna said that she had nothing to pay, and was given away to live through Zemsky in the presence of witnesses. Duties were also collected from Zarudneva. (Petition from Zarudneva, chamber of soldier’s graphic affairs). 1711 In the order of Zemsky Affairs, claim; made up. Chertsov, Chertsov's heirs, about 500 rubles. against a housekeeper who was registered in their father’s shop. He fled with the money; there were lieutenants left (Yakovlev), who undertook to pay the loss according to the fairy tale. They presented a record of hiring and a receipt for receiving 500 rubles. for the purchase of goods. The lawsuit began on November 30, 1711 in the Court Order of Merchant Affairs (before Chief Commissioner Ershov and his comrades). December 6, judgment speeches. The defendant, by the way, did not believe the receipt that her sheet was cut and asked to examine it, because it should contain a receipt for the payment of 200 rubles. December 10 bail in the article. At the end it is written out: but this case is a serf matter and the defendant, having listened to the plaintiff’s petition and looking at the fortresses, did not argue with anything. Survey. 1712 February 13 (Romodanovsky and his comrades) litter: receipt... what kind of circumcision is... to have that order of the merchant affairs of Sudny certified by the burgomaster and clerks. On February 15, before the boyar Romodanovsky and his comrades, Burgomaster Fed issued the above receipt to that order. Kozmin with his comrade Vasily Gorsky and the clerks (6) testified...: that receipt of Nisan in Moscow for serf affairs, letters from the hand of the clerk N, written on the field by the hand of the overseer - taken, etc. And according to the testimony of that fortress, the signing does not mean anything, only at that fortress the sheet was glued and cleaned up...; the sheet on which the fortress is written is shorter in that respect than the other sheets. February 16th verdict: plaintiff to be acquitted; the truncated words did not appear. In October 1712, Cherntsov, in the Provincial Chancellery, attacked another lieutenant, Kormilitsyn. In March 1713, Kormilitsyn appeared and there were new judgment speeches. June 20th verdict: accuse Kormilitsyn. Kormilitsyn submits a petition, involving Artemy Yakovlev in the case, that he used the property of the direct debtor and asks for the receipt to be re-examined. And Chertsov pointed out that this petition was submitted to the populist and that this was a serf matter, which should be resolved through the fortresses, and not through a search. A new statement has been compiled. September 1714 verdict in the Town Hall: refuse. Kormilitsyn presented another receipt and asks to interrogate Artemy Yakovlev. In August 1716, a new verdict (Kir. Alex. Naryshkina with comrades) in the Town Hall (Provincial Chancellery?): refuse. The new receipt was rejected because it was written as a “blank article” and not on stamped paper. But there is nothing to testify, because in serf affairs one must judge by fortresses, and not by search; Yes, and you are not told to take popolyki. Signed by three burgomasters. The correct transcript was given to the Town Hall policeman. In October 1716, Kormilitsyn asked to take the case to the Provincial Chancellery, complaining about the Town Hall and the burgomasters. Ordered to take the case. In September 1716, Kormilitsyn asked to interrogate Yakovlev at the Town Hall. Litter: having found, interrogate. On September 22, Yakovlev was found, but he did not go into interrogation and did not give a tale. He was ordered to be kept in the order. On September 26, he complained that Kormilitsyn had not gone to work for seven days; asks his bid to be written down and so that he, the plaintiff, can be accused of being late. But Art. Yakovlev turned out to be a tannery kisser. The Cavalry Uniform Office reported that the sovereign's cause was behind him, and demanded his release from the Town Hall. According to the certificate with the decrees, it turned out - in the note book of 208: “according to the personal decree of the great sovereign and according to the report extract: whoever will strike the bailiffs in their lawsuits and will not accept petitions against them in the present years and will give reprisals against them during those times when they are free from fees.” Sent to the uniform office. Then in 1734 a petition from Chertsov appeared in the Judgment Order. It is clear from the petition that the case also went to the Supreme Court. The Court Order states... Until 1740, Kormilitsyn was summoned to assault. In 1741, Kormilitsyn complained to the College of Justice about the decision of the Court Order. 1712 In the Zemsky Prikaz. - About vacation pay from the order. The review took place in the Military Chancellery. 1712 In the Zemsky Prikaz. Telepnev against Epishkov, living in Aleksinsky district, for the recovery of damages under the terms of the supply of grain to Novgorod. According to Epishkov, three letters of invitation were sent to the Aleksinsky governor; At first he was excused by the service, then he appeared at the Zemsky Prikaz and, due to an amicable reprieve, overstayed his time, for which he was accused on August 7, 1712. A letter about his right was sent to the Aleksinsky commandant Golokhvastov. And when Golokhvastov reported that he sent twice, did not leave, and his people did not give in and came out with a club, then at the request of the plaintiff (and according to the extract) it was marked: report to the governor. A report was sent to the Provincial Chancellery. On December 18, 1713 there was a note: to send another letter: it was ordered to correct it, and to inflict punishment on the disobedient peasants; and if Epishkov hides from payment, then proceed according to paragraphs 1711 under Article 62. urgently, without unsubscribing. For the establishment of Landrat in the cities, Telepnev asks to send a letter to the Aleksinsky Landrat. July 26, 1716: send to the landrat. In February 1719 the brother of the deceased Epishkov in the Zemstvo Chancellery asks: the landrat did not take his brother’s fairy tales - is there anything to pay; and in 1718, Landrichter Shepelev and Commissioner Shirshin appraised the estate and patrimony and gave it to Telepnev for claim, without selling it at auction. He asks (at the Zemstvo Chancellery) to return the estate to him and presents the amount of recovery. An extract was drawn up, in which it is said, among other things, that the landrat did not write anything about what he did by decree, and did not send duty money and inventory and price books. Then they found Telepnev to put his hand on the inscription. On March 3, the soldier said that he had not found him in Moscow. March 11, 1719 verdict (Landrichter Topilsky and his comrades): accept the money and give the property to the petitioner; about refusal to send a decree to the Landrat. Signed by: Topilsky, clerks Druzhinin and Drukov; Commissioner Nebolsin handled the matter. (The Zemstvo Chancellery was headed by Senator, President of the College of Justice Count Andr. Art. Matveev). July 15, 1719 Landrat Shepelev’s signature (signed by the commissar. Shirshin about the execution “sent a clerk for the inventory and refusal.” Attached are the refusal books; given, which was issued by Shepelev to Telepnev on October 26, 1718 on the estate for a claim with the collection of court fees; at the end of it it says: “Telepnev and his wife and children will own it until the decree of the great sovereign and until the ransom.” In 1720, Epishkov asks: the estate was refused, but the dacha behind it does not appear in the office of Patrimonial Affairs; asks the abandoned books and a copy of the file to be sent for notification to St. Petersburg to the office of Patrimonial Affairs. Sent on December 27 with a report from the State Justice Collegium to the adviser and the Patrimonial Chancellery, Judge Afanasy Andreev Korovaev and his comrades. In January 1724 and 1725, the widow of the deceased (formerly) Epishkov asked in the Court of Justice for a part of that estate for herself. The court sent the case to the Patrimonial Office. 1712 In the order of Zemstvo affairs. About vacation pay after the death of clerk Kaptyaev from his wife (living in Arzamaz district). The petitioner in the tale testified that he entered Kaptyaev into indentured servitude with Matveev’s vacation pay. A certificate was made with bonded books; but no information was issued about Kaptyaev’s death and his wife was not interrogated, and the petitioner was not sent to the Military Order, because he was old - 70 years old. A vacation pay was issued and, moreover, it was added: and the widow Kaptyaeva, if it were before him, Ivan, the matter would be, and she would be interrogated in the fortresses. (Decree of May 21, 1700; also dated April 24, 1702. Not found in the Complete Collection of Laws). 1713 In the case of a girl and dishonor between the widow of clerk Ushakov and the quitrent peasant of the village of Pokrovsky, Fyodor Lukyanov. Each side appropriated the girl for itself and each submitted a payment and release document for her from one person - the Kashin landowner Alexei Grebenkin. There was a search for the girl. They appointed applicant Grebenkin. He sided with Lukyanov and refused the fortress that was issued on his behalf to Ushakova. Grebenkin was kept in custody at all times and was not released. The scribe who wrote that fortress on the porch of Nikola Golstunsky, Alaberdeev, was summoned and interrogated. He testified that he definitely wrote in the personal presence of the applicant. The man under that fortress was also called and showed him too. Then Grebenkin was ordered to confront him with a scribe and handbrake. Grebenkin did not go at first, saying that he was in the St. Petersburg province and not in Moscow. The confrontation took place in front of the clerk. The scribe and the handler confirmed their words and stood in front of the clerk for a long time; but Grebenkin still did not go and did not incriminate them in any way. During the case, the scribe and handbrake submit petitions with evidence to Grebenkin. This case was carried out in the Zemstvo Chancellery, where it was transferred from the Zemstvo Prikaz. But, as you can see, there was a previous case about the same girl, carried out in the order of the Great Palace, probably because the defendant was a quitrent peasant. So, at that time, peasants and townspeople owned serfs. However, the plaintiff Ushakova in one request indicates that such possession is illegal and prohibited by decrees. At the very beginning, the defendant tried to give this case a different turn, presenting the girl as if red-handed, as having run away from him to Ushakova with theft. That's how it was. On June 23, 1711, the widow of clerk Ushakova was traveling along Sretenka in a carriage with her daughter; A girl was walking near the carriage. Near the Church of the Presentation, several people suddenly approached, stopped the carriage and grabbed the girl. The girl grabbed the carriage. The lady in the carriage grabbed the girl, not letting her go. But the girl was torn away and taken away. One man stayed and began to scold the lady as a thief and a cheat, and her daughter as a puppy and a bastard. There were witnesses returning from Sretensky Monastery after mass and procession. Hence Ushakova’s claim for a whore and dishonor. The scolder was, apparently, Lukyanov. On January 22, 1711, she began her actions; and on January 30, Lukyanov began, for his part, explaining that the girl ran away from him and stole it, and that he caught her red-handed - his dress, taken off by her, and brought her to the Amusement Court and asked her to interrogate and find her. The verdict was pronounced on November 12, 1713, against the defendant. About his refusal to be confronted, it is said: “if he, Alexey, was truly from the St. Petersburg province and he, Alexey, should not have been in the first interrogation, in which he said that the girl Fekla was surrendered to him by the plaintiff.” About the salary of the plaintiff’s husband, the clerk Tsvylev gave a fairy tale about her household affairs. In 1714, the accused defendant, a former quitrent peasant, found himself “in the priesthood of the Church of the Introduction, which is in Semyonovsky,” and therefore the memory of the exaction (right) of dishonor from him was sent to the Patriarchal Spiritual Order of the clerks. Repeated in 1715. 1712 Provincial (Kolomensky) fiscal Bludov is looking for a dowry according to the row entry of his wife from the widow Korotneva, according to the second husband Mikhlyaeva, (the clerk’s wife); searches in the Zemsky Prikaz in January, and in February asks for the matter to be carried out in the Senate or in the Office of Fiscal Affairs, based on the decree of 1712, according to which the fiscals are in charge of all their affairs in the Senate. At this request, it was ordered to be delivered to the Senate, and the decree was sent to the Moscow governor. The case was sent from the Provincial Chancellery. Therefore, the interrogation of the defendant and the evidence of the plaintiff were carried out in the office of the Senate on March 10, 1713. The plaintiff added a line to the case; and the defendant referred to the spiritual church of the deceased Korotnev, as a result of which it was ordered to demand a copy from her from the order of Zemstvo affairs. Then the matter was sent back to the Provincial Chancellery without resolution; but according to a report from Fiscal Affairs in February 1716, it was again requested to the Senate. This resolution took place on December 22, 1715 in the office of the Senate; listened: steward Yuri Fedorovich Shishkin and his comrades. In April 1716, it was ordered: according to the previous instructions, take the fairy tale from Mikhlyaev. This former litter was March 26, 1713; then the senators (2) and the justices of the Violent Cases sentenced: take the fairy tale - with whom the wife shared his belongings left after her first husband. This already looks like a search. A dragoon from the Senate office went to investigate Mikhlyaev. Mikhlyaev was sent to the service. Then in June 1716 they decided without him (Shishkin and his comrades): Mikhlyaeva was accused. In 1717, for justice, a dragoon was sent for her to the village of Mozhaisk district; but she died in January 1717; and her husband was in the service and therefore, at his request, they did not care about recovery until 1728, when, at the request of Bludov’s son, the Provincial Chancellery ordered recovery. – From the certificate about Korotnev’s spiritual life: it was written during the war, in the camp at Kantsy in April 1704; and after his death, people brought her to his wife, who presented her in February 1712 to the order of Zemstvo affairs to appear. (Why? According to the decree of September 22, 1702, the Zemsky Prikaz had to display fortresses in Moscow courtyards; but in the spiritual order there was an order about more than one courtyard). One scribe was designated in the spiritual; - note: the scribe had a chance to interrogate - did he write at his command and was Korotnev completely sane and sane at that date? There were no witnesses at the spiritual, but the widow’s man, who takes care of business, pointed to the person who was at the spiritual. An order has been made for the interrogation of this person and the scribe. On the petition, in which the spiritual is presented, the note: having coped with the decrees, and if you have the opportunity, having examined it, write it down in the book. 1712 In the Order of Judgment; made up. 1712 February. In the Zemsky order on vacation pay. It was a tradesman from the city of Vilna, a Pole, Ratkovsky. After the destruction of Vilna from the military people, he came to Moscow and struck the prince’s courtyard with his forehead. Gagarin; He married his serf, and upon his death he asked for a vacation pay. Gagarin's widow said that her husband ordered him to be released at the time of his death. 1712 In the order of Zemstvo affairs about a runaway person. The landowner Kutuzov brought his captured fugitive peasant Ivan Ankudinov and asked to interrogate him where he lived. Upon interrogation, it turned out that he lived, by the way, for a long time with the peasant landowner Shchenin, in Moscow, with Savelya Zhivov. Zhivoy was brought in for interrogation. He was a peasant of the landowner Shchenin, he also ran away from him, was caught, forgiven, and with the permission of the landowner, he bought a yard in Moscow, where he practiced dyeing. Ivan Ankudinov lived and worked with him, pretending to be a monastery peasant. Kutuzov asked to recover the old money from Zhivov. Litter: 1712 June 9... on the defendant Sav. The living old man had money for those years, months and dates about which he, Saveliy, did not lock himself up in his interrogation about Ivan’s life - he said precisely that he came from the Kostroma estate of the village of Knyazhovo of that driver Ivan... and kept him and taught him the skill, so it was clear that he, Savelyev, had a conspiracy... to correct. And in the disputable years and in everything that Savel disputed between him and that driver, give them a confrontation in the dungeon; If a dispute arises during a confrontation, the original should be carefully searched for. And what is he, Savely, hitting with his forehead in order to inflict a second question on that driver, and then set aside his petition, so that an inquiry about all of them with a genuine question will be carried out at the search in the dungeon. Here's the search. However, when Savely was contained in the order, the petition of the plaintiff was also required for the search; When there was no petition for five months, Savelya was released on a signature on the article. There was never a search. In March 1712, in the order of Zemsky Affairs, Prince Vladimir Dolgoruky introduced the leading fugitive Yakov Plekhanov and asked to interrogate him. The man turned out to be a soldier. He testified that, having previously been a peasant of Dolgorukov, he was sent with an order to another of his villages; On the road, the headman of the village of Klyuchishchi, the steward Tolstov, grabbed him and, having cut and shaved him, brought him to the city to the soldier's compositor and handed him over as a recruit in place of his peasant. It was ordered to interrogate the headman; and then (at Dolgoruky’s request for satisfaction) find the man Tolstoy, who is in charge of business, and order him to appoint a headman. But at the request of that person, the Ambassadorial Order sent in April 1712 a message explaining the royal decree, so that on the occasion of sending Peter Andr. Tolstov to the Sultan to delay him in his affairs in the plaintiff's claims. New request from the plaintiff. June 9, 1712 the order remained the same: interrogate; and the fact that the solicitor brought a memory from the Ambassadorial Prikaz is not an excuse for him, for what is written in the decree of the great sovereign is precisely: the peasant’s return should not be delayed to anyone (art. 191). But then in December 1712, and without interrogation, 50 rubles were ordered to be added, the soldier was sent to the Military Prikaz; “And if he, the defendant, is strong, he will be interrogated in the army. 1712 March. About the driven peasant of the Moscow Vice-Governor Ershov. As a result of the questioning, a lawsuit was filed against the book. Odoevsky. Since both parties were noble, the care with which the verdict was drawn up is noteworthy: the defendant was accused of failure to appear. The basis of the verdict (of the Office of Zemstvo Affairs) is a syllogism: he did not appear, therefore, he does not care about the person; therefore, the person is definitely not his, but a runaway. Along with the question about the person, elderly money is awarded. Then, in 1720, a new petition from the plaintiff for recovery appeared; but it has not yet come. - “Moscow Academic Chancellery” - here, by decree, it was ordered to collect from the courtiers the allotted money for the dacha of a mathematical school for students and academic servants. Addition to the decree of Peter I on the fugitives on February 16, 1706 (No. 2092): ... and about this decree in Moscow of all ranks to the people of this great sovereign, and nail sheets on the gates, and send them in memory orders, and write letters to the cities to the governors with great confirmation. 1712 May. In the order of Zemstvo Affairs. Miloslavskaya was accused of Sergeev. A clerk was sent to the defendant's yard to ask: is there anything to pay for that claim? The defendant did not give a tale; declared that he was not aware of any decree. Then the clerk was ordered to go with the soldiers and witnesses; and if he doesn’t give a fairy tale, then talk him out of it in front of witnesses, write it down and let them consolidate it. The defendant again did not give a fairy tale. A wanted case about fugitive soldiers hiding on Miloslavsky’s estate. This matter was carried out first in the Zemstvo Chancellery; but, following a report from the Fiscal Affairs, it was taken to the Senate in the Execution Chamber, where the search itself was carried out. Peasants and patrimonial leaders were taken from Miloslavsky's estate. They were interrogated in a dungeon under torture. Under the reading of each it is indicated how many blows were given to him (from 10 to 25). 1712 May. In the order of Zemstvo Affairs. The obrok peasant of Sheremetev is looking for the pawned things on the man of the steward Dubensky; There is no talk of any participation or permission from the landowner. The guarantee was not found in the article, and then instead of a guarantee, one party was given a receipt - to a third party. Witnesses were also interrogated (landowners). After the decision, the accused submits a request (to the governor?) and asks to take the case from the Zemsky Prikaz to the Execution Chamber. Taken to the Senate - directly from the Zemsky order. Absolutely everywhere you meet serfs who entered into business and contracts on their own, looked for and were responsible for themselves. For example, in this case, the defendant in the lawsuit of Priest Ivanov, the “contractor” Yakov Larionov, said in interrogation:: he is a serf of Captain Fyodor Prokhorov’s son Livanov, who now serves in the Kazan Andreev regiment of Romanovsky... and after the release of his wife Prokhorova Fedosya Vasilyeva’s daughter, so that without her husband she has nothing to drink and feed him and his wife; He has been working in the Zhitny yard as a grain contractor for three years now, and nowhere is he, Yakov, from him, Prokhor, and his wife, registered in any service and he himself has not been registered in any service. And the petitioner priest Grngorya agreed to pay the paintings of his Kostroma district for various landowners.” For the penalty for this contract, the Kostroma priest Gregory in March 1711 began a lawsuit against him in the Provision Order; probably because he was a contractor there too. The defendant was found and handed over to the orderly corporal; Then there was an interrogation, but it is not clear that the plaintiff made his refutation in the same speeches. It was ordered to amend the claim. But from the right, the defendant was taken to the Provincial Chancellery on another claim by the prince’s steward. Golitsyn. Then the priest in May 1712 turned to the Provincial Chancellery with a request for rights. In the Provincial Chancellery, based on a certificate from the Provision Order, it was ordered that the priest’s claim be corrected, and a correct statement was given. (Consequently, if during legal proceedings in one place the accused in another claim was taken into account, then the execution was transferred there). The plaintiff complains that the right is invalid, “it drags me and will make me lose money, although I will have to serve as a prisoner.” So, the plaintiff priest still lived in Moscow and went about his business, and back in 1718 we see him going about his business. In his case, the following happened: the defendant Larionov was kept in the Provincial Chancellery; he asked to be released; they took the tale in order to pay him the priest’s money (1715). It was necessary to collect a manual record of it. The clerk gave the list to the soldier, and he himself said to the defendant: why are you, Yakov, taking so long to get things done? Give me money, 2 rubles, and go somewhere for a month, go away the next month and don’t wander around; but the priest goes about his business and leaves behind that business. - And he let him go with the soldier and both fled. Finally, in 1718, a priest caught him in Moscow and brought him. From the Provincial Office the case was sent to the Office of Zemstvo Affairs. A fairy tale has been taken - is there anything to pay? He asks for a delay; ordered to collect bail, but did not collect it, and by decree of January 15, 1718, he was ordered to be sent to hard labor to earn money. He was sentenced in 1718, and exiled already in 1720. About borrowed money. In the order of Zemstvo Affairs. 1712 July. In the order of Zemstvo Affairs. The girl Marya Ivanova and Natalya Grigorieva attacked the clerk of that order, Druzhinin, for the money that he accepted from them under the guise of government duty and appropriated for himself in the previous court case. The clerk had interrogation, evidence, judgment speeches. In September 1713, it was sentenced: to correct it and give an extract to the law. He stood on the right. According to the petition of the plaintiff, it was ordered to take a fairy tale - is there anything, etc.; and if not, describe the Moscow courtyard and belongings. But he filed a petition in May 1714, in which he repeated his previous objections and asked not to edit the lawsuit. The case was raised again, discharged again. New sentence in July 1715: correct and give an extract for legal status (2 times). Again he persevered; - again they ordered to take a fairy tale, etc.... Druzhinin said that there was nothing to pay with, and his yard was pledged to Likharev; but according to the certificate from the order of Serf Affairs, it turned out that there was no mortgage. Then, already in June 1717, it was ordered to correct it again and give a correct transcript (3rd time); and if he doesn’t pay the law, the yard will be assessed. Then Druzhinin submitted a petition to the Moscow governor Naryshkin; ordered to write it down and report. In April 1718 it was ordered: to carry out the previous litter. In the same case, it is clear from the certificate that the stepmother was ordered to give faith in the stepdaughters’ claim for their bellies; “and in those belongings she N to faith in the cathedral of the arch. Michael to Protopresbyter Fyodor Kozmin with them, the plaintiff girls, and with memory was sent many times after many delays. And about the baptism of her to the order of the Zemstvo affairs, the clerk said that in that case of those girls with her, the widow, to the Council of the Archangel Michael, Protopresbyter Kozmin did not accept the clerk from him in memory, and did not bring her widow to the faith, and henceforth he, the clerk, with them, the plaintiffs, and with the defendant, he, the protopresbyter, did not order to come to himself.” Therefore, the clergy could resist in this case. And from the petition of one who participated in the case, it is clear that “there was no faith due to the young age of those girls.” 1712–1723 In the Zemsky order. About the division of a Moscow courtyard space. 1712 According to the claim of Nesterova against Sukhotin, the Kashira landowner. The penalty was awarded in 1700 and 1701 in the Writ of Judgment. In 1712, a request for rights in the order of Zemstvo Affairs. In 1722 in the office of the Moscow Provincial Court. In 1723 in the Moscow Nadvorny Court. In 1724, everything had not yet been completed. “When messengers came to the village to take the defendant, and he was not there, and the peasants and people fled, they instead took five women and brought them to the order. - When, at the request of a petitioner, a letter was sent to the city to the governor, sometimes the note said: write with reinforcements. This meant that the letter stated: “if you do not do this according to this decree, you will be subject to a fine or the like.” - The inventories included: in the yard - courtyard people: clerk Ν, and people Ν, and courtyard women Ν; and their husbands are in the service with their landowner; and according to the clerk’s tale, N grain was sown... The heir of the accused asks for an adjustment of the penalty between him and the other heirs. 1712–1719 In the order of Zemstvo Affairs. According to the petition of clerk Chepelev about the leading people who were first brought to the Moscow garrison to interrogate and hand him over, since they were fugitives. From the inquiries it is clear that the man Agathon, having left the gentleman from the Kashinsky district, signed up in Moscow at the embankment courtyard of Princess Ekaterina Alekseevna as a quitrent peasant and lives in her mansion in the Novodevichy Convent. The princess's clerk, Molchanov, had his own village and people. Chepelev proved his right to own people with an extract from the Kashin census books of 186. In 1723, the plaintiff asked the Court of Justice to give him a legal extract from the completed case. Dana. The Chancellery of the Moscow Garrison, Chief Commandant Prince Pyotr Alekseevich Golitsyn and his comrades. In the census books it was written: and in that village live ancient serfs N... and a Polish courtyard man N... Peasants NN... were transported from Rostov from the purchased estate N... Two courtyards of backyard people, with six people in them. The petitioner is called serf N, because his father is listed as an adopted son in the census books of peasant N. And the man himself calls his father an old yard man, and from the peasant yard his father was taken into the landowners' yard. The quitrent peasant of Princess Ekaterina Alekseevna, living in Moscow as a tailor, pays the quitrent 2 rubles. for a year. 1711–1721 It began in the Preobrazhensky order following the denunciation of a man named Iv. Pushkin Trofim Popkov against that Pushkin in the secret appropriation of state-owned guns. There was a search in the Preobrazhensky order. Then the matter was carried out in the Zemsky Prikaz at the request of Popkov to demand his wife and children, who remained in the village with Pushkin, from him. In 1712, the case regarding Pushkin’s petition was taken from the Zemsky Prikaz to the Execution Chamber in the Senate. In 1713, the Governing Senate, following a petition from Ivan Pushkin, ordered the case to be taken from the Execution Chamber to the Senate office. From the Senate it was sent to the Provincial Chancellery. Then again it was carried out in the Senate on fiscal reports about the theft of guns against Grigory Plemyannikov. Finally, already in 1721 it was resolved in the Nadvorny Court. Interrogate "with cleaning". 1713 kissers on landowners' estates. In the estate of Iv. Pushkin in the village. Davydov Semyon Fomin was a kisser for eight years by the choice of worldly people; and in that village the landowners have a house and what is in it, he and the headman know... And he began to go to the landowners' yard to the state cellar. (State-owned - therefore, where was the landowner’s treasury kept?). In the Transfiguration Order they show “according to the holy, immaculate Gospel commandment of the Lord and under pain of death.” The fairy tale was taken in the article from a landowner, that he, a man, would become such and such a date; and if he doesn’t, take a fine from his landowner. See “Historical and legal. acts of the transitional era of the 17th–ΧVΊΙΙ centuries,” p. 80–91. 