Vilniaus vaito suolininkų teismas 1795-1814 m

LTStraipsnyje nagrinėjama Vilniaus vaito suolininkų teismo veikla 1795– 1814 m. Aptariamos vaito ir suolininkų profesinės biografijos, teismo darbo veiklos sąlygos, nulemtos ilgamečių tradicijų ir naujų kardinalių politinių pokyčių, taip pat teismo nagrinėjamų civilinių ir kriminalinių bylų turinys, teismų sprendimų praktikos. Atskleidžiama teisminės kultūros tradicijos kaita Vilniaus mieste po Abiejų Tautų Respublikos padalijimų. Tyrimas padeda geriau pažinti miestiečių luomo ūkines, finansines, kriminalines, visuomenines ir šeimyninio gyvenimo problemas bei jų santykius su kitų luomų ir sluoksnių miesto gyventojais. Raktiniai žodžiaiI: Vilnius, vaitas, suolininkai, kriminalinės, finansinės, civilinės bylos.

ENBetween 1795 and 1814, the benchers’ court of the vogt of Vilnius (the vogt and eleven benchers) continued its activities in accordance with the judicial tradition that existed in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. The duties of judges were performed by the vogt, five burgomasters who were his deputies, two councillors, and nearly two dozen benchers. The court used to meet twice a week, on Tuesdays and Fridays, with two to four benchers. Thus, there was a constant rotation of judges. Most of the officials were merchants who combined business with their judicial duties. Judicial procedures (witness and victim statements, bureaucratic correspondence with the authorities, the police, and the institutions of the court, etc.) were cumbersome and time-consuming, and judges delayed the handling of cases. These three factors had a negative impact on judges’ preparedness to handle cases effectively. The poor performance of the court (six cases were pending in April 1801, 39 in February 1809, and 52 in July 1813) was reflected in an increase in the backlog of cases. The court was obliged to prepare detailed monthly reports on the progress of cases and sentences handed down, and the cases heard were approved by the court of assessors of Lithuania, and then by the First Department of the High Court of the Lithuanian gubernia, or governorate. Every month, the presiding judge sent information on cases (not) heard, newly received cases, and arrested individuals in prisons to the authorities of Vilnius governorate, the prosecutor of Vilnius governorate, and the striapčius, or prosecutor’s assistant, of Vilnius county. The control of the court introduced by the authorities of Vilnius governorate did not ensure a rise in the efficiency of the judges, who followed the established practice of hearing cases.During the Napoleonic wars, the court resumed its activities for a few months and rejected the order of the Russian authorities to impose punishments, such as forced conscription and deportation. As in the times of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, the benchers’ court of the vogt of Vilnius was still governed by legal jurisdiction and established practices, i. e., it made decisions on the basis of the Statute of Lithuania, the constitutions of sejms, and the Magistrate’s law; sentences, however, were also carried out in accordance with the criminal law of the Russian Empire. The order of the authorities of the Lithuanian governorate to the court of 31 July 1799 stated that a theft of property worth more than twenty roubles was punishable by flogging and forced conscription, provided the convict’s state of health was adequate. The convicts of poor health used to be deported to Siberia. The benchers’ court of the vogt acted as a judicial institution of first instance for the townspeople; people of all estates and social layers, denominations and professions had recourse to it through their attorneys-at-law. People went to court with all sorts of issues: merchants sued their helpers, craftsmen appealed against unlawful acts of their apprentices, such as absconding or misappropriation of money and goods, noblemen against insults to their ‘honour and dignity’, while women appealed for help and security due to the inappropriate behaviour of men.In addition, the court handled cases related to counterfeiting and distribution of fake money, failure of the residents to comply with the demands of the court and the police, customers’ claims against manufacturers about poor quality of goods and services, the appeals of the Russian army officers regarding unlawful behaviour of the townspeople (fighting, mugging); it also handled financial debts of the residents and the circumstances of the residents’ ‘sudden death’, i. e., murders, cases of drowning, suicides, etc. Prevalent among criminal offences in the city were thefts, fighting, and various disagreements of professional and familial nature. Cases related to the conversion to a different faith, which was considered a major crime and incurred death penalty according to the Statute of Lithuania, the 1768 constitution of the sejm, and Magdeburg law, should be seen as exceptional. Keywords: Vilnius, vogt, benchers, criminal, financial, civil cases.

• Kultura higieniczna Wilna w latach 1795-1915. Gdańsk : Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Gdańskiego, 2009. 310 p.
• Lietuvos ir Amerikos studenčių psichosocialinių poreikių, kaip gyvensenos determinantų, ypatumai. Mokytojų ugdymas 2005, 5, 89-95.
• Nykstantys Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštystės teismai Vilniuje: praktika ir kasdienybė. XVIII ir XIX amžių sandūra.. Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštystės istorijos kraštovaizdis. Vilnius: Lietuvos istorijos instituto leidykla, 2012. P. 539-567