1712 About a fugitive man. He ran, and then appeared to his former master, who brought him to the office of the Moscow garrison, from where, upon questioning, he was given to him for signature; But when the same garrison was petitioned for demolition by the one with whom that man lived on the run, the matter was transferred from the garrison to the order of Zemsky Affairs. The case was decided by questioning and evidence. Whoever complained about the order note is justified without a certificate before the one who did not complain about the fortress; for the questioning speeches of the people agreed with the first reference. The Swedish captive Minder was first brought into the Rank, and from the Rank was given to the mathematical school to the student (later the fiscal) Markov, who baptized him and enrolled him. 1712 About runaway peasants between the fiscal officer Tarakanov and the steward Fedorov. It started in the Klin administrative hut, and then, through a petition, it was taken to the order of Zemstvo affairs, and from there to the Senate Chancellery, to the Execution Chamber, because the fiscal was a participant. - In Klin, the matter began in such a way that Tarakanov’s man introduced into the administrative hut a stranger’s peasant (landowner Fedorov), whom he himself had caught and accused him of persuading him, Tarakanovsky, to escape, a peasant who fled with the demolition and was also caught (whom the petitioner did not introduce), and persuaded other peasants to escape. Therefore, he asked the driver to question him with passion. At this request, without any other evidence, the driver was tortured during questioning. It wasn't fair; he was a foreign peasant, there was no red-handed, no tongue-in-cheek criticism against him. The matter is not buried. In June 1713, the Judge of Violent Cases: Dm. Peter. Protasyev, Mikh. Fed. Rtishchev, Iv. Iv. Leontiev, Gr. Mich. Petrov-Solovov. In March 1713, the Dmitrov commandant from the Senate was ordered to send a case and a convict. The commandant (Khripunov) did not send the case, but sent a list, making the excuse that “due to the petition of one of the participants” he did not dare to send that case to the office of the Senate. In May another decree was sent with the threat of a fine; but execution was not carried out. In June, the third decree was sent with the clerk, ordered to bring the file and fine Khripunov with a fine of 25 rubles, rides and runs. From the clerk's arrival it is clear: Khripunov, having read the decree, said: I will never give you a fine, a ride or a banishment;... and he began to act strong. And I ordered the soldier to take him to the inn, because he did not order him to answer from the present yard; and after the capture he became strong, and did not go into the courtyard and taught us to scold us with all sorts of inappropriate foul language, and began to beat us with a cane, and he knocked that decree out of my hands and tore it, and took up the sword and said such praiseworthy words: I will cut you with my sword, no one will take anything from me. And after hearing such words from him, I went to the inn. Yes, he, the commandant, scolded the mothers: who sent you with the decree; and that I didn’t give you a fine and driving and driving, and write about that force against him. And he brought the convict to Moscow in connection with the real case. At the same time, the voivode writes that he did not send the file for a long time because it was necessary to leave a list of it, and no one presented a stamp paper for this item, and that for this reason he considers himself not subject to a fine. It is not clear that any order regarding the penalty was issued from the Senate and that the right of the fine was confirmed; at least the litter on arrival doesn’t say anything about it. 1712. September. In the order of Zemstvo affairs, about spiritual testimony. The spiritual was written in Aleksin at the Serf Affairs and was nevertheless presented for attendance. By the way, the brothers of the testator, to whom the estate was assigned, put their hands on it; two witnesses - the man who laid hands - the spiritual father. A decree was sent to the governor in Aleksin about the interrogation of witnesses, the scribe and the cunning man; he was ordered to describe and cordon off the entire estate of the testator. Then, upon sending all this, a request was made to all areas to see if there was any dispute. (Confrontation, Anerkennungsgrund). Information from Aleksin was delivered already in 1729 and only then was it spiritually attested. Duties are taken from the amount of 23 rubles. 92 kopecks 10 kopecks each from the ruble. Islenyev and Polatova about forcible seizure. The matter is in disarray. In 163, by decree of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich - after the boyar Nikita Iv. Romanov was given to the house of the Most Pure Mother of God and to the Moscow miracle workers in the nobles Vasily and Grigory Vereshchagin; and with them were given the estates of his Nikita Ivanovich in Kolomna district. The local business of Vereshchagin was carried out in the Provincial Chancellery. It was taken from the Local Order on petitions to the Senate for massacre cases, and from there it was sent to the “Moscow province” for execution (1714). See "Historical and legal acts of the transitional era." In the order of Zemstvo Affairs and in the Zemstvo Chancellery, Irina Romanova is accused of stealing things from her leading wife. The wife confessed, although not for everything. The recovery was made from the clerk, who released her without the judge's knowledge. The clerk's yard was valued and sold in the Zemstvo Chancellery through a nailed advertisement. Eager people came and gave a price. The plaintiff was ordered to give this to the courtyard, and this was issued from the Zemstvo Chancellery; but when the plaintiff took it to the Printing Order, a controversial petition from the clerk’s widow appeared there, and this petition was not printed. The plaintiff had to ask (1714–1718) at the Zemstvo Chancellery. From there a decree was sent to seal this; but then, as a result of the defendant’s petition, the Zemstvo Chancellery demanded it and kept it for three years. According to the plaintiff’s new petition, the Zemsky Chancellery finally confirmed its previous decision in 1718. 1712 In the order of Zemstvo affairs. The Yaroslavl resident, the townsman Krasheninnikov, asks. “Last year, 1709, by decree of the great sovereign, a stamp paper was given to me and my brother for sale in Yaroslavl, at customs, from the Armory Chamber, and a handwritten note was collected for us in Moscow in the Armory Chamber; and last year, 1709, by decree from the Armory Chamber to Yaroslavl, the mayor ordered my brother and I not to have any cash for the paper sold and to send cash for the sold paper to Moscow to the Armory Chamber, and to hand over the remaining paper at customs with a receipt.” He sued Belyaev, to whom he handed the rest of the money to be delivered to the Armory, but he did not deliver. The defendant announced that he had disposed of the plaintiff with this money in front of the witnesses whom he asked to interrogate. The plaintiff presented a letter from the defendant about receiving money from him - a letter, and called it a fortress, arguing that in a serf case one should not interrogate witnesses. It was in this spirit that the Zemsky Order decided to charge the defendant. According to the petition of the defendant in 1713 the case was taken to the Execution Chamber in the Senate; Moreover, the defendant disputed the meaning of fortress: “all sorts of fortresses were ordered to be written according to the rite of the Serf Affairs, but a letter is not a fortress.” 1712 In the order of Zemstvo affairs. Request for the issuance of leave upon death of the widow Nashchokina, who was in Belitsa in the Devichy Monastery. She called herself a servant, and when questioned she said that she served voluntarily without a fortress, and truly after Nashchokina’s death there were no children left, and she was free and did not hit anyone in the yard. Based on this tale, without further information, they gave her a vacation pay. Thus, in such cases, the vacation pay served as a form, a passport, by which one could live. Where could a free person be assigned? Nobody hired him without vacation pay. The Roslavlevs' man brought the Latvian and his sister, whom his masters had captured near Vybkhov, and asked him to question them and, having described them, to write them down in the serf registers and give an extract. Upon questioning, the Latvian turned out to be baptized, but the sister was not baptized into the Orthodox faith; ordered to write it down and give an extract. What was that serf? And was there any difference between a Polonian and a serf? The daughter of some man Yakov, who lived in Pereslavl (doesn’t remember which chip), was left an orphan, fed on the name of Christ, and beats her forehead into servitude to the Preobrazhensky soldier Rastragin. The girl calls herself freed from Alexandrov, and now lives in Prozorovsky’s house, with his man, with her relative; but her vacation pay was burned in a former fire; asks to give her the vacation pay from the order. And they give it to her without further information; only Prozorovsky’s man, who takes care of business, gave a fairy tale that she lives with them, that the vacation pay was burned and that his master doesn’t care about her. 1713 In the order of Zemstvo Affairs. During a fight at night, the soldiers killed the clerk who was seeing off the guests at the gate. The case began in the Zemsky Prikaz on the announcement of the wife of the murdered man. The search began. The soldiers were asked to be searched by the Military Chancellery. At first they were simply questioned, and another time under torture. When the search ended, the convicts asked to be released because the wife of the murdered man does not hit him with his forehead. Questions arise: where to judge? And the Zemsky Prikaz demanded (by decree) from the Military Chancellery that they write off: should they send the defendants to that office, or issue a decree to the Zemsky Prikaz? Responsible: in the Zemsky order. At first they sentenced him to death; then - beat with a whip and send them to hard labor, for which purpose send them with memory to the Preobrazhensky Prikaz, indicating their guilt. October 4, 1713. The Reverend Stefan, Metropolitan of Ryazan, was verbally informed at the courtyard by the steward Plemyannikov’s man and brought with him a priest who had been caught stealing vessels from a church in the estate of his master, Obolensky district, in the village of Kazarinovo. The priest was sent to the Patriarchal Spiritual Prikaz and confessed when questioned. And upon signing the deed, Metropolitan Stephen was ordered to excommunicate him, the priest, from the priesthood altogether; and in the Patriarchal Spiritual Order, punishment was inflicted on him, priest Ivan: he was beaten mercilessly with whips and was released by order. Then in February 1713, the priest came to Moscow to petition for the ban on him to be lifted; his brother-in-law, the local order of the boyar's son, Solovyov, let him spend the night with his wife and daughter. The priest, getting up an hour before daybreak, robbed the owner, took away a box with various things and stuff, went into the city to Strigolny Row (near Red Square) and put the box and things for free at the shearer's; then, breaking the box, he sold the things at auction to the traders. On the third day, Soloviev caught him outside the Spassky Gate in Pirozhny Row and brought him to the Patriarchal Spiritual Prikaz with some red-handed. The priest was accepted and given to the bailiffs to keep. He was questioned on February 7 against Solovyov’s petition before the clerks Dm. Shupinsky and you. Pavlov. During the interrogation, the plaintiff Soloviev incriminated, but the priest objected, and finally confessed during the secondary interrogation. A shearer and tradeswomen were brought in and they were questioned. The shearer presented a small chest with the remains of things. The casket was examined in front of the plaintiff, the priest and the shearer. The traders were taken to the square at the direction of the priest, who was taken with a bailiff; they all traded, “casually, in rags.” (One of the traders testified that she lives in a rented corner with shibai Roman Rodionov without bail, pays 2 money per week). The drivers were given to the bailiff. Based on the report of the case, a bishop's resolution was passed: to expose that priest and send him to be searched along with the detainees. On February 28, he was sent in memory (by decree of the great sovereign) to the order of Zemstvo Affairs; there, on the same date, the popes with all the drives were questioned again. March 1st litter: if the search case has not reached these women, release until the end of the case in the article with a receipt, and give the shearer and the merchant who bought the hat for a good receipt in the article; but on the matter, repair the dispatch immediately, and torture the naked priest sent from the very truth. On May 4, the priest was tortured and said the same thing. An extract from the case is not visible, but a decree was issued on May 26, 1705, replacing the death penalty with whipping and staining. June 9 litter: by decree of the great sovereign, exile this raspopa to hard labor in eternal labor; there is no mention of the whip. (The sacrum, where priests were hired, was near the Kazan Cathedral on the square. There were forges behind the Varvarsky Gate). 1713 In the order of Zemstvo Affairs. The decree of February 1, 1700 was interpreted, apparently, as follows; that after him, freed people had to give themselves loan records, or bondage; - and it is not ordered to keep them without bondage according to residential records. Vacation pay was issued from the order either at the request of the person himself, or at the request of the master who did not want to keep him. So in this case, a man released from indentured servitude, in 1710, gave a living contract to the underage Ivan Spitsyn, so that he could live in his house for 5 years; and in 1713, the father of that Ivan asks to give him a vacation pay from the order - to terminate the contract, considering it illegal. Until now, the courtyard people who lived in the landowner’s yard were all, apparently, serfs, and not peasants. When the defendant came to the order in a claim for the residence of a driven person, he first of all had to give a fairy tale - does he care about the driven person? The answer immediately determined whether there was a dispute about the ownership of a person in the case. In the separate entry of 1673, they divide the father's household people, and the old people, (the old household people;) only movable property is divided, the land is not mentioned, and yet the peasant goes to part of one. 1707 Avdotya Tsepina gave up her serf daughter, a girl who is now a wife, for debt money, “that her father, Avdotyin (Devkin), refused my husband according to my subsistence lot.” 1713 March. In the order of Zemstvo Affairs. Stolnik Ilyin brought a man who came to him with a vacation pay to the peasantry and gives a loan record; asks to sign up a person for him. When questioned, the man said: he was a peasant of the landowner Kropin, was taken into the yard, then was exiled; and from the age of 20 he was given a vacation pay from the peasant Serf Court. He was sent to the Preobrazhensky order for inspection and then ordered to write it down according to the decree. 1713 In the order of Zemstvo Affairs. Upon the death of his son, the father gives vacation pay to his man Ermil and his son Semyon. Letting go for assault without evidence. In 206, the released Yermil beat his forehead into servitude with his son and wife. In 1702, Yermil’s son Semyon gave Nikiforov a residential record for borrowed money of 30 rubles. The entry says: wear his master's dress, etc... And without paying the above money, he cannot leave, and if he leaves, then the penalty is on him and the lieutenants. Golovkin began to look for this Semyon as if he were a fugitive. The court acquitted the plaintiff because the person in the residential record listed himself as Golovkin’s employee, but did not bring his vacation pay; and in the bonded fortress it is written that Yermil and his wife and children are becoming slaves (at that time Semyon was 7 years old: he could have been written in absentia). “And according to the custom of the order, if, even after the death of their landowners, to whom people go as slaves, and for whom they served, they will announce in interrogations - and according to such interrogations they interrogate after the dead wives and children - why such slaves served for them and give them free letters from the order with the sexton’s notes.” Then, according to another sentence, Semenov’s wife, whom Nikiforov gave to him in his house from his serf girls, and the things that he gave for her as a dowry were given to Golovkin. 1713 Vasily Petrov Tatarinov from the Crimean Tatars. About 30 years ago, the Don Cossacks captured him and gave him as a gift to Prince Yuri Alekseevich Dolgoruky, and he was baptized; and after his death he served with his grandson, Prince Peter, and when he was killed in the service, his wife sent him away. About the issuance of an extract from the order of Zemstvo Affairs for four full Chukhon people, whom Lieutenant Kireevskaya took prisoner near Dorpat in 1702 and 1704. Since then they lived with him without being discharged and were baptized. An extract was given on the questioning, examination and recording of omens. 1713 in March began in the order of Zemstvo affairs on the claim of the wine contractor Elizar Petrov against the Kaluga clerk Ignatius Yakovlev for violence and ruin at the distillery of Maloyaroslavsky district. Again we see that the “man” gr. Golovkin Elizar trades freely. Kaluga resident Andreyan Dolgov “let him in” to his distillery. He searches on his own. In the case, the defendant was accused of failure to appear, and the Zemsky order took into account the fact that the defendant knew about the claim brought against him. (The desire to achieve material truth, not just formal, or in addition to formal). When the verdict in the Zemsky Prikaz took place, the defendant was in the Provincial Chancellery (which was headed by the same Governor Saltykov); According to his petition, the case was taken to the Provincial Chancellery, but then again turned to the Zemsky Prikaz and executed according to the previous sentence. Upon sending the case to the Provincial Office of the litter: the case should be inspected and described to the old clerk and, after inspection, accepted. The inventory was made in the Provincial Chancellery itself The petitioner pointed out that the steward Kamynin sits in the order of Zemsky Affairs and he is related to the defendant; asked to take the case to another order. In this case (1712), the boyar and governor, Prince Mikhailo Grigorievich Romodanovsky, and his comrades ordered the case to be taken to the Moscow province. It is clear that the father (from the landowner's peasants) gave his son to the estate of a peasant of another landowner by nature to work from hire, and that this residence was not considered an illegal violation of someone else's rights and was not called living with the landowner. 1713 The peasant testified: in previous years, from about 20 years old, the landowner moved him and his family to another estate. “Father was a headman and walked around the boyar’s yard wearing keys.” The transferred peasants ran “in the old days” to the place from which they were transported. An example of red tape. Fedorov (plaintiff) strikes with his forehead in the Provincial Chancellery: “the case of the runaway peasant with Tarakanov began in Dmitrov in the official hut; by decree of the sovereign it was taken to the Senate, because the defendant is a provincial fiscal. It was from clerk Danilov, and from Max. Danilov, at his (the defendant’s) request, was transferred to clerk Grieg. Emelyanov; and from Grieg. Emelyanov, at his request, was transferred to clerk Kuzma Filipov. Yes, he, Vasily, (the defendant) beat him with his forehead in order to send the case to the order of the Zemstvo Affairs, and it was sent and handed over to the clerk Iv. Vasiliev; and the defendant still beat him with his forehead in order to transfer him to another clerk, and was ordered to take him to Boris Naumov. And, not wanting to give it to him, Boris, the defendant strikes with his forehead in order to take that matter into the order of the Big Palace, although, through his many reluctance and red tape, I was excommunicated from that matter and so that that matter was lost and confused in many transfers. Requests: do not move the case anywhere; and if it is ordered to be taken into another order, then it will be decided in the Provincial Chancellery. Based on this request, the Provincial Office requested a file. Meanwhile, the defendant was sent from the office of the Recruiting Accounting Board to Vologda to investigate the abuses of typesetters and asked for a delay in his affairs. Then (1715) a decree was sent from the office of the Recruiting Accounting Board about a postponement in the Provincial Chancellery. The landrat’s opinion says: “and according to the decree, their father (the landowners) was free to transfer his peasants; where you transferred those peasants, that’s where they will be.” 1716 The decision was made in the Provincial Chancellery as follows. First, the opinion of each Landrat is written down in order. 1) Andrey Max. Grekova, 2) Artemya Matv. Korotieva, 3) Mich. Af. Artsybasheva, 4) Grig. Peter. Zinovieva, 5) Mich. Proc. Shcherbacheva, 6) Afan. Nick. Savelova, 7) Sem. Matv. Khrushchova, 8) Bogd. Afan. Surovtsova. Some explain their reasons; others say: I agree with so-and-so. All opinions end: however, I betray the Tsar's Majesty to the highest command. Then comes the verdict: by decree of the great sovereign, the nearby boyar and Moscow governor Alexei Peter. Saltykov and his comrades, having listened to the above extract and Landrat opinions, were sentenced. The question arises: who were the Landrats, were they his comrades or not? And in the latter case, what is their opinion? The votes are counted in the verdict, and Prince is also mentioned among the majority. Vyazemsky, Kamynin. More. “By decree of the great sovereign, the landowners and votchinniki transferred peasants from village to village during their lifetime, and those of their estates and votchinas will go to their new landowners upon death, and those new landowners will have a dispute among the transferred peasants, and those transferred peasants will be where the previous landowners and votchinniki were transferred.” When it was asked to accept a general search to prove the right to the peasants, it was refused at seven, because it is a serf matter about people and peasants in servitude and in the peasantry; Every landowner and patrimonial owner has strong people according to service bondages and according to all kinds of appropriate fortresses, and peasants according to scribes, and census books, and according to the right books of refusal, and according to dachas and according to all appropriate designated fortresses, and not according to verbal search tales of people or according to some leading questioning speeches. Newly decreed articles - serfs should be separated by fortresses, non-serfs - by search. In the divisions, they gave up peasant girls and wives to each other from one estate to another, and changed. 1714 In the order of Zemstvo Affairs. Widows of Franz Iv. Lefort Elisabeth Lefort with the landowner Kakovinsky about fugitive peasants from the Epiphansky estate, which was granted to Lefort from the royalties after Khitrovo. After the interrogation speeches, a certificate was made with the Local Order on what should be written out from the census books. Then Lefort filed a petition that the certificate was not the same, but that a different one was needed. The opposing side asked not to accept this petition, because it was in line with the interrogation speeches; asks for something that was not discussed in court. (The landowners resettled peasants on the empty lands). The zemstvo order refused to apply to plaintiff Lefort. In September 1714, following a petition, her case was taken to the Provincial Chancellery. In October 1714, Kakovinsky struck with his forehead: the plaintiff did not write why the verdict of the Provincial Chancellery was wrong; They told me to take a fairy tale from her. Note: to interrogate her person, the plaintiff, who is involved in the case, that there is a weekly ruling in that case, so that he hangs in that fairy tale. (What does a business person mean? Isn’t it the one who goes about business, does business?? Does business in the yard? The business man and the yard man were different. He escaped from the estate “due to a grain shortage”, lived in the palace volost for 15 years and from there the peasants sent him away; fed on the name of Christ in different places; lived with the landowner for 6 weeks and again returned to the previous landowner). Again, the opinion of every Landrat: Poltev, Tatishchev, Sheshnev, Tolubeev, Prince. Volkonsky, Kamynin, book. Vyazemsky. The verdict of the Provincial Chancellery of 1715 March 20; landrators... in total 7 people were sentenced: to refuse Lefort. (This sentence must have taken place in the absence of Governor Saltykov). In May 1715, Lefort's nephew submitted a request to Saltykov, who was in St. Petersburg; and at the request of the litter: by decree of the great sovereign... Saltykov ordered: this petition should be sent to Moscow to the gentlemen landrators, order them to take that case from the Zemsky order to the Provincial Chancellery; and, if necessary, cope with the Local Order, and, having coped with it, having found it, issue the decree... Signed: clerk Savostyan Germanov. The defendant writes that she trusts such and such Dementia to be interrogated on her behalf; and about his stepson, against whom the lawsuit was extended below, he writes that due to his youth, my stepson, that he believes him Dementius, it is impossible for me to write about his relatives. He exchanged his estate and three peasant households. The matter of forcible seizure of the estate and the right of ownership was decided in the Local Order, and the remuneration for the possession of the land was decided (1713) in the Order of Zemsky Affairs. It was completed in 1713 in the Zemsky Prikaz, then in the Provincial Chancellery, from where it was sent for execution again to the Zemsky Prikaz. Then, following a petition, he was taken back to the Provincial Chancellery. In 1724 and 1726 it was carried out in the Moscow Court. The believing letter of 1719 (on plain paper) is on file; recorded in 1721 in the Moscow office of serfdom; duties are taken from letters and notes; signed by the overseer. 1713 In the order of Zemstvo Affairs. About giving vacation pay to a slave with his wife and daughter, whom the master, steward Tatishchev, exiled from the courtyard due to old age and deafness. The interrogation was to Tatishchev’s man, who takes care of business. 1713 April. It began in the Court Order of Merchants' Affairs before the Vice-Governor of you. Sem. Ershov and his comrades in the lawsuit against the State settlement Dmitr. Sergeev on Koshelnaya Sloboda Gerasim Sapogov about goods under a verbal contract. (“Trade brokers who bring together all sorts of people in the purchase of goods, and in that transaction there is every loss for the trading people”). Translation operation. “Foreigner Matveev to Sergeev on Sapogov to pay goods at a price of 160 rubles; transferred and for that goods Sergeev on Sapogov should receive 100 rubles, and Sapogov on Sergeev for passing goods 60 rubles, and Sergeev Sapogov money 60 rubles. paid on that date.” This meant: Sergeev had to borrow 100 rubles from the foreigner. and with that money the foreigner agreed with him and transferred from himself to pay Sapogov in goods so that Sergeev would take 160 rubles worth of that goods from Sapogov. “And from that date,” (writes Sergeev), I took Chinese goods from Sapogov for 24 rubles, China. grains 14 rubles, and at that price he, Sapogov, took money from me for that transfer 55 rubles; now he, Gerasim Sapogov, of the rest of the goods for 118 rubles. He doesn’t give it to me, but the rest of the money is 5 rubles. doesn’t take it from me.” (“I transferred the goods to pay”). To write a sentence with genuine purification meant to describe the circumstances and laws in accordance with the mark. Verdict in favor of the plaintiff in October 1713 by Governor Saltykov and his comrades; (in the Town Hall there are commissars and mayors). 1717 The widow of the plaintiff asks the Town Hall for the execution of the sentence. The messenger, not finding the defendant, brought his workers. Meanwhile, the defendant asks to reconsider the case; asks to take the file from the Town Hall to the Provincial Chancellery. The governor has a litter: doing business in the Town Hall is effortless. The second verdict agreed with the first. In August 1717, the case regarding Sapogov’s petition was sent to St. Petersburg, to the Senate office. A decree from the Senate of the Provincial Chancellery about this signed by gr. Petra Apraksina. 1713 In the order of Zemstvo Affairs. Vershenye in 1715. Kolodniki asked the orderly “for mating.” Robbery torture chamber led by a petitioner who was robbed and, moreover, caught the thieves. A similar case as house No. 20. In the order of Zemstvo Affairs. On the release of an old serf on a verbal order from the deceased to the spiritual father and executor. The latter was not found, but one priest was interrogated, and a leave certificate was issued based on the interrogation. 1713 In the order of Zemstvo Affairs. About stolen horses. Zasetsky and Saltykov about runaway peasants. Judgment delays. June 1713 6:11, 13 and 22; July 1; August 5 and 25; September 20; October 15:20, 27 and 28. Similar case No. 24, about vacation pay for an enslaved person. 1713 In the order of Zemstvo Affairs. Captain Ivan Sytin filed a complaint of abuse and ruin against the walking man Yakim, who lives in the house of a neighbor of his translator Pavel Kulvinsky. The defendant was found and turned out to be not a walking man, but a serf of Kulvinsky. However, despite the fact that this man was responsible for himself and gave a fairy tale that he would become one himself. He himself stood in court. The bail was ordered to be collected for him, Yakima; but since no one vouched for it, it was given to his master for signature. 1713 June. In the order of Zemstvo Affairs. Khitrovo on the book. Yusupova (Shaisupov) about money on receipt; after the death of the debtor, he asks to collect from the heiress, his sister in the Arzamas estates. The receipt, it seems, was not presented in accordance with the claim, and the plaintiff asks to inform the Local Order about the prohibition (security). A note on the claim: in those dachas, interrogation will be carried out, and the Local Order will be reported... to serf affairs. The receipt was submitted to the order already in 1716. In 1729, execution ended in the Provincial Chancellery with the refusal of the debtor estates. 1713 June. Moscow Provincial Chancellery. Prince Mich's son asks. Alegukovich Cherkassky (Prince Boris). His father, who died on November 29, 1712, and his spiritual father, the priest of the Church of the Resurrection, which is in Verkh, and Prince. Alexey Mikh. Cherkassky, book. Iv. Fed. Baryatinskaya sealed the treasury chamber, and in the residential chambers there were chests and wardrobes with belongings and fortresses and debt letters, and, having collected the keys, they sealed them in the wardrobe. And after leaving Moscow they gave that key and seal to that priest. And in that treasury chamber his, the petitioner’s, junk, letters, and fortresses were sealed; everything is not printed. “And I alone don’t dare to print it from the prince’s stepmother. Avd. Ivanovna is dangerous." He asks the office to send it to the house, take the seal and key from the priest, unseal it and give out his things. The house was in the Chinese city at the Nikolsky Gate. But the stepmother did not allow it to be printed, and the priest did not give the keys. 1714 During the proceedings, the Buturlins asked to release their chests, placed there for safekeeping, from that treasury chamber. The man (goes about the affairs of) the deceased prince. Cherkassky confirmed that there are definitely their chests, which were placed under the authority of the former treasurer Iv. Bogatyrev by order of Prince. Cherkassky. The priest gave the key. When the messenger arrived, the order was printed out and taken out. 1714 Another son of Prince. Alexey Cherkassky asks to take to the office for safekeeping until partition the seal, the ring with which the property is sealed. This seal was then handed over to the Supreme Court. 1721 at the request of Prince. Alexei, it was given to him from the Court of Justice, where a cast of it was left. Gold ring. It was kept by the clerk; he was first described and weighed. The petitioner referred to the fact that he was wearing his father’s coat of arms. Book Prozorovsky gave his man leave from serfdom. It still had to be written down in the order of Zemstvo Affairs; but he won’t be accepted anywhere on unregistered vacation pay. That's why he hit the note with his forehead. Vacation pay for 190 - issued by the priest on the orders of his spiritual son to his old man. 1713 Residential entry: “I will live in N’s yard. along his stomach; and before this I lived in his yard without a fortress... and for the parish I took 20 rubles from him.” Interrogation of a servant in 1713. He does not remember his father and mother; 18 years ago he lived in Pskov with the widow Fekla and fed around the world, heard from her that she found him abandoned. About 7 years ago, after her death, he, being 10 years old, lived on alms; about five years ago the Preobrazhensky soldier, taking him for his poverty, brought him to Moscow, and lived with him for five weeks. When there was nothing to feed him, the wife of that soldier brought him to the widow Polzikova; and lived with her in Moscow and on her estate. Then this widow married Shishkin, and lived with him without fortresses; married a street wench and gave himself a loan record. – 1713. The Shishkin case about mortal combat, violence and dishonor between the Shishkin landowners in Aleksinsky district. This case began first in the first instance in the Senate office, where Shishkina filed her first complaint and asked to examine the battles and wounds. Litter on the request: to examine it, and find it and interrogate about everything against this petition; and if he leaves Moscow, send a special message for him to petitioners, rides and runs. This will be done in the Execution Chamber if it happens. This is how the matter was carried out in the Execution Chamber; The defendant and witnesses were summoned there. The matter is over peacefully. 1713 On the issuance of vacation pay. Prince Myshetsky released him and ordered his lawyer to be expelled from the court; and he himself went to serve in Narva. They interrogated the lawyer who handles the cases. 1713–1722 About the fugitives. In the scribe books of the Kashinskys, 193 and 194. it is written: in the Chudskoe camp on the estates it is written for Grieg. Mich. the son of Nefimonov half the village of Plotnits, and the other half followed him in the estate; on the estate half there is a courtyard of landowners, courtyard people and peasant children are written in it, including the peasant son Ivashka Minin, not a courtyard man. In November 195, in the 9th day, according to him, Zakharyev, a petition to sign the petition of the Duma clerk Pavel Ostafiev from the Moscow Court Order for the search, and capture, and return of his fugitives, the Zakharyevs, serfs, his Przemysl and Mosalsky estates and estates, his fugitive peasants, was given to him, the great sovereign, a charter of cities with a reading, it was ordered in the cities and districts to the stewards and governors and all the clerks of those fugitive people, looking for their questioning speeches, to fix the surrender according to the code according to the scribes and census and individual books. - In the deeds (exchange) records it is written: I exchanged or entered an estate, and in it there are peasants who live with their wives and children and with their bellies. The scribes wrote - either according to the fortress or according to the fairy tale; if, besides the tale of other fortresses, no other fortresses were revealed to a person, then this was noted in the scribe’s book. · – A peasant, brought before the petitioner in court, during interrogation (1717) said that his daughter on the run was given to the estate of the gr. Golovkin for the son of a church sexton; about this daughter, the petitioner beat the bishop of Sarsky with his forehead in the bishop's government order. But the judges of the bishop's order said that it was a serf matter, not a spiritual one. At the request of the defendant, the case was requested (1718) to the Zemstvo Chancellery. Her intercourse directly with the bishop. The bishop on Krutitsy also had a court, judges. It was necessary to send the sexton's son to answer. Meshchovsky Archimandrite Feofan was ordered to expel him on bail or under arrest. The interrogation took place before the treasurer, monk Nektarios and his comrades. From the court the sexton was given a signature on the article. Vacation pay is issued by order of the headman. In the Zemstvo Chancellery, the husband, the sexton's son, argued that his wife should not be given to the peasantry, because he was not a serf, but the son of a clergyman. But the Zemstvo Chancellery sentenced her to give her up with her husband, because the release document was declared invalid. (1722 in April in the office of the Moscow Provincial Court Landrichter and his comrades). About the division of the Moscow courtyard. About the note of half the yard on the deed of sale. 1713–1729 First in the Zemsky Prikaz, then in the Moscow Nadvorny Court. In the order of Zemstvo Affairs, in the “servant’s table”. About vacation pay. The man already calls his master a landowner. “My landowner, Prince Boryatinsky, has been sent into service; and his wife sent me and my wife away from the yard for unknown reasons, and did not give me anything to drink or feed, and did not give me any vacation pay.” The person in charge of business was questioned. March 1711, 1st Day of the Life Guards Semenovsky Regiment, Captain Alexander Lazarev released his man Matvey Semenov with his wife and children; and from now on I have nothing to do with him. And the clerk Gavrilo Archokov wrote the leave note to that regiment. Captain Alexander Lazarev released his man Matvey Semenov and gave him this release after signing his hand. On the issuance of service bondage for this leave pay. The note in the Zemsky Order: give service bondage or give a discharge. 1713 In the order of Zemstvo Affairs. About dishonor. The plaintiff is Neplyuev’s man per person of the trading hundred. It was cleared and ordered to be corrected. His tale: he is a servant of his landowner. 1 – 12: clerk Druzhinin’s order should be set aside because it was imposed in fact without a judicial hearing and was not secured by the judicial hands; and it is impossible to attach to the judges the mark that is written with a sentence, for the fact that she does not agree with the real case. There was a complaint against this verdict and the case was taken to the Senate Execution Chamber. About the dishonor of a dragoon's wife against a monastery solicitor, who he called a "bitch." In the provincial office. The monastery servant intercedes for the monastery peasant. 1719 The case, taken from the Vladimir Prikaznaya hut, completed, about the seizure of land. 1713 In the Zemsky Prikaz - about battle and dishonor. 1713 In the order of Zemstvo Affairs. A fugitive man was punished for 5 years for escaping by a batog under the article on slaves and given to his mistress. The owner of such a person punished, beat, etc. in a servile position 1713 In the Zemsky Prikaz - about dishonor and battle. According to the soldier’s tale that no one can guarantee, there is a note: if there are no direct guarantees for them, give them to good receipts, taking from them for stamp paper and for duties, which was sufficient, give them to the Serf Order. Summer 1712, December 24 of the Poshekhonsky district, the estate of the Kirilov Monastery, the village of Semenovsky headman N, the granary headman N and other villages headman NN (more than 20 people) we borrowed 568 rubles from the peasant Ivan Timofeev for a period of up to 1713 to pay the sovereign taxes of the village of Prince Ukhtomsky one half until the autumn Ivan the Theologian, and the other half until Nikolin's day. Written with witnesses at the Serf Affairs. At the secular gathering, they ordered the same peasant from their estate from 249 households to pay oats and hay where it should be, and secured it with notes. 1716 June 19, the verdict of the Uglitsky chancellery begins as follows: by decree of the great sovereign, etc., and by order of the Most Serene Roman and Russian states, the Prince and Duke of Izhora, etc., and the governor of the St. Petersburg province Alex. Dan. Menshikov Mr. Landrat Alexey Iv. Naryshkin (no mention is made of his comrades), having heard this case, sentenced... To the verdict of Landrat Naryshkin, the accused plaintiff, peasant Timofeev, brought a complaint in 1724 to the Yaroslavl Court, where the case was taken. The Yaroslavl Court of Justice and Timofeev were attacked by a monastery minister in 1728 in the Supreme Privy Council. From there, the petition was sent for consideration to the High Senate. The Senate sent her to the Moscow Provincial Chancellery. The provincial chancellery sent him to the office of the Yaroslavl Voivodeship Administration (at that time there was no longer a Court of Justice in Yaroslavl). In 1724, the Yaroslavl Court of Justice was demolished by a promemory with the Poshekhon Synodal Command by the office. 1713 about the lighter peasant Yak. Ivanovich Lobanov-Rostovsky and his mother, who were brought from the landowner to the order of Zemstvo affairs. When questioned, they both accused themselves of burning entire villages. They tortured them twice; the mother was tortured in the same case while still at the landowner's. She died after torture. And the son was sentenced to be burned. On March 9, 1714, he was burned in a log house in the Swamp. Before his death, he spoke to the great sovereign, but did not announce anything important. In interrogation speeches, they slandered the village priest that he kept and sold wine. The order of the priest was reported to Stefan, Bishop of Ryazan and Murom; but he summoned the priest to himself and interrogated him, explaining that according to the decrees and the conciliar statement of the ecumenical patriarchs, the spiritual rank was led by interrogations in the patriarchal Spiritual Prikaz. In the order of Zemstvo Affairs. Claim. It's over with peace. Bronnitsy, now a city, was the Kolomna patrimony of Prince Menshikov. 1713 began, completed in 1718. In the order of Zemstvo Affairs and the Zemstvo Chancellery. A quitrent peasant from the village of Pokrovskoye sells goods in a shop in Serebryany Row. When he (1718) was accused in a lawsuit, and a clerk was sent from the office of Zemstvo Affairs to describe and seal the shop, the headman of the Silver Row did not agree to rewrite without an obedient decree from the order of the Big Treasury; and therefore the clerk only sealed the shop with his seal in front of the merchants. That man’s yard was in the village of Pokrovskoye. In 1713, Prozorovsky was in charge of the order of the Great Treasury. In the case of the recovery from the quitrent peasant of the Silver Row of the merchant Stepan Grigoriev, the following was written: “last June 1714, on the 13th day, according to the personal decree of the Great Sovereign, the money silver and copper yards, and with them the Silver Row, and from that row of elders and trade and gold and silver craftsmen of all kinds of people were ordered to be in charge of the order of the Big Treasury to the boyar Prince Peter I. Prozorovsky and his comrades"; therefore, the order of the Big Treasury required the sending of the file from the Zemstvo Chancellery. In the Zemstvo Chancellery, Timofey’s “judge” is Petr. Panova. Proceeding petition, when the plaintiff transferred his claim to another person. This case was about robbery by hitting a house, but it was carried out according to the claim procedure. Witnesses have been questioned. The defendant is accused according to the claim and according to the witness's tale, without any personal penalty. “January 207... I, Ivan Osipov, the son of the great Ofrosimov, took from my brother Ivan Menshov Ofrosinov the bondage on who to take what debt - boyar Yakov Stepanovich Pushkin on his man Osip Lameev in three memories 33 rubles, 13 alt., 2 money; Yes, his man Ivan Turchinin pays 2 rubles for a horse; and the steward Ivan Rodionovich Streshnev on his man Leonty Yaroslavtsev 20 rubles; on Nikita Blinov 50 rubles; on Andrei Matveev, son of Lodyzhensky, 130 rubles; boyar Prince Vladimir Dmitrievich Dolgorukov on his man Savostyan Zakharov ruble; yes on Konishchevo 6 rubles; Savva Ushakov has 5 buckets of simple wine... I, Ivan, gave a receipt to my brother Ivan Osipov, the youngest son, Ofrosimov. And the receipt was written by order of his sovereign Ivan Osipovich, his man Mishka Skopintsev. Yes, take 8 rubles from daughter-in-law Anna Fedorovna. Ivan the Great Ofrosimov accepted the notes against this receipt from his man Mishka Skopintsov and put his hand in.” The Office of Zemstvo Affairs was also called the Provincial Court. The claim was against two defendants; one case was decided in 1714 in the Military Chancellery; against another, a claim was brought in the Zemstvo Chancellery (in 1720) and in 1739 it was carried out in the Moscow Court Order. A complaint against him for slowness was brought to the Moscow Senate office, where a signature was made on the petition according to the resolution, so that there would be no slowness, and the petitioner brought this signed petition to the Court Order. 1714 August 20. In the order of Zemstvo affairs. The petition of the retired dragoons of the Yartsovs of the Kostroma district against the steward of the estate of the Kozlovsky princes Tormasov, that he, gathered in large numbers with other peasants of up to 400 people, robbed and devastated and cut down their land; they are asking to summon this Tormasov, who is located in Moscow, to trial in Moscow. Tormasov, having appeared at the order on August 27, submitted a petition that he believed that the clerk of the Provisions Order would be interrogated in his place. On this request of the litter: ask, is it commanded for outsiders to go to interrogation for the boyars’ people? Article 185 was issued against the litter. X Ch. Code, and then it is written: but instead of the boyars’ people in the interrogation, whoever they believe is commanded to go - that is not written in the decree. Note: the defendant must be interrogated himself; then in the decisive verdict it is said: for this reason, he was ordered to be the one to be interrogated, because he, the defendant, committed the mischief and offense himself, for which he is subject to investigation. But the defendant did not go into questioning through stubbornness. Finally, in September 1715, the plaintiffs, tired of waiting in Moscow, asked to send the case to the landrat for a share. Pomet (governor?): in the Zemstvo order to Landrichter and his comrades to issue a decree according to the Code without any red tape with special diligence for their lack of property and orphanhood; and if something in the case has not been completed for decision, then send that case, at their request, to that share to the Landrat by decree. Done in 1716. The claim was ordered to be amended against Tormasov and other people and peasants. In September 1717, the landowner Kozlovsky submitted a petition to the order that the decision was not right. It was ordered to discharge him and stop the execution of the sentence. In 1718, during the second decision (of the Office of Zemstvo Affairs), the law was interpreted differently: there is no article in the Code not to allow anyone to answer for boyar people; and if the plaintiff's attorney was accepted, then the defendant had to be accepted as well. 1714 About vacation pay. Of the servants who lived in the owner's house without bondage, he was given one vacation pay each, and he was sent to the datka as a soldier. Such a person, when asking to be dismissed from military service, had to represent himself as a hirer and then received a vacation pay from the order. 1714 Prince Mikh. Lobanov-Rostovsky brought his fugitive peasant, who had returned from running, Login Terentyev. He testified about his residence with Pankraty Sumarokov and about other peasants, among other things about his father. Litter: to hand over the peasant against receipt; and who he lived to interrogate: does he care about that peasant? Sumarokov’s official asked to give him time to inquire in the Penza estate about those peasants. October 12, 1714, write from the Provincial Chancellery to the order of Zemstvo Affairs - from Moscow to Penza, what are the miles of the city? According to the reference book from Moscow to Penza... versts. The extract shows Article 124. X Ch. Code and then: and according to the usual order, whoever happens to be given a deadline, and given a deadline to the city 100 versts a week. A fairy tale with reinforcement. 1715 The verdict in the order of Zemsky Affairs (A.P. Saltykova and his comrades) - the plaintiff was acquitted. The accused defendant submitted a petition for this decision to the governor in the Provincial Chancellery. Litter: A.P. Saltykov and his comrades, listening to this petition, ordered: to take action and issue a decree on that matter in the Zemsky Prikaz to Landrichter Iv. Pavel. Pavlova and his comrades; and if it is not possible for him to issue a decree on that matter, report it to his honor the governor. 1714 In the order of Zemstvo Affairs - about the fugitive landowner Neronov. Driver Ivan Dementyev Strakhov testified among other things: his father was an old peasant of the Yeletsk district of the village of Bogoyavlensky; about 7 years ago, the landowner took him with his whole family and his father to the Moscow district to another estate, where they lived in the landowner's yard as business people. 1714 The peasant Timofey Petrov is looking for the landowner Captain Sontsev against the landowner Sekerin, who, having run over him on the road, took his horse as if for the sovereign’s business and did not give it back. Sekerin appeared at trial; postponed amicably; then the defendant did not appear, and was accused of failure to appear in 1716. There are no guarantors in sight. In 1723, the Court of Justice ruled on this claim and assessed Sekerin's estate. 195, the Filimonov landowners mortgaged the Kozhukhov estate for a year, and in it there were three peasant households; having overdue and not paying, they continued to own the estate and those peasants were taken to another district, and Semyon Lukin with his wife and children was given to the Tula archpriest Gavrila, Stepan with his wife and children - to Arsenyev, Stepan and Lukyan - to Ev. Grigoriev, Grigory Lukin with his wife and children were taken from us by the landowner Savostyanov, and his daughter-in-law with his wife and children by the landowner Kotchenkov. And when after that Kozhukhov’s heir began to demand the mortgage, they gave up the estate to him instead of the debt. On the claim of runaway peasants against the widow of the Preobrazhensky regiment, officer Oznobishin, the case was taken from the Zemsky Prikaz to Preobrazhensky; Then, when the widow married a foreigner, the case was again sent to the Zemstvo Chancellery. Decree on recovery of landrat's share. 1718 The landowner did not blame the fugitive peasants for holding, but the headman was decent; and therefore it was ordered to recover from him as a defendant. But there was nothing to collect from him except the yard. When collecting, it was necessary to collect a manual record on it. (In 1719 there is still a rule, and statements are given for the right). But there was no bail for him; and the peasant said he had nothing to pay, but let the landowner pay, because she knew about the plaintiff’s petition and objected to it. Art. summed up Code Xth Ch. 161 and 162. Note of 1720:... take the landowner as the defendant, so that she is aware of the above plaintiff’s claim and many of her petitions for him, the defendant, appear in the case; and the defendant said he had nothing to pay with. 1715 In the Provincial Chancellery about a penalty for a contract. 1715 In the Provincial Chancellery, Prince Obolensky and Shemyakin talk about horses. The verdict was in October 1716. In 1718, the accused Shemyakin asked to be overturned. Note: write down in a book, write out, etc. The statement is made; but the acquitted plaintiff asks not to believe Shemyakin’s petition. Note: if the matter is completed, then declare the case to the judges against this petition, and the petition will be accepted; if Landrichter's name and the accomplishment are not indicated in it, then it is acted upon by an extract; and if the decision is Landrichter, then the extract is not valid, but the plaintiff, if it is completed within a week, must be struck with his forehead in the Provincial Chancellery (This notice should be in the College of Justice because a decision was made there in 1719 that was contrary to the decision of the Provincial Chancellery). Also at the request of the litter: by decree of the great sovereign on this matter, gentlemen comrades to carry out a decree protest under the oath without red tape. It follows: suspicious protestatsigya (commissar), this probably means opinion. 2nd Commissar Nebolsin: I am making this protest with my opinion; 3rd Commissar Serg. Vyazemsky, 4th clerk Drukovtsev, 5th clerk Druzhinin. Agryzhanova's case. Until March 15, 1727, subordinates of the Synodal Department were in charge of judicial and investigative cases in that department; and from that decree they were ordered to be led by governors and governors. At the Synod in 1727, prosecutor Alexei Baskakov. Spiritual Dicastery; its promemory in 1731 was signed by: Avvakum, abbot Ugreshsky and secretary Sevastyan Zykov; the other was signed: Macarius, Abbot of the Exaltation of the Cross. In 1728 in Moscow: Moscow Office of the Holy Governing Synod; The Spiritual Dicastery is within her grasp. “By decree of September 4, 1722, the secular ministers of the Synodal Command were ordered to carry out the work and make decisions in the Kamor-Kontor, and not in the Spiritual Dicastery.” "Kamor-Office of the Synodal Government"; in 1726 its president was Chicherin. A claim against an almshouse beggar from the Pokrovskaya almshouse was filed (1716) in the Monastic Prikaz; The boyar Prince Peter sat in the order. Iv. Prozorovsky. In November 1722 in St. The Synod included: Theodosius, Archbishop of Novgorod and Archimandrite of Alexander Nevsky, Theophan, Archbishop of Pskov, Theophylact, Archimandrite of Chudovskoy, Hierotheus, Archimandrite of Novospassky, Peter, Archimandrite of Simonovsky, Athanasius, Abbot of Tolga, Varlaam, Abbot of Ugreshsky. “See historical and legal acts of the transitional era of the 17th–18th centuries.” 1716 In the Zemstvo Chancellery. The case of Zagryazhsky and Saltykov. There is a special search in the office. Kolodnik Fedor Belozerov, a soldier accused of stealing a horse, died on orders, and his body was sent to the Poor House, which is outside the Petrovsky Gate. Retraction. 1717 During the proceedings, the defendant was You. Fed. Saltykov filed a petition that Commissar Mikhei Nebolsin was committing all sorts of unjust encroachments on his master, but bestowing them on his opponent; so that he does not know his affairs. Litter - without any inquiry: not to know the matter. Commandant Ivan Petrovich Izmailov ordered. In 1716, in the palace village of Danilovsky there was (clerk?) Timofey Polozov, - “by order from the landrat, from Ivan Raslov, he was ordered to manage all sorts of affairs over the volost peasants and over the Danilovsky residents according to the Code.” The volost elder came to him with other peasants and asked him to go to the order: they had a petition. And having come to the official hut, he beat the great sovereign with his forehead verbally, and in the verbal petition it is written... and so on... that the quartermaster, (hence, a stranger who did not belong to the volost), came to the house of Nikita Gladkov, (a peasant), taught him to beat and, taking out his sword, taught, etc...; and so that the great sovereign orders him to be sent and found in the official hut. The defendant, having been found, did not go into questioning and became violent; For this reason he is kept in the order, i.e. taken under arrest. The kolodnik went on a rampage and began to beat the watchman. The clerk, upon notification of the watchman, ordered him to be placed under the hut. He went on a rampage again. The watchman was ordered to shackle him up to his feet or put him on a chain. After spending the night under a hut, the defendant was handed over on signature. (And the defendant, having returned from service, lived in the village with his father). In the Zemsky Prikaz, Islenyev began a case against Polozov, presenting everything in a different form. The message after the judgment speeches: order the defendant Polozov to put in place the order given by the Landrat. (When a case was required, it was sometimes written in the decree specifically to send it “past the plaintiff and the defendant.” Then the case was sent by messenger on purpose). Production of the Danilovskaya zakat hut: 1) the verbal petition of the peasant Gladkov, who came with the headman Britvin; it is said N informs verbally and: .. a genuine verbal petition has a hand attached. 2) Litter. For the investigation of the defendant, detective memory was given to the walker Ivan Mikhailov and his comrades (December 1715, the elder Iv. Yakovlev verbally notified the palace Danilovsky volost of the running (sleep?) howls). February 14, 1716, the verdict of the order of Zemstvo affairs: the plaintiff Islenyev is denied. 1714 Inscriptions on the deeds of sale: December 28, 1714 for a letter and with a note and for a letter extra pages 11 altyn, 4 money was taken, and this deed of sale in Kostroma at the Serf Affairs was recorded in the book with a list; and for a completed note, show it and pay the fees where required in the indicated amount; but if it is not recorded in the indicated number, it will not be sent to the fortress. About the testimony of spiritual Aristova. In March 1716, she was presented to the order of Zemsky Affairs by Bolshakov, to whom half of the estate was bequeathed for the house, i.e., the widow was given the obligation to sacrifice. The spiritual was homemade, not written by the serfs. A letter about the interrogation of witnesses was sent to Sudislavl to the Landrat on March 7, 1716. But while it was still in the Printed Order, Aristov’s relative declared a dispute on the spiritual one, indicating that it, as a domestic one, was invalid. The letter was taken back from the Printed Order, the clerk was ordered to be flogged with batogs for taking home spiritual services without coping with the decrees, and for other faults; but the spiritual one was declared invalid, and duties were ordered to be collected from Bolshakov as a fine. 1721 in the Nadvorny Court: colonels Ershov and Davydov; Timofey Tarbeev, Iv. Kozhin and secretary Timofey Bezborodov. 1721 Manual entries in the article. Between the peasants of the Korniliev monastery and the peasants of the landowner Ukhtomsky, Belov now, about borrowed money. It was carried out in the Uglitsky and Poshekhonsky provincial offices and the Yaroslavl Nadvorny Court. (1718 quartet?). In 1723, the decree from the College of Justice was strengthened by: Prince Alexei Lvov, Efim Pyzhev, Pyotr Kvashnin-Samarin. In 1720, at the Justits Collegium, the president, gr. Andrey Artem. Matveev and his comrades ordered: (a note on the petition follows). The note was signed by members of the Justits Collegium: D. Brevern, Ivan Tolstoy, Sigismund Adam Wolf, Prince Co.., A... Koshelev., Other notes were simply signed: Count Matveev. In the official hut, the messenger collected the bail. 1716 In the Provincial Chancellery. About the runaway peasants of Kravchiy Naryshkin. In the refusal books of 1704, peasants were named. 1716 In the Zemsky Prikaz. About the fugitive peasants of Prince Shekhonsky, his heir Barkov, with the landowner of the village of Lyskova. The fugitive peasant Alexei Fedorov Petushenok, who lived on the run in the village of Lyskovo for Tsarevich Archil, (it is clear that there were several clerks in Lyskovo, including Georgian princes, for example, Prince Uranus, Prince Spodarov’s son), shows: “they lived with the knowledge of the clerks Grigory Ivanov, Prince Bogdan Semenov, Prince Simon Grigoriev, Prince Davyd Ivanov and headman and electors; and, tenacious, they paid all sorts of taxes and dues to the sovereign and Tsar Archil, and went on carts to Moscow with all sorts of supplies in equal measure with their peasants, and did all sorts of work for the clerks. And last year, 1709, according to a painting sent from Moscow from Tsar Archila Vakhtangeevich, those peasants were gathered with their wives and children in the village of Lyskovo into an official hut under the clerk Prince. Uran Spodarov, and took from them 3 altyns per capita, 2 per person for males and females; and the clerks Ivan Ivanov, son of the Razdeakons, accepted the total money from that village.” Queen (Imereti) Ekaterina Davydovna emphasized that all her people and peasants were in charge of the Ambassadorial Prikaz in all matters. The driven peasant proves that, having fled, he lived in Lyskovo with the permission of the clerk with the peasant Ilya Alekseev for 5 years and paid, (in another place: he paid the elderly), half a ruble for a year; then from the peasant Iv. Semenov for 5 years, paid the same... And after leaving him, he bought himself a yard in the same village from the peasant Yegor Kononov and lived in that yard for two years; and in those two years he paid all the sovereign's income to King Archil against his taxes. March 1716. Moscow landowner Nikiforov. His complaint was called a lawsuit. According to Malitsam, Moscow district, on the Lopasna River. He complains that taxes are being demanded and imposed on him for the excess number of households, while he has one household, and his neighbor and co-owner Sukmanov should be charged for the rest; requested proceedings on the deeds and portable books. The complaint was filed with Landrat Kakovinsky. The summoned defendant Sukmanov was interrogated on April 24; but there was no evidence, and there were no mutual speeches at the trial. Lists of deeds of sale from fortresses of 1701 were submitted to the court. Sukmanov expresses himself in his speeches as follows: “but in another courtyard of the boby Login Terentyev, his father did not buy him, and his father was not written on the deed of sale; and his father bought it, Ivan Terentyev, and in the deed of purchase it... is written "... Landrat applied to the Local Order for the delivery of a certificate from the census books in 186. In August 1717, the verdict: by decree of the great sovereign and point by point - Landrat N, having heard this case, was sentenced: to refuse the plaintiff. Meanwhile, on August 9, Nikiforov complained to the governor of Kir. Al. Naryshkin for slowness and asked to take the case; on the petition note: the landrat should issue a decree immediately. In December 1717 he complained about the authorities in the office of Zemstvo Affairs. The matter was demanded and confirmed several times upon request; but the landrat in February 1718, in a report to the governor, explained: in 1715, by a personal decree, it was ordered: if any of the landrats fall into any sin or the court does something wrong, those landrats should be judged by the governors themselves with the vice-governor and with the landrat. And so he doesn’t dare send that case to the Zemsky order. Then the Zemsky Prikaz sent an additional message to the Provincial Office; this took place as a result of the petition and the markings on it of Judge Timothy Peter. Panova. According to the instructions of the Provincial Chancellery, the file was sent in May 1719. An extract was drawn up in the Provincial Chancellery. Then the case ended up in 1721 in the Moscow Nadvorny Court, from where a new certificate with the Local Order was taken. 1716 Kvashnina-Samarina about a fugitive business man who was caught and brought to the order. He shows: he heard from his mother that after the death of his father, Kvashnin-Samarin took her and her children from his Vladimir estate from the peasantry to the Aleksinsky district to the landowner's courtyard as business people. His mother died when he was 30 years old or more... He lived on the run from the landowner Karacharov in Borovsky district as a business person. As a result of this testimony, Kvashnin asks for the return of the brought wife, who remains with Karacharov; and according to his, the sovereign’s, decree, it was ordered that in such matters the Landrat should administer justice in shares. Therefore, a letter was sent to Landrat Potemkin in Borovsk with a copy of the petition and questioning speeches. When a person is returned, 4 altyns were taken from the transfer money, 2 money and half money for expenses, and were given to the income clerk for expenses. 1717 About old money. In 1706, the clerk of the Admiralty Affairs Mizhuev brought his fugitive peasant to the Local Prikaz. From 1717 to 1727 there is a gap; then the case appears in the Nadvorny Court - an extract. In 1731, the case was heard in the Court Order. The protocol was signed by: Prince Alexei Golitsyn, Login Shcherbachev. The court order is communicated with the Patrimonial Collegium regarding the certificate of promemories. In 1732, recovery by sentence. A detective has been sent for the defendant. He was brought and kept in prison; released due to illness; Then they ask: is there anything to pay? A decree was issued in 1720 so as not to keep people on the right. 1714 Posadsky bought a man and owned him. 1716 June. Production of the Office of the Senate Government. The clerk of that office, Alexey Ulanov, stole money from the Greek Foma Nikolaev. This latter filed a complaint against him in the office of the Senate Board, “notified him verbally”; As a result, the clerk was immediately searched, caught and confessed. A search was carried out in his house, for which a Senate clerk was sent. The case contains the testimony of the driving girl: “Her name is Afimya, Izot’s daughter. Her father Izot was a peasant Yakov Matveev, the son of Panov, and whose district and village she does not remember, for that reason after her father she remained at a young age; and its landowner, Popov, when he was 12 years old, gave it for the debt of clerk Ivan Ulanov to his man who takes care of business, Ivan Petrov’s son Rogov.” 1716 The case began with the Reshem landrat of the Suzdal province; (landrat and commissar). The petition was from the head of the estate, Prince. Drutsky on the peasants of the village of Upper Landekha, Prince. Dolgorukov about the missing peasant. About the interrogation of the salt head, the Lukhovsky commandant wrote to the Lukhovsky Zemsky hut to the mayor. (When a notice of deportation of the defendant was sent, duties were also taken from it). Then the case was transferred to the Suzdal Office of Justice Affairs, which is also called the Office of the Provincial Court; it was chaired by the governor, Colonel Voronetskoy. In April 1724 “by order of the majors and the Suzdal Province of Assessors”... The matter was smoked by the world. Who should pay the duties was a condition of peace. Taken: for the spring head from 50 rubles. in hryvnia from ruble 5 rubles; office supplies no hryvnia per ruble - 5 rubles; right according to altyn per ruble - 1 rub., 16 alt., 4 d.; world 6 alt., 4 money. Only 11 rubles, 23 alt. (Petitions are written for the headman and signed by “zemstvo sexton” or “patrimonial sexton”. Signs of peasants as witnesses are often found under the documents). 1716 July. In the office of the Zemsky Court. According to the petition of the Grand Duke Alexei Petrovich of the Feed Palace of the fish trader Belikov - on behalf of his wife, who was in her first marriage to the clerk of the Big Palace Bessonov, that her first husband had an overdue mortgage on the yard of the clerk Samoilov and, due to the delay, it went to him for the debt, and an extract was issued - and now that yard is owned, for some unknown reason, by the widow of the clerk Bakhmeteva; to find her man who takes care of business. The man has been found; and to deliver the fortress to the courtyard of his landowner in the Saransk district, he asked for a time limit of 700 versts; but without waiting for permission to this request, he entered into an installment plan with the plaintiff, 20 days later he went to court and delivered the deed of sale from Bessonov to Bakhmetev on December 9, 206. The plaintiff placed a mortgage on August 17, 203 and an extract to the court on September 206 from the Zemsky order. The plaintiff began to lie about the defendant's bill of sale, calling it a composite bill. According to the notes (November 1716), it was supposed to be examined, but it was not carried out; and in June 1717 a verdict was passed to set the defendant free, so that Bessonov himself sold his yard; and the plaintiff argued for a week, unable to complete the sale, and did not submit any letters from Bessonov’s hand as evidence. Then, at Bakhmeteva’s request, she was sentenced to food and red tape; and since he had nothing to pay, then, by decree of January 15, 1718, in December of that year he was sent to work on the galleys. In August 1719, he sent a petition that the bill of sale was composite and was not written down anywhere. They ordered him to be returned from the Admiralty and, having been discharged, to report. On September 24, 1719, Ober-Landrichter and his comrades made a new decision: to correct Belikov, and to recognize the bill of sale as invalid, because it was not written down anywhere by decree and should be a composite one, because Bakhmeteva’s man first asked for the due date, but, without traveling, presented the act; It’s notable that that bill of sale was written now, and not in 206. And that the first sentence was wrong, and that was done by the clerical obligatory report (the decree on the registration of fortresses was not given), and according to that sentence nothing should be done, since it was incorrectly carried out against the decrees. Then Bakhmeteva began to prove again that it is permissible to register fortresses indefinitely and that that bill of sale was recorded at the same time as it was presented to the court, and that it is genuine. Note: to examine it with letters from Bessonov’s hand and for this purpose send it to the order of the Grand Palace (where he was a clerk). Bakhmeteva points out that he served in the Town Hall and there are many letters from him. They were sent to the Town Hall. In January 1721, the answer was received: “The old clerks of the Town Hall and the old clerk of the Pomeranian Customs House testified, and all 11 people, looking at Bessonov’s hand, signed that the hand on the bill of sale was similar to his notes in the Town Hall Book.” That's where the matter ends. The petition upon filing with the court (1716) remained sealed. The defendant learned its contents and the claim when he appeared and entered the court, in his speech). 1716 In the office of Zemstvo Affairs - about the recovery of a loan from a person by the book. Dolgorukov and his lieutenants in favor of the quitrent peasant Prince. Menshikov. Without going to court, the debtor and the guarantor brought the money. 1716 About the inspection of a dacha cut down by a neighbor in the Moscow district of Malitsky camp. A clerk was sent for inspection; and on the way there he wrote that during the inspection, the clerk and solicitor and with him about 20 people rode out on horseback. And the solicitor “Silin, grabbed my horse by the bridle, and took away the order that was given to me, and called it a thief’s order, and scolded me with obscenities... and called me a thief. And that’s why he knocked me down from the Elagina wasteland and threatened me: when you go to Moscow, at that time you will see for yourself what will happen to you.” 1716 About the issue of vacation pay from the order for Mr. Bestuzhev-Ryumin’s departure overseas. It began in 1716 at the Serpukhov Landrat. Zemlyanoye in Serpukhov district; about forcible seizure and, as a result, patrimonial rights to the wasteland. On both sides there are extracts from scribe books. Then the unfinished business was transferred to the office of Zemstvo Affairs. Here in January 1721 it was recognized as subject to the department of the Local Order and was ordered to be sent there. But one of the parties asked not to send the case to the Patrimonial Office, because in the Zemsky order there was a court and it was supposed to make a measure of the land, but it did not reach the measure. Then, in October 1721, the Zemsky Prikaz made a decision on patrimonial rights and added: do not send that case to the Patrimonial Office, because there was a trial in that case, and references to the Local Prikaz and the extent of that land were not spoken in court again; and the link was to the extract; and in the case of forced possession, the defendant and the plaintiff have special dealings. The verdict was signed by Ladrichter and three assessors. The notary certified the certificate, and the clerk completed it. 1716 About a driven fugitive man. He showed: he is a courtyard businessman of the wife of the steward Yazykov of her Rostov estate; .. and he was taken into the landowners' courtyard for being an orphan from the peasantry and married to his peasant landowner's wench. In the cities, the contents were handed over to the prison kisser. In 192, the plaintiff asked the governor: he found out that his fugitive was living there; asks to give him archers and a memorial to the district for witnesses. The defendant (196) in the case of the fugitives complains, among other things, that a fairy tale in which he is called his clerk, and not a peasant, was taken from the peasant of his driver; He asks, among other things, not to believe the handwritten note, because in it his peasant was written by a man, not a peasant. The case of the fugitive from Krom was petitioned to the Moscow Judgment Order, and was decided by the sovereigns John, Peter and Sophia: “having listened... they indicated in the hall and the boyars sentenced...” It happened that the landowner died alone and after his death the heirs did not suddenly appear; in such cases, the peasants sometimes completely dispersed from the village. In 1719, a clerk was sent by order to the court of Prince Shcherbatov: no one was captured by his people; then it was ordered to take him himself (to collect a lawsuit and duties on him), since those duties were a considerable number. The clerk writes about this on arrival: having taken witnesses, they came to the courtyard... And seeing him, Prince Peter Shcherbatov, through the window in the middle room, that he was in the house, entered the vestibule; and he, Prince Pyotr Shcherbatov, locked his upper rooms at the front, and at the middle, and at the back door, and he himself hid from them and locked himself in the bedroom. And we knocked at that front room for a long time; and in that upper room no one gave us a voice. Both the front room and the middle room had their doors knocked off; and in the middle room his men, Prince Shcherbatov, two men, came out. And those people asked him, Prince Peter Shcherbatov; and they said: they are not in the landowner’s house, he left for St. Petersburg. And when I, the clerk, and the soldiers, with witnesses at his bedroom, saw the door to his bedroom, they knocked down and entered that bedroom, and from that bedroom they took him, Prince Pyotr Shcherbatov, from his bed. 1716 November. In the office of Zemstvo Affairs. About the spiritual note of the Kostroma coachman Kobyakov; introduced his stepson Goloperov. He presented a spiritual document written in 1715 in Kostroma at the Serf Affairs in favor of Kobyakov’s second wife. The spiritual father laid hands on him: “I sat with this spiritual one and heard the order of my spiritual son”; .. four witnesses about the same thing. Wrote Serf Affairs Clerk. According to Goloperov’s petition, they were sent to the landrat of Kostroma to interrogate witnesses and the scribe according to the Gospel commandment: was the whole mind... was this the order... was it at his command that they put their hand in? Order the property to be valued by pricers in the presence of attesting witnesses and a fiscal officer. Meanwhile, in December 1716, the children of the deceased submitted a petition to the Zemsky Prikaz arguing that the stepmother had persuaded their father to harm them and that the spiritual spirit was contrary to the decrees. Extract; written out, according to the petitioner's link, of the city law 5th facets of ch. 49, art. 6; Ch. 30, art. 10 and decrees of 1714 and 1716. In January 1717, the rise of governor Cyrus. Al. Naryshkina and her comrades: destroy the spiritual, because it is contrary to the decrees, and divide the property according to the law. Signed by: Topilsky, Commissioner Nebolsin, clerk Druzhinin. Give the widow 1/4 of the share without counting the dowry; the remaining three parts of the immovable are for the larger daughter, and the three parts of the movable are for the smaller daughter. And then the entire estate should be described and cordoned off, and from the cordon, duties would be taken at one hryvnia, and stationery duties at one altyn per ruble. The dowry after their mother, their first wife, should not be included in the division, but should be given separately. In October 1717, the landrat sent a reply with price books. 1716 Began in Moscow, in the Military Chancellery According to the claim of the steward Zasetsky for dishonor - against Major Oblov, that, having dealt with him in the Local Prikaz, in his request he called him a snitch. Oblov refused to answer against the claim because he came to Moscow from the regiment for a while and was known to his commanders. The military chancellery, however, forced him to answer and sent for him; but he did not appear and refused. They demanded from him why he was in Moscow and that he show his leave. The case was with steward Matvey Golovin. Oblov complained to St. Petersburg about the acceptance of that claim; in the local Military Chancellery with Prince Ya. F. Dolgorukov; but from there, in January 1717, he was ordered to answer in Moscow. However, he did not show up. In March 1717, Prince. Dolgorukov ordered Oblov to answer, and Zasetsky to be evidence, to be sent to St. Petersburg. Then, in October 1718, Zasetsky asks in Moscow at the Military Chancellery that “his claim has been printed and the statement has been issued, but there is no decree.” Meanwhile, Oblov submitted a petition to the Moscow Provincial Chancellery, challenging Judge Golovin for unfriendliness, and asked to take the case from the Military Chancellery. Required; and in the Provincial Chancellery he was sentenced to be interrogated in the Office of Zemstvo Affairs. The case was sent to the office of Zemstvo affairs. In 1719, Oblov obtained for himself from the Provincial Chancellery a government parcel to Kostroma, and for this purpose it was delayed for him. Then Oblov complained to the Provincial Chancellery that he had been transferred from the Vladimir garrison to the Moscow garrison and was under the command of the Moscow vice-governor, and not in the Zemstvo Chancellery. The provincial office demands the case again (1720). The Zemstvo Chancellery did not send him away, however, saying that the decree did not order that unfinished cases be sent anywhere, not only to the Provincial Chancellery, but also to the Court. New demand, new refusal. The decision of the Zemstvo Chancellery began with the submission of the opinions of the assessors from the junior; Then the protocol followed: according to the decree and the Provost... Ober-Landrichter and his comrades, having listened to extracts and opinions, they sentenced: the plaintiff to be sent back... Then, according to Oblov’s petition, the case was taken to the Moscow Court, where it was decided already in 1722. It is written out: in the decree of the great sovereign, which was written by his royal majesty with his own hand, (of which a copy was sent to the decree from St. Petersburg from the State College of Justice on January 28, 1720), it is written: before his royal majesty knows, it happened that in many cases, when about whom what will happen, to what question or search, and then they will happen relatives, who are among those judges, which should not be at all, - for this reason, the royal majesty ordered, according to his personal decree, the great sovereign, to send decrees to all boards, so that this would not be done in the future; but even those relatives of theirs would then go out to their houses when such matters happen. (See P.S. 3. No. 3480). A decree about the same was sent on July 1, 1720: “when the lower court is a judge,” etc.... 1716. At Landrat Dmitrovsky's office. About the battle and injury to the clerk and peasants, Prince. Bekovich-Cherkassky. The clerk asked: since his master was serving overseas, he should be given a reprieve. Note: take a fairy tale from the clerk to give him a decree on deferment. In 1718, the unfinished business was transferred to the office of Zemstvo Affairs. The defendant is charged; It was ordered to give the authority an extract. New petition - new verdict in 1720 1716 December. In the office of Zemstvo Affairs. The plaintiff of the Bread Palace, the watchman Lukyanov, against his shopkeeper Mikhail Vasilyev, which his father, priest Vasily, gave him according to the residential record, for losses, waste of goods, failure to pay and non-return of money taken for trade; - asks to recover according to the record from him, his father and the lieutenants. During the judgment speeches, both sides put down bills and receipts. The taking of money for trade was proven by a receipt in the plaintiff’s debt book according to their trading custom. In October 1717, the plaintiff, assuming the responsibility of the lieutenants and the prisoner, asked to inform the Serf Order that no fortresses should be placed in their yards. Note: against the petition, if the case is necessary, send a decree to the Serf Order. Execution. By decree of the great sovereign. Conducting from the office of Zemstvo affairs to Serf affairs. In the current October 1716, on the 4th day, according to his, the great sovereign, decree against the petition of the Bread Palace, the watchman Zinovy Lukyanov to the courtyard of the defendant of the Varsonofyevsky nunnery of the priest's son Mikhail Vasilyev, deeds of sale and mortgages, and deeds and no meekness were ordered to be written to anyone, for the time being in the office of Zemsky affairs in the case of him, Zinoviev, with him, Mikhail, in his claim, Zinovy, in 98 rubles, in 19 alt., in 3 den., and in the store and in the profits of the great sovereign, the decree will be made; and the Serfs are to take charge of this and carry it out according to the decree written above by his great sovereign. There is no mention of lieutenants. Serf affairs were in the same Zemstvo Chancellery; in another place in the case there is a note: of the above-mentioned court in the fortresses in the office of Zemstvo Affairs, until the decree and the completion of the case, there is no one to write down and letters about this should be sent out to the tables and given to the chief officers with receipts. Verdict in favor of the plaintiff in December 1717 Among other things, it was ordered to collect profit and store money from the housekeeper for the amount given in the auction; and about that money from the merchants of the honey row of shopkeepers, from whom it is necessary, against the plaintiff’s exile, to take a fairy tale. On January 20, 1718, according to that verdict - in the office of Zemstvo affairs of the upper honey row, the headman of this 1718 tannery fifty Andrei Averkiev, son of Mochentsov, and the same row, trading people from Kadashevets N, rawhide settlement N - appeared, and... were interrogated for profit money. And during the interrogation, according to the Gospel commandment, they said: for their goods, honey for real money was 200 rubles. You can bargain for September and October months for 5 rubles. for a month, the total for those two months will be 10 rubles; and the store money is paid to them from their profitable traded profit money, and for those two months from the store money 15 rubles there will be two rubles of the store money. with half a ruble. In January 1718, rights were still being made. When I survived, it’s a fairy tale - is there anything to pay. In the fairy tale, the defendant showed that there was nothing behind him; and his father bought land in his name and built a house; asked for a new decree (Jan. 15. 1718) six-month term with bail. (When an inventory and valuation of property was assigned, at which, by law, a fiscal officer had to be present, the order was given to the chief fiscal officer and his comrades to know about this in advance in order to appoint a fiscal officer. The clerk was written in the order to take with him pricers (by type of property, for example, for the yard of forestry pricers), and a soldier, with witnesses, to describe and evaluate;.. (arrest)... and belongings that according to inventories will appear, seal). The pricer was a masonry contractor (the building was made of stone); and the merchant’s fiscal was present (the plaintiff was a merchant, and the defendant was his prisoner). The owner needed fortresses. Upon submission of the inventory to the Zemstvo Chancellery, the owner of the priest's courtyard gave a fairy tale that the fortress on the land was written by the Pushkins, but is in their hands, because the money has not yet been paid; and the courtyard was built with their money, because the priest was their spiritual father; so, the yard actually belongs to them. It was ordered to consult the Serfdom Order - is there such a fortress in the note? It turned out to be a fortress. Meanwhile, the fiscal Belilnikov, who was present at the appraisal, finding that the yard was valuable at a small price, filed a report about this to the fiscal affairs. Fiscal affairs wrote about this to the office of Zemstvo Affairs. (The extract was drawn up by the clerk who had a case in progress; the case was, according to the mark of the clerk or judge, commissar. First, it was made black - usually by an old clerk, then it was copied in white - usually by a young clerk, then the white one was copied by an old clerk. The litigant or attorney could come to the office and look at the note; but it could not be given to the house. If found that it was “faulty against the subject matter,” and could not immediately obtain a correction, then he came in with a petition and a note was made on the extract: to write out from the decrees. The selection from the decrees was completely arbitrary: it also depended on the clerk; case, and sometimes it began right in the case directly behind the judge’s mark. At the Town Hall, merchants and farmers, in mutual bickering, addressed petitioners who were present, who were recorded in a special appearance book. The purpose of the note was sometimes to announce and approve such an obligation, which could serve to justify it in case of a dispute that might arise). When the governor, etc., was asked to reverse the matter, it was called: bring a controversial petition to that completed matter. This controversial petition was brought in 1713 by the prince. Baryatinskaya and asked: “at the request (?) of Judge Chirikov, to take the case to another order.” Note on the petition of clerk Tikhmenev: by order of the great sovereign... the Moscow governor... Saltykov ordered that petition and... the subject matter to be transferred from the Zemsky Prikaz to the Provisions Prikaz. But the Provision Order sent the case back. The execution of the appealed decision was stopped, for the most part, due to the judge’s notice as a result of petitions. The archiate Robert Karlusovich Areskin had a man Fyodor Karandashov. In 1717, the plaintiff Theils entrusted his walking to Fyodor Karandashov. The defendant in a special petition dismissed this attorney, showing that he was a known thief and murderer, and that this was known in the Patriarchal Order. In the office of Zemstvo affairs, the note: write out from the decrees, and deal with the Patriarchal order about that matter; and he, Karandashov, for such a defect, instead of the plaintiff according to the previous mark, will not be able to receive this certificate; and for this reason, the plaintiff and the defendant should be given a delay and not charged with arrears for the landownership, but should be ordered to look for someone else in his place, whom he trusts and who is blameless. (Secretary Kireev was in the Local Prikaz. In the Pomestim Prikaz there was a recruitment table where recruits were received. Here the distribution depended on the clerk on inspection: who to send to the army, who due to injury or illness or the like should be left in Moscow without being sent away. So from the Posad Zaraisk Lanin in 1713 was sent from the Provincial Chancellery to the Local Prikaz to the Recruitment Desk for notes to recruits. And that Lapin, at the note, told Kireev that he was old and sick with his left hand, and was suffering from epilepsy. And he, Kireev, looking at him, Lapin, said to him: if he, Lapin, was brought to the note according to the tale of the mayors and townspeople, - and for such thinness he did not have the chance to enroll as a recruit, because by the decree of the great sovereign it was ordered to enroll as recruits those who are kind and humane and not in old age, and for the thin and crippled and old, there are fines for the recruits. And for this purpose, he, Kireev, marked him, Lanin: to send him to the regiment to Meshcherinov, because that regiment lives in Moscow. Λ then Colonel Meshcherinov came to him, Kireev, with an order and said that Lanin should be given a uniform, and he, Kireev, calling clerk Yudin to the table, ordered the uniform to be given). From the internal provinces, peasants carried supplies and provisions to masters who lived in service in distant lands, for example. from Tula to Courland; (and Bolotova was taken from Tula to Koenigsberg). The landowner Raevsky complains that neighboring peasants forcibly seized from the peasants his 4 horses, on which he had to carry supplies from the Tula district to Courland, so he had to hire carts and paid for them 18 rubles, 29 alt., 2 money. The case began in the office of Zemsky Affairs in January 1717. A clerk was sent to summon the defendant’s people; but there was disobedience. The third parcel was in March 1717; a right-handed man was brought and kept in the order: every such person was considered a convict and an article list was written about him, on which notes were made. On this list in April 1717, a note was made: to give the person a receipt, and to send a decree to the landrat to expel the guilty people and peasants Gleb Ignatiev. But to this day, the peasant is not freed for lack of signers; but the decree was not sent because the plaintiff has not been working on the case since the 11th of March for more than two months. From January 1718 The plaintiff asks for a decree to be issued due to the defendant's failure to appear. Discharged and nothing done. The next request was already in 1722. It was issued - already in the Court of Justice, and sentenced - to accuse the defendant. Execution is entrusted to the Tula Provincial Chancellery. Due to non-payment, an inventory and assessment of the Ignatiev estate in the village of Rasinsky was carried out. It was done (in 1723) by a Tula nobleman and a clerk with a fiscal officer. “To publish to the people about the purchase of this estate, a “messenger and a soldier” were sent to the Tula district in various villages and villages of Tula. They told a story that they went to such and such villages and villages (five in total), “and in these villages and villages they published about the purchase... of an estate... - only no one showed up for the auction or purchase. Then the estate was handed over to the plaintiff with the obligation to pay duty money. He promised to pay them in a fairy tale at the office of the Moscow Court of Justice. 1717 In the Zemstvo Chancellery of Prince. Vadbolskoy was looking for his fugitive man, who fled from the Kashira estate and lives in Moscow, and he pays for him out of nowhere; asked to give him a bailiff. The man turned out to be registered in a Moscow suburb. Then the Zemstvo Chancellery demanded information from the Town Hall - as ordered in such cases; and the Town Hall sent an extract from the decrees. This was done in all cases where it was possible to assume decrees of special content. The Town Hall also sent an extract from the sample files. And the fugitive man was married to a townsman girl and was chosen by the worldly people to be a kisser in the order of the Artillery in charge of receiving and discharging all kinds of artillery supplies. An extract was made in the Zemstvo Chancellery On it in March 1717 there was a note: to put the landowner in the fortress and deal with the Town Hall - that headman accepted that fugitive with what decree? Vadbolskaya was supposed to present the census books of 186; but it was impossible to get them from the Local Order, because by the Tsar’s decree all those books and local affairs were requisitioned to St. Petersburg. And therefore Vadbolsky’s man asked for a certificate from the Tula Landrat, who had lists from those books. Landrat sent the extract when he signed up to the Zemstvo Chancellery with Vadbolsky’s man. And the Town Hall answered with the old fairy tale that when a person was accepted, then he had a bargain for 100 rubles. and more, and adopted on the basis of the Code ch. XIX, Art. 3, - with a handwritten record of the townspeople. The verdict in 1720: - for that peasant to be in the peasantry, and from the auction to be on par with the merchant people, only they will not choose him for any service in the future. This decree was announced to the peasant, and he was released from the order and given to the headman for signature. In 1721, Vadbolskoy looked for waste and red tape among the headman and lieutenants. In 1722, a peasant complained that, not against the decree, the headman and his comrades assigned him to serve in the village and imposed extra taxes; asks to notify the Town Hall of the verdict. According to this request, it was ordered: to notify the Magistrate; but there is no solution to food problems. 1717 About the loan Letter given by the peasant Lopukhin to the townsman. The defendant trusted the man of his landowner, Andrei Zamyatnin, to answer for himself. The petitioner writes that his case has been heard and written down in the “heard notebook.” In this case, the plaintiff's attorney, having heard the petition, did not answer, with an excuse, and for that (in October 1718) he was accused of the lawsuit. His excuse that “the defendant himself went missing” was considered to be valid for a week. In 1719, the plaintiff asked to recover the claim from the attorney Zamyatin himself. Zamyatnin claims that he promptly submitted a petition to the Zemstvo Chancellery about the defendant’s disappearance. The order included a Judicial table (presence) in a special room, and there was a breech at the door. In the prison yard there was a special penitential ward, where sentenced criminals were sent away from the order; they were confessed in repentance and received the Holy Mysteries. 1717 Timashev filed a claim against Moskatinyev for the seizure and ruin of the Vladimir estate. After the court speeches, a written record was collected for the plaintiff; but the defendant, without waiting for the signature note, when the bailiff was rushing around with both of them to collect the signature notes, disappeared from him. The plaintiff asked the bailiff to find him and gave him his man to indicate the defendant's yard; but the defendant did not let him into the yard, and for the second time they said that he had moved out of Moscow. Based on this, the plaintiff demanded that the defendant be charged. But in the Zemstvo Chancellery it was noted: to summon the defendant to Moscow, and order him to question and search for people and peasants against the plaintiff’s speeches. A clerk was sent for him and his people. But Moskotinyev did not give people, but promised to appear on September 5 in a fairy tale. The defendant appeared and provided a handwritten note in October. The plaintiff testified in November that the defendant had moved out again. This was confirmed by the soldier's tale. But the Zemstvo Chancellery again began to demand the expulsion of the defendant and people from the Landrat. Let down Art. 112, X ch. The lieutenants at Moskotinievo responded that they did not know where he had gone, but had heard that he had gone to St. Petersburg. The plaintiff presented the fortress. Finally, in August 1718, the verdict: the plaintiff was to be acquitted; congress and essentially accuse the defendant. A decree was sent to the Landrat about the right, since the defendant himself was not in Moscow. Fees from the claim and office fees and legal fees are one altyn per ruble. But when the clerk arrived, Moskotinyev said: don’t take people and peasants, and if you do, I’ll beat you into a coffin with whips; and refused to pay. When he arrived for the third time, Moskotinyev began swearing and spitting and ordered the clerk and soldiers to be beaten. Then Moskotinyev sent a petition to the order, demanding a new consideration. Ordered to write him out. Based on this “controversial” petition, proceedings were started again; the top is not visible. 1717 In the Zemstvo Chancellery On the note of separate registration of estates in the year 200, according to the decree of 1704 January 17. About the note of the transaction entry in 158. About the note of the world record 192 About the note on the loan receipt. 1719 Office of Judicial and Investigative Affairs from the Collegium of Justice. In front of the steward Klementy Matv. Chulkov. The case was taken here based on a complaint against the office of the Landrat Board. Verdict: November 6, 1719 – from the College of Justice, judge and steward Cl. M. Chulkov, having listened, sentenced. This trial took place in Kolomna near Chulkov. The defendant, in response to the demand for payment, gave a fairy tale that he was providing money to the people and peasants. But the plaintiff filed a petition that the defendant was doing this only for red tape; and what should require an urgent tale from him: for how long he will pay the money. (In the past, estates were counted by quarters of land and by households, and from the per capita salary they began to count them as souls). Last July 1715, on the 12th day, in the decree of the great sovereign from the governing Senate to the Moscow province it was written: in the letter of the Tsar's Majesty he is right. On the 18th day of June it was written to the Senate: if captain-lieutenant Pleshcheev demands from courtiers or retired officers, also clerks and clerks and other things that are appropriate for him to do business, to order to give; and about what he will send decrees from himself in the province to the governors and to the Landrat, so that according to those decrees they will obey. What exactly the department of Pleshcheev’s office consisted of is not clear. The real case began in it following a report from Semyon Skobeltsyn about duties, that he was a guarantor for Yazykov, who was accused of Poshekhonye by the landrat in the claim of N and duties, but did not pay and disappeared, so that the responsibility falls on him, Skobeltsyn, and so that Yazykov can be found and recovered from him. But then this production was transferred from Pleshcheev to the Provincial Chancellery. In 1719, the office of Zemstvo Affairs wrote reports to the Moscow Court of Justice. From the Nadvorny Court, the decree was inscribed in Poshekhonye “to the established judge who was ordered to handle court cases.” Apparently, from the frequent changes, the Court of Justice itself doubted the name of the judge. The Decree of the College of Justice to the Court of Justice dated August 5, 1720 was signed by: Gr. Matveev, J. Breveren, Wolf, Prince ....skoy, Strick, A... Kushelev. 1717 In the office of Zemstvo affairs. Tatishchev about custody of his nephew. In 1715, after the death of his father, young Alexei Tatishchev lived with his stepfather for 13 years, but suffered from him and wanted to go to his uncle, his father’s brother. Uncle beat about this with his forehead in the Zemstvo Chancellery; nephew. interrogated, he told a story that he wanted to live with his uncle, and guardianship was approved by the Zemstvo Chancellery. The uncle began to manage the estate and his nephew's servants. But in 1717, one of the courtyard people persuaded the boy, in the absence of uncle Tatishchev, to go to another uncle, his mother’s brother, Domnin. Uncle Tatishchev, having returned, beat his brow at the Zemstvo Chancellery for the return of his nephew to him. The boy was found, interrogated at the Zemstvo Chancellery and given back to Tatishchev; and as he testified during interrogation that supplies were delivered to Domnin from the villages of his youth, all of them were ordered to be corrected according to the assessment at Domnin and given to Tatishchev. In judgments about guardianship, the Zemsky Chancellery was guided by the hereditary clauses of 1714. Clerk's tricks: when the landrat, by petition of the accused, was required to file a case in Moscow, the landrat (Kaluzh.) wrote that there were so many sovereign duties on the petitioner and it was dangerous for him to send the case before the end of the legal process. A soldier from the Senate Dragoon Company was in the Senate Court. 1719 Question:.. a yard business man... and he does all kinds of menial work in the yard. 1717 In the Zemstvo Chancellery. The plaintiff is the widow of a man (Alexan. Lvov) Naryshkinsky Osip Pavlov Evreinov on a loan issued to her husband by her townsman. The petitioner was ordered to ask who should go about the matter. She entrusted her stable rank to her in-laws. Instead of handwriting, “for the sake of poverty,” they gave it to good paintings. About cleaning up the Moscow yard according to the deed of purchase. Here on page 136 is an approximate article list with notes. In the event of a peasant escape, landowners made verbal appearances in villages and hamlets, and written appearances in churches with priests. 1718 About the development of the sentence and schedule on pp. 205: 247, 300 and 325. The inventory includes two peasant households; there are six quarters of taxable arable land under them in the field, and therefore in two; hay is cut for 15 kopecks. Another village of Dmitrovsky district: the peasants and the headman all fled; and according to the tale of a neighboring peasant, there are three yards here, 15 quarters of the field are plowed, 22 hay is mowed. 1717 Link from the guilty. The opposite of this: order, sir, to interrogate the said witnesses and, after interrogation, issue your merciful decree; and if the witnesses tell what is untrue in the testimony, and I, the witnesses, will convict them with other witnesses. The spiritual order reproaches the clerk, who was sent with a mandate to bring in the priest: “You bought something to find that priest.” In a response to a claim based on a reference to witnesses, the defendant always explained whether he was or was not referring to the same witnesses and why he was not referring. In the personal decree sent by his great sovereign from St. Petersburg on January 28, 1715, the sheet is printed: “It was determined by his great sovereign by decree that the people assigned to the affairs, young clerks, received a salary of 15 rubles, ten quarters of bread, rye and oats in half. This salary was awarded for dishonor. The plaintiff appeared and brought his claim (15 x 2 = 30) with 30 rubles from the truth per altyn per ruble, for a total of 30 altyns. From the defendant: from the claim, fees and office fees with expenses of 6 rubles, 7 alt., including office fees of 3 rubles. About production problems p. 27v. When the defendant or accused was led to answer or to answer the order, he fought back by shouting guard. Red tape and waste were awarded 31 rubles, 30 alt. Duties for this are 3 rubles, 7 al., 2 d.; to spend half the money (4 money each?). Stationery from the right per altyn per ruble, total 32 altyn; from the guilty person in hryvnia per ruble - 3 rubles, 6 alt., 2 den. In total, duties and clerical fees are 6 rubles, 13 alt., 2 den. The accused defendant, clerk of the Moscow garrison, began to argue in the garrison that the plaintiff had stated his salary incorrectly. Meanwhile the defendant died, (1719); The plaintiff asked to recover the claim for the disqualification from the lieutenants. In 1720 it was ordered to take action against the heirs; and if they are not there, they will be lieutenants. But the son of the deceased ended up serving in the garrison and was short of money, which is why he was given a reprieve. It was ordered to give the food a period of six months; accept duties from the defendant, and collect the claim from the sureties. The plaintiff sought dishonor for the fight. The defendant confessed to the fight; but he said that he beat her because she scolded him with swear words. It was ordered that the plaintiff be sent to justice, and that the defendant be allowed to interrogate her in battle. 1717 In the Zemstvo Chancellery of Ermolin and Nasonov. Sending a clerk with an order was a profitable assignment and therefore, without a doubt, they paid for it, bought up the parcel. At the petition of the plaintiff Ermolin, it was ordered to send a clerk on the orders of the old man to expel the defendant Nasonov to his estate in Maloyaroslavets district; an order was issued in the name of clerk Andrei Skovorodin. But Nasonov, without waiting for the parcel, appeared in person and asked not to send it. And according to Landrichter’s litter (August 23), that parcel was ordered to be stopped. Nasonov complains that Skovorodin did not travel as ordered; “And I was notified that, on that order, two clerks, supposedly from the Zemstvo Chancellery, came to the Yaroslavets village, with unknown people, and caused great destruction; and the clerk Grekov, who has the business, does not show me the order in the name of Skovorodin”; asked to find out who went there. Grekov said that the plaintiff Ermolin took that order for printing and did not send it from the seal to him, Grekov; and he, Grekov, did not send any other clerks like Skovorodin. Skovorodin too. Ermolin: he took the order for the commissar's mark to the seal and took it from the seal, and according to that order Skovorodin did not go with him, but sent from himself the young clerk Voronov and he gave the order and obedient decrees, Skovorodin, being with him, Ermolina, at the inn, under the clerk Semyon Fedorov; but said that he wanted to be after and overtake them on the road to Mozhaisk. And, having arrived in Mozhaisk with Voronov, that order was announced and obedient decrees were submitted, in the absence of Landrat Komynin, to the ordered courtier Yakov Semyonov Kudryavtsev; .. and instead of Skovorodin, Voronov sent everything with the Cossacks, two people who were given to him from Mozhaisk, and with witnesses. And he, Ermolin, went to Moscow and was not with them in Nasonov’s village. Clerk Voronov submitted a request for execution of the assignment. But during the search, the witnesses testified that the Mozhai police officer Kochetov and his comrades, about 60 people, came to them with a gun and a spear, and, taking them with them, they came to the yard; Taking logs from the street, they broke down the doors, began to rob and destroy, took the landowner's wife and sister-in-law with wickedness, etc... There is no end in sight. 1717 In the Zemstvo Chancellery, Shcherbachov’s request to people and other neighbors of the Moscow district for the forcible seizure of arable land and meadows. July 11, 1717 litter (governor?): Having written it down in the book, Mr. Landrichter carried out patrol and inventory and drawing by decree; and if such a flat possession appears, order the clerk and the headman and the best people and peasants to be interrogated at that place in front of witnesses. And after interrogating, order them to be brought to Moscow and in the Zemsky order to question them about everything according to the decree; and order the people and peasants who remained behind to say a decree with a note in front of witnesses, so that they will not commit such violence in the future. (Village of Mansurovo). Deacon Drukovtsev went to the place. Act, see page 21. There was a withdrawal of the boundary; fortresses were laid, a drawing was made. They were taken away by patrimonial and business people. Then he submitted the search and drawing to his “inspection”. The plaintiff was acquitted in July 1718. Based on a controversial petition, the case was taken to the College of Justice; from there the Execution Chamber was sent, from it it was transferred to the St. Petersburg Court of Justice, and from here it was transferred to the Moscow Court of Justice (1725). The office of the Senate Board wrote: by decree... of the governing Senate, the remaining member with the assessors - listened, etc... According to the petition of the Englishman Belly, the case was requested from the office of the Chief Magistrate. In 1717, the foreigner Belly was looking for a loan bond of 1300 rubles, issued to him in 1707 in Arkhangelsk for a year, for a living room of hundreds by Grigory and Dmitry Grigoriev and Yakov Semyonov Likhonin, and the Suzdal townsman Danil. Gryaznov. He hits his forehead at the Admiralty College (?). There were no defendants on site. Belly learned that Gryaznov lives in Dmitrovsky district in the estate of the steward Neronov and has a winery, and in the same village there are two villages nearby. At his request, the Admiralty Chancellery sent a decree to the office of the Moscow province so that Gryaznov would be sent from the Town Hall and sent to the Admiralty Chancellery. (The jurisdiction of the Admiralty Chancellery, and the parcel from the Town Hall). Note: from the Town Hall, send to Dmitrov to the Landrat with an obedient decree from the Provincial Chancellery, and to Suzdal to the mayors. Then the plaintiff asks in the Town Hall that all sorts of belongings and factories and villages of Gryaznov be ordered as security. Decrees about this were sent to Suzdal to the mayors: having described it, seal it before the decree and send the inventory. But after being sent to Neronov’s estate, it turned out that “the Suzdal townsman Gryaznov is with his landowner, given by order of the great sovereign in St. Petersburg for debt money to live with his wife and children;... and now he, Gryaznov, lives in St. Petersburg with him, his landowner; but there is no property in the village, no yard, etc. This was the tale given by the clerk of the village of Zabolotya. Based on the mayor’s report about this, a note was made (from Vice-Governor Ershov?) in August 1717: “take him on leave, and send a decree to the Landrat, ordering him, at the post of that townsman for a period of time, to collect a handwritten record for that clerk according to the Code.... And to Suzdal, send a decree from the Town Hall immediately, so that the mayors write about that townsman specifically - What year did he leave and why? And now does he come to them? And where does he have any trades? And does the boarding tax pay? And what is his salary? And about the return to life, write out from the newly issued decrees, show it immediately, and the whole Town Hall is very diligent in making a mistake, because with such an example many suburbs can be damaged.” According to the certificate in the Suzdal Zemskaya hut, it turned out that Gryaznov left Suzdal in 1709 and is not coming; He has no trades, and since then he has not paid taxes and taxes, but in the tenth year he paid 6 rubles, and taxes 20 rubles. per year. And about such absent people, fiscal matters have been filed. (When the owner of the yard, which was ordered to be described, was absent, they did not describe it; “we did not dare to describe it without him”). But the clerk did not give a signature. In 1721, Belly argued in the Zemstvo Chancellery that Gryaznov was living with Neronov, and Neronov was in the Zemstvo Chancellery court and not at the Ratushsky Court; - to take the matter from the Town Hall to the Zemstvo Office. A decree was sent from the Zemstvo Chancellery to the brigadier and from the Life Guards to the captain and the entire Russian state over the magistrates to the chief president, Prince. Yury Yuryevich Trubetskoy and his comrades.” Wed. decree of February 13, 1720 P.S. 3. No. 3520. The case was sent. But Gryaznov appeared at the Zemstvo Chancellery and announced that he should answer at the Town Hall; and therefore the case was sent back to the Town Hall on October 11, 1721 (“Whoever will be in the faces is the opposite of the word “howling in a rage”). - The production of the Zemstvo Chancellery Belly asks: since Gryaznov is hiding behind Neronov, then find Neronov and interrogate: is there any return for him in that Gryaznov (in living), and in whose name are Gryaznov’s yards and factories fortified? Neronov’s man, who takes care of business, Verkhovsky was taken and said that his master was in St. Petersburg, and he did not dare answer without his knowledge. But Belly proves that Neronov is aware of that matter; take a fairy tale from a man that, having inquired with the landowner, Verkhovskoy gave him the fairy tale supplied by Gryaznov. - Belly prove in the Town Hall that Gryaznov forged a mortgage for Neronov, although he has to serve the lawsuit. Form of the sentence: by decree.... The town hall mayors, having listened, sentenced: Gryaznov was ordered to be interrogated - in the presence of the plaintiff. Belly refused to be interrogated. There were no judgment speeches, just one interrogation. (“Howling” is your share, that means). Another defendant, Likhonin, was also included in the order, but the third was not brought into the case because he served in the Preobrazhensky order and was being interrogated there. Gryaznov ended up living with Neronov according to the right extract issued from the St. Petersburg Town Hall. Belly in the Town Hall asked to accuse Neronov of overstaying, since his man Verkhovskoy did not put Gryaznov on time. But the Town Hall is in force 108 art. X Ch. The Code found that serfdom cannot be accused without considering the fortresses. Belly complained about this and others to the Chief Magistrate. In January 1722, the office of the Chief Magistrate ordered: to examine the case (explained from the petitioner) by the encroachment from the burgomasters, and if it has not been investigated, what is necessary, having examined everything, a decree is issued to the other burgomasters of the Moscow Town Hall. Signed by: Prince Trubetskoy and Isaev. In March 1722, a new verdict of the Moscow Town Hall: to acquit the plaintiff - and take legal action against the borrowers; Moreover, the Moscow Town Hall destroyed the return to life determined by the St. Petersburg Town Hall (for foreigners need to settle their debts first), and ordered Gryaznov to be returned to the suburb. Lichonin was also ordered to be punished. Gryaznov was ordered to be sent to the galleys if he did not pay. Gryaznov complains to the Chief Magistrate, where in April 1722 they signed: Trubetskoy, Isaev, Pavel Yakovlev (?), Dmitry Sokovnin (?). Demand required. In January 1723, the Chief Magistrate ordered the previous sentence; Three more signed up. (The Chief Magistrate was in Moscow; those present at the Chief Magistrate were called ratsgers). When it was finally decisively ordered, after the expiration of the preferential six months, to recover from Gryaznov or send him to the galleys, then he showed behind him the courtyards and shops in Suzdal, although before he said that there was nothing to pay; and also pointed out his and Lichonin’s claims in the Monastic Prikaz and in the office of the Monetary Board. The Chief Magistrate communicated through promemories with the Monastic Order for a certificate and with the office of the Monetary Board (or, as the Magistrate called it, with the office of the Monetary Courts), about sending the case. In December 1723, the office of the Monetary Board sent a copy of the file. 1717 August. Messengers and clerks carried inkwells with them according to orders. Based on a controversial petition, the Kaluga Landrat was ordered to send a search file; the decree was handed over to the petitioner. In October 1717, the landrat, citing that the criminal was subject to punishment in the case, did not send. Another decree was sent with a clerk. In December 1717, the Landrat, citing that the matter had been completed, but the duties had not been completed and therefore it was dangerous to send. The third decree was sent with the clerk, and then the file was sent. 1717 A silver mug was stolen from Senate clerk Sibilev. (I have suspicions of theft against such and such a person - it was said: “disbelieve me” with N.). He submitted a request to the office of the Senate Board that he had suspicions about his man Fyodor Volkov, because that night he was on guard and then left the court without permission; and was there from morning almost until night. And for this reason he was shackled and, having broken the iron, left the yard from behind the guard and was caught as before. Therefore, introducing the man, he asked to question him. The man showed differently where he put the mug, and his instructions were not confirmed three times. He was tortured (5 blows) and said that he took the mug along with his wife to a relative, the widow Afrosinya, in the Alekseevsky Monastery. The wife did not confirm this, why he was tortured another time (8 blows) and showed the same thing. Afrosinya Danilova was taken and said, among other things: “she was a servant in the house of the boyar Prince Mikhail Yakovlevich of Cherkassy, ​​his man Ivan Ivanov, son Monatov; and he, Ivan, died at the age of 6, and after his death his wife, Natalya Ivanova, was left behind, a daughter, and she, Natalya, set her, Afrosinya, free with a vacation pay... And she lives with the old woman of the Alekseevsky Monastery through an acquaintance; but I didn’t take the mugs.” Then Sibilev’s son reported verbally that he had identified the mug in the Epiphany Monastery from a Greek and asked to send a clerk with soldiers to seize it. The report was written down in the file entirely in an orderly hand and Sibilev signed it. On the same date, August 17, a clerk was sent and brought a Greek with a mug. Inspection of the mug and detailed description. The Greek said that he took the mug for sale from a foreigner, goldsmith Artman, when he was with him on business with Zasetsky. Artman appeared himself. He took the mug for the third week for sale from the foreigner Colonel Balzer, and refinished it for sale and gilded it. Balzer appeared himself; he bought a mug from artillery apprentice Timof. Grieg. Saburova for 27 rubles. cleanly, with the guarantee of another student Grieg. Dyakova. The sending of them is written in the Artillery order. The artillery order, sending them, asked not to detain, “since they are always found in the Artillery School with science, who has achieved what, and about their science, who will learn what in a month, reports are sent to St. Petersburg to General Feld. Y. V. Bruce; and if they are fit to be wanted, then without writing to Bruce, they should not be put on the wanted list.” Tim. Saburov said: the Smolyanin, the son of a townsman, was left an orphan at a young age and lived with his uncle. And due to his age, in Smolensk he sat in the administrative chamber to learn writing of various levels from old clerks. In the winter of 1717, he went to Moscow with the Smolensk resident Ievlev, and in Vyazma, at an inn, soldiers seized them for some unknown reason, and kept them in the chancellery for two weeks; and then soldiers were sent from the Preobrazhensky Prikaz to capture the robbers, and they were captured. From the Preobrazhensky order, Sibilev’s son, who was a clerk in the Smolensk ward, was released on signature, and he brought him home to his father for 3 weeks Vel. Lent and lived there; then he rented an apartment in the courtyard from a janitor and lived until Peter’s day, and visited Sibilev’s house. And according to a petition, he was taken as an artillery apprentice and moved to a new apartment, allocated from the order of the Artillery. He bought the mug from the Smolensk clerk Kolobrodov for 25 rubles. cleanly, with the guarantee of clerk Lebedev; and Kolobrodov said that he bought it from the dragoons. Another student told the Kursk clerk he was the son of a soldier, married to a soldier’s daughter. – In the second questioning, Saburov confessed to the theft (without the participation of others). Everyone was released, but Saburov was left behind, which was written down in the Artillery Order addressed to Bruce. In September 1717, the verdict of the steward Yuri. Fed. Shishkina and his comrades: give back the mug, and the duties and so on... fix it on Saburov, who will be sent to the Artillery Prikaz to issue a decree for his guilt. 1717 In the Zemstvo Chancellery, the Man of Prince Iv. Alekseevich Golitsyn Kuzma Shulgin brought his worker who ran away from him and stole his quilted jacket. Upon questioning, she did not obey. Then a third party took it for payback, paid the money to Shulgin, and that was the end of the matter. In the Zemstvo Chancellery Collection of borrowed memory that was lost. A certificate of that memory was made with the Serfdom Order. God-given order; it seems that this name was assigned to the Monastic Order. – The rule that a claim is accepted only if it is based on evidence did not exist then and claims of any kind were accepted in a sealed petition. Here is the claim: a man is looking for Sheremetev, Ofrosimov, by right of his father as a monastery servant, on the clerk Vasilyev: that clothes worth 30 rubles have been pledged to him. the price in debt is 10 rubles; but he does not give the pledge and does not accept the money. However, no document on the pledge was presented. There is also no certificate of transfer of rights from father to son; but it is said only in the request: and my father gave me that mortgage. The Office of Zemstvo Affairs was under the control of the President of the College of Justice, Count. Matveev and relations were written in his name (from places of equals?) from the Provincial Chancellery, the commissar stationed at the Moscow garrison, Zaitsev married the widow Vasilyeva. Her stepsons, the children of her first husband, reprinted their father’s belongings, of which she made a claim for a portion. Her husband Zaitsev asks to put a guard in the yard to protect those belongings; and with this request he addresses the office of the Moscow garrison. The verdict in the Ofrosimov case was in the Zemsky Chancellery in 1717. In 1720, Vasiliev’s controversial petition and the case on it in 1726 were already carried out in the Nadvorny Court and decided in 1735. 1717 About a runaway girl. A peasant of the landowner Filosofov of the village of Kislyakova, Moscow district, Fedor Antsyforov Sazhenoy shows: in the past years his landowner Grieg. He married his philosopher, Fyodor, to his stranger’s wife, the widow Tatyana Filipieva, and took from him, Fyodor, three rubles for the stranger’s wife; but the landowner did not tell him that she was a runaway, or whose she was. Together with his son-in-law, he has: 4 horses, 2 cows, 4 heifers, 5 sheep, 5 pigs, 20 Russian chickens, rye bread 40 kopecks, oats 20 kopecks, barley 10 kopecks, hemp 2 sheep, 4 kopecks of wheat, and 6 quarters of rye sown;.. 7 sickles, 3 scythes, 3 plows with an opener, 3 carts, 3 sleighs, 4 clamps, 4 reins, 6 bast and hemp harnesses; mansion building: a new hut, in front of the hut there is a cage and a granary, and another old hut, and around the yard there is a barn surrounded by a fence, and a barn, and two chaff fenced in, a bathhouse, and a new hay barn, and seven stacks of hay. In a separate extract (from separate books) of the clerk 186 on the Yazykov estate, the obedience of the peasants: “and to those peasants who are written in this extract, and who will henceforth be settled on those wastelands... their landowner... listen in everything and pay all sorts of sovereign taxes to those peasants and their brothers, together with the peasants, and to give their landowner, the landowners, all income and produce for their landowner to those peasants and their brothers from the peasants to do everything without disobedience. In 1718, following a controversial petition against the verdict of the Zemstvo Chancellery, the case was taken to the Provincial Chancellery. About a runaway wife, (brother). 1717 In the Zemstvo Chancellery. About the note from the Moscow court on the deed of the same year. 1717 Clerks of the Moscow Provincial Chancellery were assigned to the census work for the meeting of the fourth lot... they were enumerating residents in houses to take that lot from them. Litter: when there is nothing to pay, send them to hard labor. The accused defendant (of dishonor) was held in the order of Zemstvo affairs; but from the order of the Great Treasury a decree was sent to send him there, because since 1705 he, as a clerk there, has not been accounted for the receipts and expenditures of the monetary treasury. In the Zemstvo Chancellery it is noted: “to answer for this, that he, as a clerk, is guilty of earning the said claim and duties through hard labor, as the decree of the Tsar’s Majesty commands; and in the account from 1705 to this year, 14 years later, one can see the clerks of Ponarovka, and now, under the guise of this account, they want to excuse him from hard labor. Then he paid everything in full. Summer 1717, February 25, St. Petersburg resident Pyotr Kozmin - I sold the nobleman Volodimer Semenov's son Borzov to his man Nikiforov Prokofiev's son Prytky, my yard with all the courtyard and mansion buildings that are in that yard of mine, and with the land behind the Ilyinsky Gate on Pokrovka in the parish near the Church of St. Nicholas the Wonderworker, which is in Blinniki... 1719 Sept. On the 24th day in the office of the Zemsky deeds... this bill of sale was read and presented. 1717 by the Dorogobuzh landowner Voronets about fugitive peasants hiding in the Karachevsky district with the landowner Sokovnin. (In the Karachevsky Voivodeship Board). The extract is made in such a way that the sheet is folded and the circumstances of the case are written on one side and the laws on the other. The extract was made in 1719; the decision followed in 1730: to take the fortress. An extract from the scribe books for the Smolensk district of 176 is presented. The peasants are Russian, and their landowner Voronets is a Pole and does not know Russian. The estate (estate) then belongs to the widow Domna Bogdanova and, through a petition in hand, was registered for her fiancé Kazimir Voronets. The landowner Sokovnin, the fugitive peasants who lived with her, were ordered to be expelled upon filing a lawsuit against them, and their belongings were taken to themselves. In 1730, in the Karachev office of the Voivodeship Board, traveling memories were submitted and clerks traveled. In 1731, an inventory was taken for which retired warrant officer Fyodor Nosov was sent. He is given instructions and at the same time a decree of the “Karachev gentry of the fiscal.” The peasants came out with a club and did not let me in. In August 1731 The Karachev office came with a report to the Belogorod Provincial Office that it had nothing to manage itself. The Belogorodsk Provincial Chancellery sent a decree to the Sevsk Provincial Chancellery; and this one has already sent a decree to Karachevskaya. It was ordered in March 1732 to do as the decrees command. New instructions for a retired captain. He took 24 service people; but they were also met with a club and were not allowed in, they were driven away. New instructions to the Karachev landowner Turansky. Assessment, submission to claim. The case was transferred to the Judgment Order. 1718 In the Zemstvo Chancellery. The plaintiff is a peasant of the landowner Shenshin Grigory Ankudinov, the defendant is a peasant prince. Fyodor Vyazemsky Fyodor Andreev; both are traders. Instead of a surety, the defendant, also a serf of Commissar Maasurov, Dobrynin, was taken from the court to sign the receipt instead of a surety. In 1718 the peak. In 1721, following a controversial petition, he was taken to the Moscow Nadvorny Court. 1717 The landowner Agafya Elagina is looking for: “by order of the widow Irina Elagina, her servants in the Tarusa village brought 15 kopecks from my peasant’s rye garden;... and she is in Moscow”... They made peace. 1717 Commissioner Mikhei Nebolsin with Pivov about the clearance of the fugitive peasants, whom the plaintiff did not find, according to the receipt. Nebolsin himself served in the Zemstvo Chancellery and therefore, of course, he was patronized. He asked for the defendant to be summoned, to be sent to Lukh to the Landrat, to collect a written record on him and, taking his people and peasants, to keep him in the Prikaznaya hut until he showed up. In this sense, a decree was sent to the Landrat on February 3. Landrat Yakov Sytin reported on February 7 that no one could vouch for him, Pivov, in the office of Zemsky Affairs, and therefore an urgent report was taken from him; Yes, people were taken on guard “to be sure.” Pivov, having appeared, indicated during interrogation that the fugitive peasants lived behind Mamonov in the Ryazan district and asked him to call Mamonov. There are no judgment speeches in sight. Nebolsin asks to take a fairy tale from Pivov, so that he will not sell or mortgage his estate and peasants to anyone until the end, and to send information about the same to Serf Affairs. The tale is taken. Pivov was given for signature, Serf Affairs was reported, Mamonov’s summons was written. Mamonov's man was found and interrogated. (When they took someone’s order (the right one) and then, by petition, released him on a receipt, the receipt said that he should be put in place as asked; and for the person, the order money was collected for the orderlies 4 alt. (4 den.?). Mamonov’s man proved that about the same peasants Pivov gave a tax to Mamonov, and laid down the fortress. It was ordered to interrogate Pivov; but he was not found. In February 1720, the verdict was to accuse Pivov. Pivov said that there was nothing to pay and therefore his estate was described by the Lukhov landrat, for which they sent a solicitor with a clerk. The price books were sent to Moscow, but the quarterly arable land was not valued, because there was no information about the quarterly arable land in Lukh. the quarter dacha is listed in the Printed Order, and the price according to the Code provided an extract from the previous acts about that village, about the amount of quarter arable land in it. Then, after rewriting, it was ordered to be re-evaluated by the fiscal. 1717 About the note of the spiritual widow Tikhmeneva, written in Kostroma, presented by her grandson and heir Tikhmenev. A decree was sent to the Landrat in Kostroma regarding the interrogation of the spiritual father, executor, witnesses and scribe. Upon delivery of the certificates, it was written out: in the correct book of the city law, line 21 on the covenant of heirs, article 12. “And in the previously former Judgment Order and in the office of Zemstvo Affairs, according to whose petition, spiritual ones will be placed for testimony, and from those spiritual ones, his great sovereign will take duties from the old ones at 8 alt. 2 money each, and from the new ones, if ... they will be written, to whom money or bellies are deaf, but the price is not written besides the commemorated dacha, and about bellies they take tales from petitioners and executors about how much those bellies are worth, and from that price of the great sovereign, duties are taken at 3 alt. 2 money each. And in which the new spiritual money and bellies of the plaintiff are not specifically written, and from those spiritual ones they take 16 alt., 4 money each.” 1717 Deacon Zaitsev asks: In the Krapivensky district in the single-patrimony village of Pirogovo, the landowner Arsenyev is sheltering from service with his clerk Shilov and his son; and they, having come to Zaitsev, beat, tortured and robbed his peasants, they beat one woman so much that she died a few days later. But Arsenyev took the peasant to himself, and in the stable, together with Shilov, they tortured him and gave him a shake on the rack. He asked for a search. Arsenyev was found; and before the interrogation, he filed a petition that Zaitsev wrote everything as a fiction. “And then, sir, the case is not an investigation, but a judicial one, for that, according to the Code, whoever strikes someone with his forehead in thefts and in robberies without red-handed, and without the tongue, and without a police search, - and in such claims it is ordered to give a trial. But that Shilov and his comrades did not show up for any theft, and there is no slander against him. In this wrongful lawsuit, I ask Zaitseva to interrogate me and take the petition to the Judgment Table. - Ordered to write him out. (Law. XXI., 49). Note: Governor Naryshkin and his comrades ordered this petition to be demolished along with Zaitsev’s petition; and if in that petition Zaitsev is not involved in the search and without being red-handed, - and then, according to the Code of the above-mentioned article, order the plaintiff and the defendant to be interrogated and taken to the Judgment Table. Zaitsev filed a petition against this claim, proving that Arsenyev, before submitting his petition, gave an urgent tale that it would be in the order and that Shilov would be put on probation. Arsenyev referred to the fact that he submitted his petition before the deadline, which was written in his fairy tale; and his tale is cleansed with dirt. In September 1717, the verdict: Arsenyev was accused of delay: he should have submitted his petition before the urgent tale. Correspondence about collection lasts until 1739. 1717 Eropkin: his peasant was defeated and robbed by thieves; and in that robbery he disbelieved his peasant Maxim Savelyev, for bragging; introduces him and asks him to question him. The driver apologized and spoke to his comrades. Article 48 of Chapter 21 of the Code on the deeds from landowners was summed up and a search was ordered. Eropkin himself caught one of the accused and brought him to the order. A clerk was sent to the stipulated people (Kolycheva); their belongings are sealed. The convicts locked themselves up. Confrontations with Savelyev and the first torture; Savelyev 15 blows, others 35:45, 40:30, 25 blows, locked up. Landowner Kolycheva asks to free her people from slander. 2nd torture: Savelyev 35 blows, others 20:30, 32; 3rd torture: Savelyev 62 blows, others 30:40, 30; locked up. Maxim Savelyev died and was buried in the Poor House outside the Petrovsky Gate; the other – the one mentioned – died. One said to himself; He was ordered to be beaten with a whip, and the others to be released as those purified by torture. Eropkin asks to take other stipulated people. Verdict: to blame the landowner Golokhvostov for non-delivery and for harboring a stipulated peasant, and for failing to respond to a cry, and for not giving chase. Then, following the controversial petition of Golokhvostov, this sentence was canceled in the Zemstvo Chancellery and an investigation was ordered for “failure to shout”; and the guilt of the previous verdict was placed on the clerk and he was ordered to inflict a cruel punishment on him because he questioned the rightful peasant without a note, and did not send a decree about the investigation and destroyed the judge’s note. 1717 In the Zemstvo Chancellery and, according to a controversial petition, in the Supreme Court - about a person leaving the peasantry after being in the shibai. Case 1718–1720 The Moscow Recruit Office was formed from the Recruit Desk, which was in the Local Prikaz, after sending its affairs from Moscow to St. Petersburg. Shibaystvo - take street people into military service; “removed from Shibai”, was “in Shibai”. Those looking for the fugitives ask “to give to the old lot (which is empty), so that your great sovereign’s taxes will not stop.” On the question that arose as to whether those who had signed up for freedom from the peasantry should be given to the former landowners for tax lots, the Military Chancellery in February 1719 responded to the Office of Zemstvo Affairs, registering the decrees of 1700. March 31, May 21 and November 12, 1702, that according to the above-mentioned decrees, peasants and peasant children from tax lots in the Military Chancellery were registered as soldiers, and the peasantry was hidden at the note - and they were given up to the former landowners and patrimonial owners as the peasantry as before; and those who were taken into someone's yard from the peasantry for a while, and, after leaving them, signed up to be soldiers - and those soldiers were not returned to anyone. 1717 In the Zemstvo Chancellery. Colonel Chaadaev against the peasants of various landowners for a penalty in recording the delivery of supplies to him in St. Petersburg. The messenger clerk walked with memory after the stipulated peasant of Prince Alexander Grig. Volkonsky and on arrival he writes: “they came to the yard... to tell the story, and that detective was announced to his man, who said what kind of business he was going through... And that man, taking that detective, said that he took it to him, Volkonsky. And he, Volkonsky, taking him, Ivan Emelyanov (the clerk) in front of him, scolded their soldiers with obscenities, as well as those who sent with that detective memory; And he didn’t give them that detective memory and sent them away from the yard.” A man who goes about business, giving in the office a fairy tale about a rate for a term, wrote: “if he is on that urgent date ... he will not tell about the stipulated peasants, and he, Vasily, will inflict a fine, which the great sovereign will indicate; and on the landowner, the plaintiffs, the claim and the great sovereign are tolled by decree.” Chaadaev insisted that his case must be investigated, because the peasants, having carried supplies, abandoned them on the road; therefore, they committed theft. Chaadaev’s bid petition, in which he justified himself in being banned for a period of time; marked to be recorded in the betting book. There were confrontations in the case. Drive money 6 altyn, 2 money. In 1719 the verdict (Code XXI, 74). According to the urgent tale of a man who takes care of business, a lawsuit is brought against the landowner Volkonsky for failure to supply people. Volkonsky’s controversial petition is that Chaadaev did not even submit a contract note for the case, which he should have had with a guarantee. Marked: order the plaintiff “for genuine production” to file a contract. The marks were made by assessors. Arguing about the litter, that the litter was a week old, served as a common ploy of the petitioners. This was a complaint about a private definition, brought to the same place where the litter was made. The matter breaks down here. The landowner Prince Dolgoruky beats with his brow in the Zemstvo Chancellery that a peasant with children came to him on the Ruza estate, he says he is free, and wants to live with him as peasants. Having brought him, he asks to question him according to the Code (XI, 20) and, if he is truly free, to give him to the peasantry. Peasant Pyotr Kuzmin said he was originally a Pole, but does not remember the city, so that he was still very young from his father and mother; and remember that he lived with his father in Toropets with the archer Davyd... After his father’s death, he went to Staraya Russa and worked all sorts of menial jobs; from the Iversk monastery peasants, working, moving, he lived for ten years and married a peasant daughter on the monastery estate, and lived with her for ten years... He went with his family to the Mozhaisky district to the estate of Prince Menshikov and, having become a widower, came. 1717 Neighbors quarreled. Matvey Abramov told devious people about his neighbor Akulina Mikhailova, that she boasted that she wanted to ruin his well and throw tar into it. Akulina began to seek dishonor and referred to witnesses. The defendant did not lock up; he was the bookbinder of the Local Order. But the Zemstvo Chancellery refused the claim, since this was not dishonor, but a domestic quarrel. The claim did not require the title of the defendant to be indicated; it was said: we don’t know what the rank is. 206. Bringing fugitives to the Local Order. 1717 In the Zemstvo Chancellery In the Recruitment Desk of the Local Prikaz Judge Yakov Protasyev. The plaintiff is the landowner Lev Zhemchuzhnikov: he and his warehousemen, various landowners, hired Krasnoselsky (Posadsky) Osip Ivanov (he was listed as a walker in the Posad and was not registered) - as a recruit by appointment for 40 rubles with guarantors, and took the money. But in the Mozhaisk province he was not accepted at the Recruitment Table; - they said that he was subordinated as a townsman to the Great Palace. He asks to collect money from the guarantors. The guarantors responded that Osip Ivanov should become a recruit himself. From the Zemstvo Chancellery they sent him to the Local Prikaz at the Recruitment Desk; but they didn’t accept him there either, and the hireling fought off the bailiff and fled. Collected from the guarantors. Here on page 5 is a regular recruit entry. About the right of passage through the courtyard - at the bakery with the sexton. See “Historical and legal acts of the transitional era of the 17th–18th centuries.” pp. 158–166. 1717 A simple complaint about the slowness of the Landrat was brought to the Zemstvo Chancellery; then a decree was sent on the immediate completion of the matter. Then, following a complaint about the bias of the Kashira landrat, the case was ordered to be sent to Kolomna. (Code X, 3). The landowner Kudryavtsev and the landowner Lunin in Kolomensky district had a quarrel. A peasant from Kudryavtseva in the village of Elkin, Anton Kondratyev, lived as a hired worker (2 rubles and 20 alt. per year) with a peasant from Luninsky, Stepan Timofeev, in the village of Vostryanskoye. In July 1718, Kudryavtsev presented Kondratyev to the Zemsky Chancellery, who was mutilated, and asked to interrogate those who beat him, to summon him for questioning. Kondratyev testified that last year the owner’s nephew called him into the forest to work, and there, with his comrades from the same estate, the peasants tied him up, tortured him and burned him all day long; believes in revenge on his landowner Kudryavtsev for a quarrel with their landowner. Then they brought him to the yard and treated him for 6 weeks. Upon examination, there were wounds and signs. They began to demand people from Lunin through the landrat. Lunin made an excuse for a long time that he had sent those people to Petersburg with reserves for his son; then, that they haven’t happened yet. And Kudryavtsev claimed that he was hiding those people in his village. Finally, Lunin was forced to deliver an urgent tale; but he did not set it for a period, making the excuse that he had not been there yet and asked that they take from him for the battle and wounds, which follows according to the Code. The verdict in March 1719, - the plaintiff Kudryavtsev, (and not the peasant), was ordered to correct his claim, which he sought for injury and abuse of his peasant, to double it according to the Code, also the wages on the defendant Lunin and give it to him, the plaintiff, and in addition to oblige him, Lunin, to deliver the peasants when they arrive, since according to the Code it is necessary to repair the plaintiff’s claim in such cases of punishment. Taken: claim 4 rubles, and wages for last year 2 rubles, 20 alt., total 6 rubles, 20 alt.; duties in hryvnia per ruble are 22 altyn, 3 den., and office fees from the defendant are the same number, from the plaintiff 1 altyn per ruble - 6 altyn, 4 den., total office fees are 29 altyn, 4 money. With all the food and red tape it all ended; and the culprits laughed and threatened, so that the peasants of Kudryavtsev did not dare to travel to Kolomna. October 18, 1721 request: write from the Kameri office to the Zemstvo Chancellery: how do they write to the Camor Collegium to judges? Directed by Fyodor Prokofiev. Answer: to the senator and the state Kamor-collegium, to the president and prince. Dmitry Mich. Golitsyn and his comrades. Written by Alexey Fedorov. Landowner peasant against Belgorod resident Kuchernikov for non-payment of contract money. About losses from penalties on delivery records. Count Peter Matv is looking for. Apraksin; and the defendant contractor is a quitrent peasant of the steward of Ogreshnev in the village of Davydkova, Akim Zherebtsov. The guarantors on the record are: Streshnev’s man Danila Gartmanov and Tikhon Zherebtsov, a peasant from the same village of Davydkova. The claim is not stated in the petition. The order was to find him and interrogate him. Then Streshnev’s servant Ivan Bezobrazov filed a petition, from whom the defendants were required to supply supplies. He writes: “Hartmann from Moscow was sent to St. Petersburg with supplies from my sovereign to the house; and in St. Petersburg, without the decree of my sovereign and without the knowledge of the servants who were ordered to manage house affairs, he vouched for the forestry contract... And according to that contract, for a penalty, he was taken under guard; and about such idle guarantees, a petition was brought by my sovereign’s servant Ivan Karpov about his interrogation, that he was a guarantee in contracts with or without command, and with the knowledge or unknown of my sovereign’s people?.. And the interrogated said that without knowledge; and that besides, he didn’t vouch for anyone. He asks for deadlines for the supply of people and for the certificate. Information from the “Cavalier Uniform Office”, where the contractor Zherebtsov is being held on another matter. In another place, Bezobrazov says: the guarantors... repaired without the decree of my sovereign themselves, thieves, autocratically, without attributing the hands of the servants of my sovereign, who were ordered to manage house and city affairs; and if these peasants and the lieutenant did not do it under cover, but contracted and assigned with the knowledge of my sovereign, then the servants who are in charge of house and city affairs would be assigned to their contract records with the hands of my sovereign’s house. Hartmann and Tikh. The stallions are placed in order. The latter said, among other things, that he left the village at the age of 20 without the knowledge of the landowner and the clerk and lived in different places, earning a living, without paying any rent to the landowner. And Yakim Zherebtsov was interrogated in the Uniform Chancellery and testified that he was a serf peasant of Streshnev and lived on the estate on quitrent, and paid 3 rubles with his brother. for a year. The plaintiff asks to amend the claim against Bezobrazov for delays in the supply of people, because Zherebtsov is the same master as him. Tikhon Zherebtsov, in question, says: when he was 10 years old, he came to Moscow to feed himself, and lived in the Tverskaya Yamskaya Sloboda with a townsman as a hired worker; and, having arrived in Moscow, the landowner appeared to his butler Patrick Fomin, and when that butler died, he, Tikhon, appeared to the solicitor Ivan Ivanov Bezobrazov. And from that year to this day he lived in Moscow without a ride, and supported himself by his work, worked as a driver, and lived with his owners without hiring... and he, Tikhon, paid his rent to his landowner every year a ruble, 16 alt., 4 money each through the solicitor Bezobrazov. In 1720, Hartmanov and Tikhon Zherebtsov wrote in a petition that Yakim Zherebtsov brought 50 rubles in payment of money, and asked for the rest in order to collect a personal note for two weeks, and in those two weeks he wanted to pay. Yes, from St. Petersburg my master wrote to Bezobrazov, ordering him, Zherebtsov, to take money and pay; and if there was nothing to take, it was ordered that he, Zherebtsov, with his wife and children and brother, be given to the boyar Peter Matv. Apraksin and take the transaction letter. And he, Bezobrazov, did nothing of the sort... (The claim was for 240 rubles; probably its amount was indicated either in the attached memory or was subsequently announced). In December 1720, the verdict, claim and duties were taken by the lieutenants; take a fairy tale from them - is there anything to pay? And if there is nothing to take on Bezobrazov for not supplying people for a term according to his false fairy tale, that he showed people in the estate when they were in Moscow, for the fact that he, Bezobrazov, is one of the landowners with them, and according to the Code for the people and for the peasants, you were ordered to rule on their landowners, who will serve whom... And they, the lieutenants, should be given to him by Bezobrazov; and if they don’t take it, send them to the landowner’s yard and hand them over in front of witnesses. Bezobrazov paid; made peace. According to the world - duties from 240 rubles. hryvnia per ruble, total 20 rubles, and stationery hryvnia and altyn 26 rubles; taken from the servant Apraksinsky. 1717 clerk Aristov against the wife of the steward Lopukhin, Fevronya Mikhailova, for inciting his wife to escape and for concealing tolerable things; the claim was for 15 rubles. She was guilty; and they made peace. Calculation of recovery: it is necessary to take 15 rubles from the above-mentioned claim in this case: take the great sovereign's duties and office money and from the right only 3 rubles, 15 alt. And if the great sovereign directs to take from the defendant from her duty, which she announced in her questioning, it is possible to take from her - from 3 rubles, from 6 alt., 4 money of duties 10 alt., 4 den., and the same number of office fees; total 21 alt., 2 den. Moreover, from the plaintiff from the attributed claim from 11 rubles, from 26 alt., 4 d., take the Great Sovereign duties 1 rub., 6 alt., and according to the law three times 3 rub., 18 alt., and the same number of clerical fees, 1 alt. from the ruble, a total of 15 alt., world money 6 alt., 4 d. And if the great sovereign directs - from that attributed claim to be taken from him, the plaintiff, and he is subject to take duties and office money from the right and world money, and in total from him 7 rub., 24 alt. (What was the meaning of the imputed claim? The plaintiff sought for 15 rubles, the defendant submitted for 3 rubles and a kopeck; and they made peace. Everything else beyond the new item is included in the attributed claim. – Hiring a corner 3 money per week; hiring a worker 3 money a week). 1717. The quitrent peasant Elizar Nikitin is looking for steward Naumov on the quitrent peasant of Tsarevna Ekaterina Alekseevna Stepan Elizarov, the missing kokoshnik of his wife, when she was visiting the defendant. A husband is looking for a wife without special authority. The defendant, who is illiterate, entrusted Stepan Ostudin, the steward Matyushkin’s man, to answer for himself at trial; and the plaintiff - to the man of the Duma nobleman Narbekov, Ivan Teplynin. The price of the claim is 15 rubles. According to the verdict, the plaintiff was convicted and the defendant acquitted. After the verdict, the parties reconciled and the plaintiff undertook to pay the fees. Calculation of duties: per claim from 15 rubles. duties 1 1/2 rubles, and expenses 1 1/2 money; stationery from the right 15 alt., from the guilty 1 1/2 rubles, total 3 rubles, 15 alt., 1 1/2 money; including the Great Sovereign's duties of 1 rub., 16 alt., 4 den., they were accepted by one clerk, and office fees of 1 rub., 31 alt., 4 money were accepted by another clerk. 1718. The foreign widow of Lieutenant Colonel Maria Alexandrovna Bonnort first brought the janitor of her palace peasant Kuzma Vavilov and his wife to the retreat hut of the German settlement with his wife, inciting her girl to run away and demolish various things for 29 rubles. The investigators were sent with a verbal notification to Bonnort - to the office of Zemstvo Affairs for search. The plaintiff in her report said that the girl she had was Russian, Agrafena Mironova, who, after her uncle, Major General Carlus Rigemon, was a serf. During the interrogation, the janitor said that, being tenacious, that girl told him to find a place for her to live until winter; and he once took her to the Yauz Gate to the janitor of Myalitsyn’s yard, Pyotr Pivovaron, to live, (the driver was given 4 alt.), and with her there was a bag, what was in it, he didn’t know. Didn't persuade anyone to steal; but I saw some of the things shown to the plaintiff. The janitor's wife doesn't know, doesn't know. Then Bonnort found her daughter's gold ring. The daughter showed what the girl gave her to hide. They sent a clerk with the soldiers to fetch Pivov. The order said, among other things: “but don’t commit any dishonor in that yard and watch the soldiers.” Pivov turned out to be a man of Vice-Governor Ershov, lives in Myalitsyn’s yard, rents a hut, pays a ruble a year; Kuzma said about that girl that she was his cousin, and promised to collect bail for her, but he didn’t, and the girl disappeared the next day. Verdict January 27, 1719: Kuzma is accused, “it’s notable that Kuzma stole the belongings of a foreigner with that girl”; It was found that he had not locked himself in the plot and saw the girl’s bag. And for that agreement to beat him with a whip, and in the investigation and in the delivery of the girl, take a surety record on him. He was given 15 blows; and since he had nothing to pay with, he was sent to hard labor. In the Zemstvo Chancellery, the sale of described movable things under a claim is carried out in an order. 1719 August 10... from the office of the fiscal board, fiscal Rodion Markov was sent to supervise the assessment of the defendant goods from the merchants. And on the same date, the pricers, trading people of the Great Vetoshny Row, which is in the Chinese city, Ivan Borisov and the Silver Row Pankraty Vasiliev in the office of Zemstvo Affairs found and the above-mentioned goods, two pairs of sables, a pair of emeralds, a lapel lapel cross (?), a velvet cap were valued; and according to Borisov, the price for two pairs of sables is 16 rubles, according to Vasiliev, the price for a pair of emeralds is 3 rubles, for a cross a ruble, 16 alt., 4 money. - The fiscal, having the last word, increased the price... A man, the prince, came to the office of Zemstvo affairs to negotiate. Lvov... and a bargain was given; in addition to the assessment and fiscal extra - added, etc... At the request of the plaintiff, the goods were given to him for the claim at the price. 1720 In the Lower (Nadvorny) Court. Sontsov and Zasekin about fugitive peasants who lived on the run for the prince. Menshikov, Rylsky district in the village of Soldatskoye. The leading peasant testified that “he received him and placed him under taxation with the lordship of the prince of the patrimony of the same district of the village of Ivanovsky, the commandant Savva Vasiliev, son of Augustov. (Lines are sometimes signed by members, sometimes not; “to do this according to this mark” is the signature). On page 8 of the bill of sale of 1720, Kolychova sold her peasants, who were on the run, to Sontsev. 1720 In the office of Zemstvo affairs. The extract with the original deed was certified by notary Ilya Maksimov. October 1720 on the 21st day in the office of Zemstvo Affairs in front of Ober-Landrichter Ivan Petrov. Topilsky and his comrades, in connection with this case, Prince Andrei, Prince Afonasyev, the son of Meshcherskaya, were interrogated. And during the interrogation he said: to his peasant Titus Dvusherstov in previous years, but he doesn’t remember which year, he, Prince Andrei, inflicted punishment, beat him with a whip because he, Prince Andrei, found out that his peasant, Meshchersky, Stepan Vlasov, got drunk, and he, Dvusherstov, buried that peasant’s dead body, without telling him, Prince Andrei into the ground; and for this reason he ordered to beat him with a whip like that used to drive horses, and not with a master’s whip. And in the orders of him, Meshchersky, the peasant Dvusherstov was never in the drive and did not appear anywhere for any theft; and for any underlying faults, namely, drunkenness and disobedience to his people and peasants now and before, he, Prince Andrei, will inflict punishment - and this is not prohibited to him and other landowners by the decree of the Tsar's Majesty, because these people and peasants would always be servile to their landowners and abstain from drunkenness and other indecent acts. The order for which the interrogation was made was as follows: to interrogate the landowner Prince Meshchersky - why did he beat the said peasant Dvusherstov with a whip, in his house or in what order? This Titus Dvusherstov was brought to the table of a neighboring landowner and obeyed. In November 1720 ordered: on Prince Andrei Meshchersky, due to the peasant’s guilt, for the plaintiffs’ stolen bread, for 18 sheaves, to take his claim, the plaintiff’s, 2 rubles; and what he, the plaintiff, wrote in the controversial petition to be looked for by that peasant, for the fact that he was beaten with a whip, and that peasant said that the landowner beat him, and the landowner said (see above), - and therefore they should not suddenly search for him. 1720 In the office of Zemstvo affairs. Anichkova and Orlov. Farm of a peasant in the village of Pankov, Novosilsky district: 6 horses, including 4 mares, 7 foals, 4 cows, 4 heifers, 10 sheep, 8 pigs, 30 Russian chickens, 7 sheepskin coats, 4 homespun caftans; sown 9 quarters of rye, and 20 kopecks of compressed non-milked rye, 20 kopecks of spring wheat, 30 kopecks of buckwheat, 2 stacks of oats, 5 quarters of milked rye, a hut and a cage, a wicker and tynova gorodba, a stable, 4 ploughshares, 3 scythes, 6 sickles, 3 axes, 2 frying pans Farm of a peasant of Rylsky district: a hut with a canopy, 3 barns, a barn, 2 sheepskin coats, 4 homespun caftans, 5 horses (3 mares), 1 cow, 1 calf, 6 sheep, 5 pigs; rye 10 quarters, oats 15, buckwheat 8, peas 3, hemp 2 quarters; 5 axes, 4 openers, 7 sickles, 4 carts. - The captured fugitive peasant was ordered to be handed over past the plaintiff and defendant for a good receipt; probably on the assumption that there is doubt about his affiliation. The plaintiff and defendant were also ordered to lay down fortresses. There were no signers; then the driver was given for a zemstvo soldier. Drivers took 4 alt. 2 days; orderlies 10 days. November 31, discharge from the Kazan Palace. The census books were kept in the Provincial Office where they were sent from the Local Order. When a certificate from another place was required, a decree on its delivery was handed to the party on whose instructions it was required and a tale was taken, “so that he could issue the said certificate (from the Provincial Chancellery) for a period of time.” By right, those fortresses that were not mentioned in the interrogation speeches were not taken into account; but in reality it turned out differently. In September 1720, the decision to draw lots according to Chapter XI, Art. 115. Code; but the defendant’s man, who went about his business, who held out for the lottery in the Zemstvo Chancellery, did not go into the lottery with his stubbornness. Meanwhile, the other side wrote down the bet for the lottery 7 times, and the man made an excuse in the petition that it was impossible for him to be in the lottery without the knowledge of his master, and his master was in the navy in St. Petersburg. On stubbornness, decree of December 208, 24. Resolution: give the person a due date with a note. On September 30, a man gave a fairy tale for the period of December 1 to St. Petersburg. And on December 1, the plaintiff’s man Anichkov and the defendant Orlov stood up and said that they amicably cast lots about the peasant and his wife, and the peasant went to Orlov, and he paid 10 rubles for him. Great Sovereign duties from 10 rubles. – 1 rub., for the expenditure of 1 money, – handed over to one clerk; clerical right and wrong 1 rub. 30 kopecks - handed over to another clerk. Announcements (in the Nadvorny Court) about the sale of a house at public auction in February 1722. By decree of His Imperial Majesty, in the completed case of Ivan Ivanov, the son of Anichkov with the steward Ivan Orlov with the claim of him, Anichkov, in his fugitive peasants of His Imperial Majesty for duties and office money for 100 rubles. described to his imperator. His Majesty's courtyard, Anichkov, which is outside the Prechistensky Gate, behind Zemlyanoy Gorod, in the parish of the Church of the Sign of the Virgin Mary and is valued at the indicated money of one hundred rubles; and by the verdict of the Moscow Nadvorny Court, it was ordered to sell that house from the extra dacha to willing people and, where appropriate, to display the sheets. And whoever wants to buy that yard, those people would come to the office of the Moscow Court Court. The original sheets are secured by secretary Larion Kopnin, and by clerk Stepan Golubtsov. And such sheets from that date (July 9, 1723) were nailed in decent places, namely: at the office at the Prechistensky Gate, at his Anichkov’s courtyard; and from that date (July 9th) no one came to the office of the Supreme Court to purchase that yard. In 1732, the Court Order ordered that the yard be sold again; judges Prince Alexey Golitsyn, Login Shcherbachev, Mikh. Zyuzin, Alexander Kudryavtsev. 1720 In the Zemstvo Chancellery. In the case of Skuratov and Maslov. Written out: in the past 1719, by his great sovereign's decree and by the verdict of the Military Collegium of Privy and Other Advisors and Assessors, dragoons and soldiers and recruits were ordered to be received and followed, and the dragoons and soldiers felgers and kriegsrechts recovered from the run were ordered to be repaired in the Moscow Garrison Chancellery by the brigadier and the Moscow province, Vice-Governor Ivan Lukich Voeikov and his comrades. The case is about “taking out curses with a sword, tearing out hair, gnawing teeth and bruising the right eye until it bleeds.” The case fits the decree, “so, to this, his great sovereign’s decree, therefore, is an example.” In 1715, in the Military Chancellery, Auditor General Kikin. The extract on page 20 was made by Stefan Muromsky. In March 1721, judge Stepan Pavlov was appointed to Mikhailov from the College of Justice. (Mikhailovsky Office of Court Affairs). In 1715, Kondraty Ivanov Seliverstov was a commissar in Mikhailov, and while he was away, his city and all sorts of affairs were ordered to the city nobleman Kliment Ivanovich Dobreyanov. In the Prikaznaya hut there is a guard soldier and a foreman and an elected watchman. In 1.724 This case, following Maslov’s petition to the Court of Justice, was taken to the Senate office; in the office: “the remaining member of the assessor” ordered: to take the case of suspicion to the Supreme Court to the Senate. Members of the Senate office in 1725: Count Andrei Matveev, Iv. Izmailov, Grig. Ergolskaya. Peasant farm of Bezhetsk district: livestock - a horse, a cow, two sheep with lambs, two pigs, 5 Russian chickens; 250 sheaves of standing, non-milked bread were brought to the peasant threshing floors and 2 quarters of milked bread in the granary of rye, 8 quarters of oats, octopus barley, 1/2 octopus wheat, four quarters of peas. Yes, dresses: two lamb fur coats for men and women, veal boots, women's red veal shoes, 9 dyed women's jackets, one piece of cloth, a row of magpie embroidered in gold, a new cloth caftan, 2 silver earrings with a simple stone, white shirts and canvas. Yard structure: a yard surrounded by a fence, a hut with a canopy, a cage, a bathhouse, a granary, a moss shed, a barn with chaff and dishes, 3 large leather vats, 2 axes, 3 scythes, a braided tackle, 5 sickles, 2 plows with coulters and clubs, an iron sawn-off edge (?), an iron frying pan, millstone. 1720 Tale of a bet for a term against petition; I put my hand in and took a copy. And the other party (the plaintiff) stated that he was aware of the deadline, put his hand in and took a copy. 1720 In the office of Zemstvo affairs. Ivan Musin-Pushkin on the peasants of the Ugreshsky Monastery about cutting down wood in a disputed forest. A clerk and witnesses were dispatched to inspect the felling site. For cutting down, it is ordered to beat with a whip on the spot. The execution was entrusted to the clerk, who traveled with the foreman and witnesses. About the runaway peasants of Prince Prozorovsky. The leading peasant testified: he fled 6 years ago from Ryazhsk, came to the Lomovsky district on Chembar to a landowner's estate of various locations, bought 12 quarters of land with osmina from the nobleman Savin Alekseev, Prince Tyapin, in the name of his landowner, for 6 rubles. according to the bill of sale and was built. He has livestock - a horse, two sheep, two pigs; unmilked rye 10 kopecks, milked barley 5 kopecks, spelt 5 kopecks; 1/2 of the field was sown with rye. Then, returning from running, he came to the former landowner in the Moscow courtyard to confess and presented the bill of sale to the butler. – Another: his father fled for about 40 years to Shatsk district; His father has livestock: 20 sheep, 20 pigs, 4 cows, 5 heifers, 6 horses, 3 mares. On page 26 census extract, book. 154 and 136 on page 38. In 1722, the Zemsky Chancellery was called the office of the Moscow Provincial Court. The case was taken from it by petition to the Court of Justice. In the office of Zemstvo Affairs. About the murdered foreigner Karsten (Kiril) Melder. The killer has been brought. No transfer money was taken for the poverty. A Russian servant from a foreigner received 6 rubles a year. It began on February 13, 1720 in the office of Zemsky Affairs with the announcement (verbal petition) of the foreigner Schlitter about his uncle Karsten Melder, who found him in an apartment on Chistye Prudy killed with his daughter. On the same date, a clerk with a police officer and witnesses was sent for inspection. During the inspection, foreigners were present and signed: Werner (Vahramey) Müller, Gabriel Sauls, J. Randoriff, Johann Kellergruss(?). On February 14, foreigners caught the fleeing murderers and brought 4 people to the office of Zemsky Affairs. Question: 1st was a cab driver who was hired by the man who was killed, but did not hire him; the driver was standing at the market on Chistye Prudy. 2nd servant of the murdered man; confessed. 3rd other servant; confessed. The 4th is a small foreigner who lived with the murdered man, an orphan whom the murderers took with them by force. 5th girl, the maid of the murdered man, who opened the doors to the murderers. On February 16, the 2nd, 5th and 5th were tortured - 30 blows each, they confirmed the same with some changes. Litter: repair secondary search. Schlitter, as the heir of the murdered man, signed the looted items. Litter: when wanted, ask questions. March 30 marked: repair the final search. The same numbers were asked a second time in alternating speeches. On March 30, the man was given 20, the girl 16 strokes; one of the men was not tortured due to illness. The girl insisted that she did not know about the intention to kill and did not intend to, but unlocked the doors without knowing. April 8 litter: repair the final third search. On April 8, two men were tortured, 15 blows each: they conspired with a girl. Article list. There is a note on it on April 12: having carried out a final search, the said murderers, according to the legal Code, are to be executed by death, wheeled, and a sentence about this is written under the file; and keep the girl until the decree. On April 14, the criminals were sent to penance with a clerk. Receipt: 1720 April 14 from the office of Zemstvo affairs at the Moscow Prison Yard received the kisser Mikh. Trofimov of convicts Matvey and Andrey to repentance, and signed instead, etc. On May 13, Andrei Gavrilov was taken to the dungeon and questioned in various speeches. The royal sentence was given to determine the type of execution, then the sentence is as follows: “by decree of the great sovereign and pro... chief landrichter Iv. Peter. Topilskaya and his comrades, having heard this case, sentenced: the Trinity-Sergius Monastery of the peasant children Matvey and Andrei Gavrilov to be executed by death, to be driven on the wheel for this: in the current February 1720, on the 13th day, in the verbal report of the foreigner Andrei Schlitter it is written: he sent his man Yury to the foreigner Kiril Melder to Chistaya Pond for his needs; and that man came to him, Andrei, and said that that Kirila and his daughter, the maiden Elena, were lying dead in the chambers, and there were no one among his people at that time. Against whom I heard the workers of that murdered foreigner, the above-mentioned peasant children Matvey and Andrei Gavrilovs were questioned; and in the questioning and with the indicated searches, they were guilty of this, and said: on Chistye de Prud, they lived as workers with the foreigner Cyril Melder and they intended to kill that Melder to death because he, Melder, beat them with a stick for their disobedience. And how that Melder came from the guests drunk and went to bed, and at that time they - Andrei took an ax, and his brother Matvey took an oak log, and in the chambers in his bedroom, Melder, sleepy, also his daughter the maiden Elena, Andrei with an ax, and Matvey with an oak log, killed them both to death. And in the decree of the great sovereign in the Code of Ch. XX, 9 art. printed...; Yes, according to a personal decree of the Tsar's Majesty and according to a report on February 7, 1718, which took place in Preobrazhensky at the general courtyard, the robbers were ordered to be executed by death, to be cut on the wheel for two Moscow robberies, and that during one robbery they burned one person with fire, so that they committed two mortal murders in Moscow. And in pursuance of this determination and the final decision, submit to the Moscow Court of Justice, when reporting, an article list with the announcement of their wines and the writing of decrees related to that of the Tsar's Majesty, as the decree sent from the State College of Justice of His Tsar's Majesty commands; and when the final decision is made in the Supreme Court, then this determination and the decision of the Supreme Court will be recorded in the book of searched completed cases. Chief Landrichtor Topilskoy, assessor Nikifor Druzhinin, assessor Mikhei Nebolsin, assessor Semyon Katygulov; testified, notary Ilya Maksimov on May 14, 1720. It was not clear whether and what the decision of the Supreme Court was; It was only noted that on July 12, 1720, the criminals in the square were executed - wheeled. The girl, according to the verdict on July 13, was ordered to be whipped and sent to Schnanghaus for ten years for failing to report and running away with the murderers. 1719 October. Prince Gagarin's man confronts the Tambov Landrat for being late for his runaway peasant landowner and his mother in one village; asks to send for him. Sagittarius sent; brought. October 24 questioning: Fedot Fedotov, son of Sukharnikov, aka Kazimerov, was born in Pereslavl-Ryazan district, in the village of Isadakh. His father and he were peasants of that village behind the priest. After his death he lived with his grandson, the priest; and after his death for his son, for the sexton. About 6 years ago, this sexton went to another village, Pesochnya, and left him behind. And he lived with his stepfather and went to different places and worked on plows; lived with peasants, the last time he lived in the village of Pursovony, where he was recorded in census books. Farm (Tambov district): 5 horses, all kinds of bread worth 100 kopecks or more, 30 sheep, 1 cow with a heifer, 20 pigs, 20 beehives, 70 geese. The plaintiff put a deed of sale, executed on October 3, 1719, in the name of Gagarin from the priest of the village of Isad Luka Makariev on Fedot with his brother and family. Fedot was interrogated against the bill of sale and argued that it was written by composition, demanded evidence of the rights of the seller of the priest, to whom he in no way belongs. Note: against this interrogation, order the plaintiff to put the former fortress of priest Luke, why he, Luke, that man was strong. Extract from the Tambov office If the plaintiff does not show up, the peasant is free to sign. In February 1720, Prince Gagarin's man attacked the Preobrazhensky Prikaz in order to take the matter there, since his master knew there. Litter: demand a case. A soldier was sent to Tambov to the governor. In April, the soldier brought the answer from Voivode Glebov: the case had already been sent to the office of Judicial and Investigation Cases to Judge Larion Kolobov - in Tambov. The soldier went again to Kolobov, who sent the file in June 1720 along with the convict. In the Preobrazhensky order, Fedot was given a new interrogation. Everyone lived in the palace villages - in the village of Firsanovshchina, where he lived with his father-in-law for 15 years; in 1707, a tax of half a tithe was imposed on them; according to the census of 1710, they were written here in the census books as a special court and paid all sorts of taxes. Whether he formed a fortress against him, he does not know; and the landrat, the commissar, and the clerk ordered all this to be told to him; The priest knows Luka, but he doesn’t know whether he is the heir to the former priest. Note: ask the man Gagarin for other fortresses. He also gave the fortress to the priest - deeded in 197 in the name of Luke. Fedot was given to Prince Gagarin for receipt. A letter was sent (with the plaintiff) to Kolobov, so that Fedot’s wife and all his belongings would be given to Prince Gagarin. In April 1721, Fedot beat Romodanovsky and his comrades in the Kamor Collegium: in that order, clerk Fyodor Alekseev interrogated him without judges, involuntarily, with great coercion and beat him, trying to do so. Gagarin by nature, and I didn’t read it to him during the interrogation. And Kolobov gave it to Gagarin from his belongings without a decree, without fortresses and without a search in vain; Now Gagarin keeps them with him and starves them to death. And the sovereign's taxes were collected from him and in order to bring him, Gagarin, to the Kamor Collegium and interrogate him and confront him. The Camor Collegium asked the Preobrazhensky Order. The Preobrazhenskaya chancellery contacted the Justice College (adviser Stepan Timofeevich Klokachev) about the delivery of a certificate from the census books about the note for the priest (promemoria). But Fedot and his father Fyodor were not found in the census books of 154, and in 186 Fetka Ivanov was recorded in the yard of priest Ivan in the village of Isadakh. And priest Luke presented another fortress to denounce Fedot. Meanwhile, Fedot fled and came to Moscow; he was caught by Prince Gagarin's man and brought to the Preobrazhensky chancellery. Here he was interrogated against the new fortresses. In May 1722, the case was sent from the Preobrazhenskaya chancellery to Dvortsovaya, since Fedot was leaving and was called a palace officer. The order of the Grand Palace was renamed the Palace Chancellery. In June 1722, the Palace Chancellery sent the case for decision to the Court Court; here Fedot was denied and beaten with a whip for running away. (Written out as a list in the report). 1720 In the office of Zemstvo affairs. The plaintiff is the peasant Kiyazya Baryatinsky Klim Ivanov against the peasant steward Varaksin Ivan Fedorov. He bought a stone and stacked it in China, the city of 13 fathoms for 2 rubles. 13 alt. 2 days; (in Moscow, a pavement stone costs 2 rubles per hryvnia fathom). And Andrei Grigoriev, the peasant of Varaksin’s steward, sold this stone for unknown purpose; Yes, he lied, in my name he borrowed 10 rubles from a man named Ivan Kitaev to my master’s house. Before the court hearings, the plaintiff died. Then the following petition was filed: .. this year, my master, the peasant N beat his forehead in the office of Zemstvo affairs in his lawsuit based on the sealed petition of Ivan Fedorov Varaksin against his peasant N; and now that my master’s peasant, plaintiff N, has died, and now there are no one in Moscow for his children and relatives, and there is no one to go to the interrogation in his place; and by order of my master, in that interrogation, the man Trofim Kudryavtsev should be in the master’s house... Please... command, sir, instead of the deceased, to be in the interrogation and tell the evidence, etc. The man of Prince Baryatinsky Iv. Kitaev. Allowed. The defendant said during interrogation: they bought a stone together for 2 rubles. from hryvnia to general money; and he, the defendant, according to his word, the plaintiff, sold that stone for 1 1/2 rubles. For a fathom I divided that money in half with the plaintiff. And Yves. Kitaev took 10 rubles. not by deception for brick burning for firewood for his own plaintiff, for the fact that he, the plaintiff, is in a contract with him in the estate of Step. Trakhaniotova in the Moscow district in the village of Spassky they built a stone bell tower. In December 1720, the verdict was: to accuse the defendant on his own conscience, (divided); awarded to eat and red tape. The accused defendant said in the fairy tale that he has nothing to pay with, because he has no yard and no belongings; and his landowner N about his contract, that he is contracting for a stone bridge structure in Moscow - whether he knows it or not, he doesn’t know. In January 1721, a petition was submitted on behalf of the plaintiff Klim Ivanov (?), signed by a man of the same estate, Trofim Kudryavtsev, to recover a claim against his landowner for the insolvent defendant. Chapter XXI summed up. 66 art. Code. It was ordered: to take the landowner, because that peasant of his, living in Moscow, had a business for himself and was contracted to build notably with the knowledge of him, Varaksin, so instead of his Andrei Grigoriev, his man Varaksin had a hand in the interrogation. Varaksin paid. Trofim Kudryavtsev received the claim for Klim Ivanov. The plaintiff sought, among other things, along with the claim for obligation, dishonor for swearing. The witness testified that the abuse took place after the filing of a petition for a lawsuit. As a result, the Court of Justice in 1722 granted a special claim for dishonor. When the defendant's building was assessed in the lawsuit, a clerk with a soldier and attesting witnesses was sent by order of the court to return it, and then submitted a report. But then, that same year, the owner filed a petition with the Court of Supervisors to accept from him 4 rubles, at which the mansion was valued, and give him the building as before. But the claim was more expensive than 4 rubles. The plaintiff, not satisfied with the return of the building, asked for sufficient recovery. The defendant was taken and held in court. 1720 In the Zemstvo Chancellery. About the note of the spiritual Tula landowner Khomyakova. The spiritual father, six witnesses, and the scribe applied hands; written by Serf Affairs in Tula. A decree was sent to Tula about the interrogation to Stolnik Ivashkin (a judge from the College of Justice). The heiress's dispute about illegality and lack of sound mind. The controversial petition for the search was submitted to Ivashkin and the Zemstvo Chancellery. It was ordered: not to write down the spiritual dispute when it comes from Tula. Witnesses confirmed it. The overseer of Serf Affairs was also interrogated. Written out, among other things, of the Gradsky Law line 21 in Chapter. 49 on sheet 40:45: if anyone can read and write, etc. Upon receipt of the interrogation of the litter: write down the spiritual. Then the disputant again filed a petition about the composition of the spiritual and so on. Velepo: to be subject to judicial interrogation, and to set aside the previous note about spiritual testimony. 1720 In the Zemstvo Chancellery Petition of the sovereign stoker Yakov Filimonov. A Bryansk townsman has been living with him on a residential record since 1719 for a period of five years without rent for clothes and shoes; and he will be, Vasily Iv. Belyaev, living in my house, wants to get married, and so do I, if I want him to marry my yard girl, and for that marriage, he will live in my house for another five years and give himself a living record again - to work, not to drink, and so on. Filimonov complains that he doesn’t listen to him, doesn’t work, handles fire carelessly, says rude things to him and his family, leaves without permission, leaves his business, etc.; referred to witnesses. Belyaev was found in the office and interrogated. During interrogation, he renounced everything, saying that he lives well, obeys and works; but he does not attack the plaintiff’s witnesses, because they live with him, the plaintiff, in his house. However, without any research and without asking witnesses, the following notice took place on April 1, 1720, (not even a record was presented): by decree of the great sovereign, the driver for disobedience of his master was to inflict punishment on him, beat the batogs and, taking the driver’s money, give it to his owner with a receipt, so that he, according to the record, which he did not dispute with his questioning, live out his assigned term years. 1720 April 1st. In the Zemstvo Office. The priest and the deacon from the Introduction on Sretenka - about the theft of the church; They brought the girl caught red-handed. Together with the priest, the petition was signed by the parish people of that church: the general and gentleman of Prince Nikita Ivanovich Repnin, the man Yakov Nikonov, Count Alexei Mikh. Sheremetev's man Peter Ivanov, to the house of Prince Vas. Peter. Khovansky's man Petr Shchelkonov, house steward Iv. Iv. Velyaminov-Zernov man Grieg. Artemyev. On March 31, the priest and clergy gave a verbal report of the theft. The girl slandered the man; the man did not obey. After the interrogation, confrontation; after a confrontation, torture. The girl fell ill from the torture and confessed to having slandered the person in vain. The man was ordered to be released, and the girl, as soon as possible, was to be looked for a second time. 2nd torture. The girl is dying; and the plaintiffs are not pursuing the case. Note on the article list: by decree of the great sovereign, Ober-Landrichter and his comrades, listening... ordered: the said escort girl, taking the escort money, should be released with a receipt according to the decree, so that the plaintiffs do not go about the case, and this girl was not guilty of stealing the church; and give the whisk you brought, with a receipt, to whomever it is due. 1712 In the Zemsky Prikaz. When an order for a case required a certificate in the hands of a third party, or information from him, the interested party itself delivered this information in the form of a petition from a third party. “On August 29th, 1712, Andrei Ivanov beat his forehead: he had a case in the order of Zemstvo Affairs, which Ivan Gagin was looking for on his father, as if his fugitive peasants of the Ryazan village of Kokur Gura Rodionova and his comrades; and against that of his, Ivanov, Gagin’s claim, he brought a controversial petition to this case, that he wrote those fugitive peasants of others, and not his own, and in the same case, he had a chance to interrogate the Yelchan resident Avdey Trubitsyn against the petition, and he, Avdey, now sent him a petition and from the record a list in his hand, why those peasants were strong for him. And so that the great sovereign would favor him, he ordered that the petition and the list with the record in his hand be taken into action and the decree carried out.” Farm of a peasant of Yeletsk district: 10 horses, 5 cows, 38 sheep, 30 pigs, 3 rye, 1 oat, 1 buckwheat, 1 millet; (rye in Odonye for 10 kopecks, oats for 12 kopecks, buckwheat for 13 kopecks, millet in one for 12, in another 10); 30 Russian chickens and 12 quarters of milked rye bread, 2 quarters of millet, 2 openers with guards, 2 scythes, 7 sickles, 3 axes... About church theft. 1) Interrogations; litter: to carry out a criminal search. 2) 1st search with torture; litter: to repair the secondary fiat search. 3) 2nd search; litter: carry out the 3rd search. 4) 3rd search: 30 blows - and burned with an iron. July 13, 1720 sentence of the Zemstvo Chancellery: hang. For the final decision, submit to the Moscow Court of Justice, when reporting, an article list with the announcement of wines and the writing of decent decrees, as sent from the Justice Collegium by his emperor. Majesty's decree commands; and when the final decision follows, write down this determination in the book of searched completed cases. The execution took place on July 26. A priest from Kuzma and Demyan Semion was appointed to confess to the convicts. On July 11, he informed the office of Zemstvo Affairs that the convict Ivan Fedorov did not want to confess to him and was making the sign of the cross on himself, placing the first fingers with the last. As a result, Iv. Fedorov was questioned in the dungeon and said: he and St. should confess. Tain does not want to receive communion according to the new breviaries because he is of the old faith; and he studied and confessed with his spiritual father - in the Moscow district in the monastery village of Bushnov, which is along the Tver Rogozhskaya road. And he confessed this year, 1720, during Lent, according to the old breviary of Joseph the Patriarch; and now he, Ivan, is ready to confess according to the old missal. But he, de Ivan, venerates holy icons, knows no iconoclasts and does not iconoclast himself; and he, Ivan, learns from working people from Yegor Fedorov... And he is baptized according to the old faith and according to Joseph’s breviary. In the Zemstvo Office. About the note from the Moscow court on the bill of sale. In the Zemstvo Office. Plaintiff for elderly money. The defendant asks to deal with the previous case in Alatyr. 1720 note: against this petition, send a decree to Alatyr, to whom it should be addressed, in which write: plaintiff Mich. The peasants from the city of Alatyr who were shown in this case were handed over to Zyuzin, and who were they living with on the run? And from that case, send a copy to the Zemstvo Chancellery and give that decree to Princess Troekurova (the defendant) to the person who is in charge of the case, with a receipt that he should bring that knowledge for a specified period and for that person to find her, “To do according to this mark.” 1719 A runaway peasant woman in a drive in the Alatyr chancellery of the landrat shows: about four years ago, he, Ivan, (a peasant) went as a petitioner to his former landowner, Princess Irina Petrovna Troekurova, to Moscow from the entire estate of the village of Nikitin for worldly business; and this widow, Princess Irina Petrovna, took Ivan’s horse, a gray gelding, with a belt collar and a sleigh worth 8 rubles for peace, and ordered him to take this money from the world. And the peasants of that village of Nikitin did not give him that kind of money to this day. Farm of Alatyr district: 5 horses, 3 foals, 3 cows, 3 calves, 15 sheep, 4 pigs; there are 20 ocminas of bread in the land; 10 quarters of rye, 7 quarters of oats, 1 quarter of wheat, 2 poods of spelt, 2 octopuses of peas, etc. In the file that was produced by the Landrat, it is listed as the mayor's litter. In 1722 (Zemsk. Chancellor) the case was “to the office of the Moscow Provincial Court.” Khorohovo, Moscow district, was Prince Alexei Iv. Troekurova. The village of Khoroshovo and two villages and three villages adjacent to it; in all 56 peasant households, male and female people, small and large, 399; they have birds, Indian and Russian chickens, 661 birds; livestock - horses, cows, sheep, pigs, goats 501. The price for everything is 1050 rubles. Claim 760 rub. Eating and red tape in 3 months. 6 days 9 rub. 20 alt.; from that, the duty per hryvnia per ruble is 30 alt. 6 kopecks; 2 money per expense; stationery in hryvnia 30 alt. 6 kopecks; Yes, from him, the plaintiff, the right in altyn from the ruble is 9 alt. 4 money. If the great sovereign will indicate - for a controversial defendant's petition, (i.e., after the order is completed), from the completion of the case to the decisive decree for 1 year, 36 rubles in hryvnia per day. 16 alt. 4 money. From that, the duty per hryvnia per ruble is 3 rubles. 20 alt.; stationery too; yes, the cost of duties is 6 den.; Yes, from him, the plaintiff, the rightists 1 alt. per ruble 36 alt. 4 days A total of 46 rubles were consumed from the above items. 3 alt. 2 days – duties 4 rubles 20 alt. 2 d., stationery 5 rub. 31 alt. 3 d. Decision of the Moscow Nadvorny Court on May 24, 1723: the lieutenant Zyuzin in this case in his lawsuit with Princess Troekurova will be subject to judicial interrogation in order to: the above-mentioned peasants, both he and she, are strengthened by both; and according to the Code, fugitive peasants were ordered to be handed over to the court, and to the detectives, and to the fortresses. The matter was decided by petition in the Senate. Decree of the Senate on March 15, 1725 enshrined: Stepan Kakhychov, secretary Ivan Ermolaev. 1720 About the fugitives. Note from 1720: “but it is not necessary to put an urgent tale in arrears, since this is a serf matter.” The papers were kept in “povyt boxes.” The sealed petition was sent to the warehouse, where it was stored. The petition was accepted “for the note.” About the prodigal theft of a father and daughters; he obeyed. An article has been summarized from the Correct Book of the Gradsky Law, Chapter 49. In the Zemstvo Chancellery there was a constable and a headman on guard. A constable who served at the office stole a fur coat from a guard soldier; For this he was ordered to be beaten with a whip and dismissed from the office. Petition for robbery, called a lawsuit. It's over with peace. “On Thursday and Saturday, judges do not sit in the order” according to your sovereign decree. In a lawsuit against a gentleman or a peasant, a defendant is taken to court. In court, sometimes a tale is taken from him: whether the landowner knows about his capture or does not know. “This petition was written by the maiden Marya Andr. Naryshkina zemstvo sexton"; but only one of the landowner Matyushkina’s people was arrested in connection with the case, and many were sued for failure to fulfill a contract for the transportation of supplies; the remaining people were not represented. The plaintiff asks that Matyushkina be charged with the fact that she clearly recognized her guilt, that she did not put her other people on probation. In 1720, the Zemstvo Chancellery, based on a man’s tale that the landowner knew about his capture, and on the new decree of Article 208: “if the defendant is his stubbornness”, etc.... and that the prisoner was released on the receipt of the person sent by Matyushkina, he accused “them, the defendants” (?) of the lawsuit. The world after the decision. From dishonor, according to the plaintiff’s tale, from 50 rubles. from the defendant, duties per ruble per hryvnia are 5 rubles, clerical fees are the same number, and from him for the right per altyn per ruble 1 ruble. 16 alt. 4 days Only 11 r. 16 alt. 4 days Peasant farm of Staritsky district: 2 horses, 3 cows, 2 calves, 3 pigs, 4 sheep, 15 Russian chickens; bread was sown with 2 quarters of rye with octopus, 2 quarters of barley, 4 quarters of oats, 1 quarter of buckwheat, 1 quarter of peas, 1 quarter of hemp seed, and linseed as well. Bill of sale 1723 Prince Ivan Timof. Shakhovskoy sold for his own needs and to pay off his debts, and not for any forgery and any translation and fiction, the real truth - his serf peasant N of the village N with his mother, wife and children, who lived on the run. To write to the office of the Moscow Nadvorny Court (May 29, 1723) from the Akzyznaya (Excise) chamber, having consulted the Pomeranian Customs with the notebooks: in the past 1721, rye, barley, etc., at what price were they purchased? According to the certificate, rye costs 30 alt., and 32 alt., and 25 alt., and 26 alt., and 28 alt.; live for 20 alt. and 21 alt.; oats for 11 alt. 4 den., – 13 al. 2 d., 14 al. and 15 alt.; buckwheat 13 al. 2 d, 15 alt., 16 alt. 4 d. and 20 alt.; peas at 20:24, 26 and 40 alt.; hemp at 20:23, 25 alt. a quarter, but flaxseed was not in the note or for sale. Kuznetskaya Sloboda Artemyev against the housekeeper of the townsman who ran away from his shop before he was registered, and against his lieutenants. The lieutenants objected that the owner beat him very hard with a whip and that is why he ran away. They examined that prisoner; found signs. Solution: live out the lesson years, and beat the batogs for escaping. “Office of Tavern Investigations, Captain Prince Grigory Yakovlevich Vyazemsky and his comrades.” The leading man of the defendants in the tale had to write: when he was taken, was the landowner at home and was he aware of the taking? There are extracts from the Kashira scribe books of 135 in the village of Svinoy. In 1720, on Kashira, the “judge” Semyon Matv. Arsenyev. In 1722 it was decided in the Moscow Nadvorny Court. 1720 In the office of Zemstvo affairs. About the spiritual note. Lisichnikov's widow presented her husband's will. (Writes “oral list”). Spiritual Moscow, recorded in the Moscow office of Serfdom. Extract from the Correct Book of the Gradsky Law, facet 21, ch. 49. For questioning, the witnesses were called to the order and the scribe. The fees charged were 16 alt. 4 days; half the money to spend. A request was made to all the clerks: is there anyone who has petitioned about this spiritual matter? In battle and injury. The defendant said that he beat only to defend himself during a quarrel in a tavern, and referred to the witnesses. But he was accused without witnesses on his own accord on the basis of Code X, 136. According to the defendant’s claim, Grigory Ozerov gave a “seven-numbered” fairy tale that he would serve a term. Then they rescheduled it twice. The defendant said that he had no time to answer himself, but trusted someone else. From this a new slowness could arise, because the seventh tale again had to be taken from the attorney; but the plaintiff objected (1720) to this demand. There was a note: “if he, the plaintiff, had common delays with the defendant, order the defendant himself to be interrogated, and refuse the attorney, before his defendant himself is in Moscow, and for this purpose, the plaintiff and the defendant must be sent to the court by a note by decree.” About the land - a certificate with scribe books in the Patrimonial Office; about peasants - a certificate with census books in the Provincial Chancellery. An unknown horse ran into the village of the Moscow landowner Bibikov. He presented it to the Zemstvo Chancellery to describe, evaluate and give it to him with a receipt until they asked. Clerk Popov, plaintiff. Kazantsev owed Tikhonov 6 rubles. 30 alt. (the act is not visible). After Tikhonov's death, his son Nik. You. Tikhonov gave up that money to Popov for the debt. Popov is looking for Kazantsev; submitted the following letters to the documents: 1. My Mr. Ivan Alekseevich, hello! Which money I owe to your mercy, namely 10 rubles, and of that money I sent 3 rubles in payment to your mercy. 3 alt.; and the remaining 6 rubles. 30 alt. allow me to take it from the clerk Zosima Kazantsev, whom I borrowed from my father, and in that money I sent a letter from his hand to your mercy. Let me take it as best I can from it. Nikolai Vasiliev asks for this and bows. 2. Benefactor Zosima Alekseevich, hello! I ask your love, perhaps, that you have 6 rubles of my money. 30 alt.; come to me or go and bring it yourself, which I urgently need in money. I bow to this. Vasily Tikhanov. On the back: My dear sir Vasily Tikhonovich. Perhaps, wait a little longer. Then I hit Kazantsev with my forehead. - We made peace. Reading the statement and asking for correction. “And looking at the defendant Princess Troyekurova, the man Gavrila Fedorov argued and asked that a second questioning of that fugitive peasant be signed under this extract... And based on that dispute and by the judge’s order, this extract was written out from the original case...” The tale that the parties gave upon appearing in court, about appearing for interrogation, was like an agreement, the terms of which served as an indication of the obligations regarding appearance and by means of command tricks and competitions. So in the case of Musin Pushkin in the lawsuit against the book. Troekurov about runaway peasants. Against the questioning of the fugitive, the defendant's man, who is involved in business, and the plaintiff with him were amicably deferred in order for him, the plaintiff, to stand for evidence, and for him, the defendant Gavrila, against the petition, from his landowner to stand with the believing petition for interrogation on October 7, 1720; and they wrote confirmation in that fairy tale: if he, the plaintiff... and he, the defendant, does not submit a petition from his landowner with a believing petition for the specified period, then... and so on... she, the defendant, and her man N are guilty without interrogation... For a period of time, the plaintiff became and wrote down the bid petition, but the defendant, according to the fairy tale, although he became, but did not declare the petition from the landowner a believer and did not answer in that case; It is notable that his landowner, having learned her guilt in that case, did not give him a believing petition. And according to the Code of Chapter X. 108 art...., and according to the decree of 194: if they teach you to beat them with their foreheads, that they are not prepared for trial, etc.... - do not give more than a week's time; Yes, according to the decree of 1700 February 14 - to be interrogated yourself or take tales from whom they believe. And therefore the defendant was accused. The case on the complaint was taken for consideration from the Zemstvo Chancellery to the Nadvorny Court. The decree on delivery of the case was submitted to the Zemsky Chancellery by the complainant's person. At the same time, it was recovered from him: from the claim from 12 rubles. duty 1 rub. 20 k., stationery as well, expenses 1 1/2 money; only 2 r. 40 k. 1 1/2, den. Drivers 4 days (for bringing a person, orderlies 10 days). 1720 September 27. In the Zemstvo Chancellery Petition of Colonel Grieg. Yak. Zheltukhin. “This year in September, my peasant Lazar Markov rode with me on my convoy from St. Petersburg, and for disobedience he was beaten by the batog on my orders; and after that, on different days of this September, while driving along the road, he scolded me in absentia... with all sorts of inappropriate abuse and said in his words: no matter how much the coachmen are with him, it will be in our hands. Yes, he spoke harshly about me: I am angry with all my peasants and people; It’s enough to scold him, it’s time to give karachun. And when I began to have dinner: let him eat, gorge himself, there would be a reason to cook; and so fat, there is something to gut. Great sovereign! - I ask Your Majesty to torture my above-mentioned peasant against my petition and in his above words - with whom was his malicious intent and who advised his comrades with him? Questioning. Locked himself. Issued by Code. XXI, 48. Tortured with 10 blows. He obeyed: he spoke from the heart, but there was no intent. Summed up XX, 8 – punishment for intent. In November 1720 for intent and praiseworthy words, he was ordered to be whipped and sent to hard labor for 10 years, and the money for exile and soldiers to be taken from the landowner. This determination was sent for approval to the Court of Justice, which determined (in April 1721): beating the whip mercilessly, give it to the landowner as before: according to the search, he showed that he spoke from the heart, but there was no intent. 50 strokes given. Judges for cities were appointed by the College of Justice to be “in charge of determining all judicial, investigative and zemstvo cases belonging to the College of Justice”; and in the decree it was written that all cases should be sent according to the decrees and according to the Code, and those that happen to be the most controversial and important are ordered to be reported to the Moscow Court Court and demand instruction. This was the office of Judgment and Investigation Affairs (Venev). And in the Tula province there was an office of the Voivodeship Board under the steward and governor Danilov. The judge, it seems, was not at all under the direct authority of the governor, but was subordinate only to the College of Justice; The governors were completely removed from court affairs. In the province there was a special provincial court, where, it seems, the Lower Courts were attacked. And before judges in 1715 there were commandants. – The concept of jurisdiction. The claim was about the seizure by a neighbor of land taken from the treasury as quitrent. The one who took possession also proved his right to maintain that land. The Venevsky judge, who initiated the lawsuit, demanded certificates for the search regarding the bidding from commissar affairs. But the Tula voivode, without sending certificates, demanded the case to his court on the grounds that “that land is given from the office of the Commissioners, and not from the Court Affairs.” This dispute was in the consideration of the Court of Justice, where, by the way, it was written: in the decree of the great sovereign from the state College of Justice to the Moscow Court of Justice on June 26, 1720, it was written: On the 3rd day of June, by his decree, the great sovereign, and by the verdict of the state College of Justice, it was ordered by decree sent from the government Senate from the College of Justice to the Court of Justice courts, and from the Supreme Courts to the Provincial and Lower Courts, send him, the great sovereign, decrees so that they do not interfere in Cameroonian affairs and do not cause any confusion in the collection. Petitioner that the Venev judge decided the case without proper certificates, as a result of which the case was requested to the Court of Justice. Form of sentence from the judge: 1721 August. But by decree... in Venev, “the office of Judicial and Investigation Cases, Mr. Captain and Judge Pyotr Andreevich Stary-Milyukov, having listened..., ordered:... 1721 Zemstvo office. Proceedings regarding the issuance of vacation pay from orders are ongoing. Widows and children of former servicemen who died in the manor's house are asking. The solicitor Semyonov brings a man who came to him from the outside, came from the city of Nevel, of Polish breed, and wants to live with him and his son in service; to write it down and give an extract. By the way, a decree was issued on November 9, 1704: that people of all ranks will begin to bring Swedes and other full people to the notice, and question those people - who are natives of the city and district and villages; and having asked about faces and signs, examine and write down in books exactly; and to collect duties according to the previous great sovereign’s decree. 1721 Brings his forehead into service with leave pay. "Book Gagarin released his man as if he was sick.” Note on receipt. 1715 On February 2, the widow of Aigustova surrendered two girls to her son-in-law, groom Bryukhov, of her serfs for ten rubles. for future use irrevocably. A vacation note written on a piece of plain paper in the form of a letter sent to a girl from Siberia. “On January 6, 1720, I, Ivan Kologrivov, released my serf wife Daria Ivanova, daughter, to freedom, where she wants to live; but my children and my family don’t care about that girl. Written by Ivan Kologrivov.” A Pole, a Vitebsk native, lived behind Pan Burminsky and went into famine. He hits the Russian landowner with his forehead against the peasantry. Vacation: “let her go out of her house” to freedom. “In the summer of January 190, on the 22nd day, I, Dmitry Markov, gave my daughter, Anna, as a dowry to my son-in-law Afonasy Stepanov of the village of Reutov, my servant wife Agrafena with her son, with Petrushka. And he gave this, given to her. And this one was written by my man Kiryushka Abakumov. And who will stand up from the outside and cleanse me, Dmitry Markov?” Submitted to the note in 1721. Withdrawal letter. “In memory of Antipa Nikiforov, son of Ushakov. I, Antip, gave my peasant girl Ganka Zakharov's daughter this year, December 19, 189, to Gerasimov's man Savelyev's son Alekhine, to Vaska Martynov; and in conclusion I took my girl Ganka 8 rubles for it. money. And who will intercede with my girl N, whether it’s my family or someone from outside, and I won’t be able to cleanse my girl N and cause damages. And from now on, I, Antipas, don’t care about that girl and no one in my family cares. And give me your girl at the time of the Baptism of Christ. And memory was written by N.” Revealed in 1721 in the Zemstvo Chancellery 1711 Aksinya Pusheshnikova borrowed from the Livensky Cherkashenin, from Fyodor Mikhailov Mogilevtsov for the payment of sovereign taxes to the datochny, who was taken from the courtyard people, from 2/3 for uniforms, and for provisions, and for hiring a cart from Moscow to Voronezh, also for other taxes, money 16 rubles. until the Intercession of this year 1711; and in that money I pledged to him N the courtyard husband of her serf Karp Petrov, Volkov’s son, with his children and all sorts of things... And if I don’t give the money for a period of time and I don’t ransom the man, and I’ll be deprived of him. And this is my pledge from now on... to the fortress. And that man is now in my house. And according to the deadline, I should give it to him, Karpov. Penalty 30 rub. Committed at serf affairs in Venev. Due to delay, it is recorded in the Zemstvo Chancellery. 1716 The nobleman Volodimerov sold the courtyard wife, widow and children, to the solicitor Barkov for 7 rubles. 1714 May. Stolnik Durnovo gave a deed to his son-in-law Nephew for the serfs of his old business people, whom he gave as a dowry. “February 199 on day 4. In memory of me, Pyotr Ivanov, son of Maslov. This year, February 199, on the 4th day, I, Peter, released my serf girl Avdotitsa, Vikulova’s daughter, who released the city of St. Michael’s cathedral churches of the archbishop’s priest Ivan N for my man’s backyard, for N; and that N, by the will of God, was grieved and it was impossible to marry that N. And I, Peter, gave up that girl for the debt for 15 rubles. to his father-in-law N for his yard man N.” In 207 he sold an old serf girl for 10 rubles. 1719 Sold his dowry servants to the locals. Request for vacation pay. After the death of the master, those he took from Tobolsk were newly baptized Kalmyks of the Cossack Horde. 1719 Sold a yard man for 12 rubles. – 195 g. output 8 r. – 196, he married a peasant’s widow and her young son to a foreign peasant; and when that son gets old, he wants to live with his mother, he wants to live abroad. Output 9 1/4 rub. – 198 for a local girl, 5 rubles for breeding. - 199, by order of the lord, the headman released the girl; I took 10 rubles from the groom. – 1721 sold a man and his family for 20 rubles. – 1720 sold a man for 3 rubles. - 1721 sold from the village of N a serf patrimonial peasant with his wife and children and with all the peasants' bellies and cattle, and with bread, and with the yard and mansion building, leaving nothing of belongings and buildings and the plant; and took 30 rubles for everything. And if they ask for taxes from the yard where he lived, pay the seller; and after this deed of sale, pay the one who will own the peasant. “Polish immigrants, accepted into the service by Russian landowners, unquestioningly signed up for them. Among other things, decrees 189 and 203 were issued. “If people start beating people into servitude and those people, also full and bought, and in all kinds of fortresses of people and who Lithuanian people came from abroad - bring them to the note in the Serf Order; and without registering them, you shouldn’t keep such people.” (1704 November 9th) Note: “to record and issue an extract for the property.” – 1721 sold an old plump man for 10 rubles. (l. 48). Loan entry to the peasantry, loans 5 rubles. (l. 67). The 174 vacation pay was issued by his man by order of the master (l. 96). Bill of sale for a yard man for 3 rubles. 1721 (l. 98). Bill of sale of 1721 from the Armory Chamber of Silver and Gold Leaf, master Nikifor Pinkinsky (?) sold his newly baptized Latvian who he bought, whom he married to the purchased girl (fol. 99). 1717 Bill of Sale. The village sexton's wife sold it for 6 rubles. dowries of his people Jacob and his wife (l. 100). The priest wrote down the newly arrived Pole: “By order of my father, I released him,” etc. 1721 The defendant in the lawsuit about a runaway girl, the daughter of clerk Manuylov, asks to transfer the case from the Staritsa chancellery to the Preobrazhensky order, because her father served in that order and was led. The case was taken up, but then, due to lack of jurisdiction, it was sent to the Court at the request of the plaintiff. Signed petition on the back of the note: “Stolnik Prince Iv. Fedor. Romodanovsky ordered, having written down, about sending that case to Staritsa to the ruler, to send a letter to the great sovereign with a soldier. With a memory order from the city judge, the fee is 8 alt. 4 days 1721 Captain Gotovtsev strikes with his forehead in the Court of Justice, where his case with Izmailov from Pereslavl was taken, on the bias of the local judge, so that he would not know his affairs. In the Nadvorny Court, based on an extract, without a certificate or explanation, it was determined: so that he does not know, and his affairs are to be handled by the Justice Collegium or the judge of the city of Dmitrov. The case was that an extract was drawn up in the Zemstvo Chancellery, hands were attached; The members signed the opinion, but without deciding, they presented the matter with opinions to the Court of Justice (August 1721) “for better consideration and decision,” since the matter was important. 1721 in the Nadvorny Court. According to the denunciation of the chief fiscal officer Nesterov, that a certain Volkov, a childless man, made a cashless mortgage in the name of his father-in-law for his villages, in opposition to the decree on single inheritance. A notary was immediately sent with soldiers and a fiscal officer, a search was made in Volkov’s house, they looked for and asked him for the money received under the mortgage; They took him as a patient and brought him to the office for interrogation. The research began. A few days later Volkov died. New denunciation that he supposedly made a will in favor of his wife, etc. New research. When it was necessary to judge in the Court of Justice, it turned out that the decree of 1712, January 24: “when someone’s clan becomes extinct, the last in the clan should not sell or give away for himself,” etc., was not published, and was not sent to the Serfdom Office and was not sealed. The Court of Justice entered the Justice Collegium with a presentation. Reports from courts, e.g. Nadvorny, were written not only in the name of the Senate, but also on Prosecutor’s Affairs in the Senate. It seemed to refer to slowness. 1722. A decree was sent to the permit from the Senate, which states that the Prosecutor General and Chief Prosecutor, having listened... ordered:... confirm, etc. Conflicting heirs appeared. To prove kinship, “in the witchcraft of kinship,” against generational paintings, witnesses were interrogated according to the Gospel commandment, hedgehog: to her, to her, in truth. So there was a search? Moreover, some of the applicants presented “certificates” from private individuals on stamp paper as proof of relationship. Private letters from relatives. Writing out scribe books. Inquiries are made with the files of the Monastic Order regarding information regarding the relationship evident in those cases. 1719 Clerk Pyotr Volkov testified that he studied the German language at a school that was on Pokrovka in the courtyard of the boyar Vas. Fed. Naryshkin, and was not by decree, but of his own accord. At that school, they were ordered to teach sex offenders’ children and others. 1721 Town Hall Rescissions of Kunechesk affairs burgomasters, having listened... ordered:.. About the theft of belongings put for safekeeping. The case was started in the Zemstvo Chancellery; but since the defendant turned out to be a tax collector, and tax collectors are known to the Magistrate, the case was sent there. 189. Loan records to the peasantry - recorded in the moving-out hut. Court form 1733. A special notebook for the defendant, a special note for the plaintiff. From homeowners, pavement money, bath money, 1/4 share of income. 1722 Court of Justice. The former townsman Fyodor Ivanov lived on a residential register with Popkov, Kotelnaya Sloboda, and Popkov married him to a baptized foreigner, a girl. After Popkov’s death, Ivanov seeks bequeathed money from his mother and heir. Trade letter. “204 January on the 3rd day. Afanasey Timofeev, son of the Kologrivs, took from Ivan Fedorov, son of Bolshov Nesterov, two joints of damask at a price of 20 rubles, and give me, Afanasy, that money to him, Ivan, as Ivan asks. I signed, Afanasy, with my own hand” April 1721, on the 30th day from this letter for the letter and from the note 5 alt. taken by decree and recorded in a book in a list. In Kozmodemyansk, serf affairs overseer Boris Dyakonov. “On the 11th day of February 1723, in the office of the Moscow Court of Court of the same Court, soldiers Pavel Ostafiev and Fyodor Arefiev said: they were sent from the office of the Moscow Court of Court according to the detective memory of Steward Mikhail. Fed. the son of Rtishchev, a quitrent peasant for Nazarov, Timofeev's wife Pelageya Ivanov, the daughter for him, Nazar, and their son Pavel for interrogation on the petition of the Pereslavl-Ryazan bishop's house of clerk Alexei Inogorev. And according to that detective memory, they went to their court three times and guarded them at the court; and they, Timothy and his wife and son, do not speak at home and do not leave the yard, they hide. But as soon as their son Pavel rode out of his yard on a horse... and, seeing them, the messengers, he left the horse and fled from them, the messengers, to the neighbors' yards; and he, the plaintiff, took that horse to feed himself.” Then a clerk was sent with soldiers as ordered and ordered to take her in front of witnesses. 1728 The spiritual will was recorded in the Moscow Provincial Chancellery. - In 1728, in the Moscow Provincial Chancellery, a claim: I ask, having found it, interrogate it. The manual entry is in the article of August 1728. But there was no trial until February 1731. The plaintiff asks for a trial in the Judgment Order. 1729 The governor, having listened to the petitions and extracts, ordered: having found all the cases, interrogate them, but no trial was in sight. (?) In the decree of E.I. c., which was sent from the High Senate to the Moscow Provincial Chancellery on July 2, 1729, it was written: it was ordered that when a plaintiff and a defendant happen to be in Moscow, they should be given a trial and their cases should be decided in Moscow, without being sent to the cities, so that, having found them in advance, there would be no vain continuation and red tape; Is it possible to send those that the plaintiff and the defendant themselves will generally ask for or cannot be done without investigation in the cities, and such are sent to the cities. In 1725, in the office of the certificate of the male sex, a freedman strikes with his forehead that he is going into the service of such and such to whom he pleases and who will pay capitation money for him. The new gentleman asks the office to issue him a “passport” for that person. What is a guarantee – isn’t it a coupling? Claim August 9; On August 13, a soldier was sent for the defendant. Court Form: Upon appearance, the defendant is given (August 13) a copy of the plaintiff's petition with a signature stating when and how he must appear in court with all written documents and evidence. In giving a copy, the defendant gives the court a reverse, and the plaintiff signs the ticket. August 13 ticket: by decree and pr... this ticket N N was given to the plaintiff, about when he should appear in court; a ticket so that if he is detained somewhere, then he will be released on this ticket. On August 14, the handwritten entry for the defendant was in the same form. An urgent tale - “and according to the above copies and the ticket... they began to postpone it for a period.” It's over with peace. In August 1728, a man major and formerly in St. The Synod of Executor Boris Danilovich Lukin, having caught the fugitive peasant of the Oryol district, the village of Sanoryadov, Tikhon Dorofeev Skudnov, in a trading bath on Sivtsov Vrazhek, presented him for questioning to the Provincial Chancellery. On questioning, the driver revealed that he was a serf peasant of that village of Samoryadov, 70 years old, fled during Lent in 1728 and came to Moscow to the courtyard of Colonel Ilya Lutkovsky and lived and worked with him. But Lutkovskoy in the petition asked to question Dorofeev again, proving that the first interrogation was filmed biasedly, and that he was his serf peasant of the village of Evdokimova, Oryol district. During interrogation, Dorofeev revealed himself to be a peasant from the village. Evdokimova and that his previous speeches were written falsely by the clerk who interrogated him. And at that time he, Tikhon, argued that he was writing wrong in that interrogation; and that clerk scolded him with obscenities and threatened to beat him with a whip and club and told him: what I know is what I write. And he wrote that interrogation from an unknown letter, and not from his, Tikhonov’s, words, and, having written that interrogation of the same date in blank, that clerk brought in an unknown minor and ordered that person to read that interrogation to him, Tikhon, and put his hand in his place. And how that man began to read that interrogation to Tikhon and the reading began to ask for his hand, and he, Tikhon, argued with that handbrake that in that interrogation it was not written according to his words and did not give his hand, and did not order him to put his hand to that interrogation instead of himself. And this handicap took Tikhon’s hand from him by force, and had a hand in that interrogation; and the clerk who interrogated him took a penny out of his pocket and gave it to him. Tikhon, so that he gives it to that handbrake. And Tikhon didn’t take that penny from his clerk and didn’t give it to that handyman; and he, the clerk, gave a penny to that handyman himself... Meanwhile, Privy Councilor Alexei Makarov submitted a request that in 1727 the estate of Lutkovsky, the village of Evdokimovo, was assigned to him and Count Anton Devier under a mortgage, including the peasant Tikhon Dorofeev, who was then the headman. But from that village the landowners’ courtyard with all the buildings, grain, etc. was plundered and transported to him by Lukin. Then, when two months after the inventory the village was completely refused to him, Makarov, it turned out to be completely empty. Regarding this request, Tikhon Dorofeev was asked again and testified:.. 1728 Abraham Lopukhin complains against the landowner Chepelev for taking possession of land in the Kaluga province of Vorotynsky district. Submitted to the Moscow Provincial Chancellery. Writes:..Chepelev and I live in Moscow without leaving. Regarding this complaint, the resolution is: to find Chepelev and interrogate him against the petition according to the form; and if he doesn’t go to the Provincial Chancellery for interrogation, he will say that he will answer in the province, and he, Chepelev, will be obliged to tell a fairy tale to confirm that he or someone else he will entrust in his place to stand with a believing petition for a term in Kaluga in the office of the Voivodeship Board, for the fact that there is no governor in Vorotynsk. And this petition, leaving a copy in the Provincial Chancellery, should be sent to the Kaluga Chancellery upon decree.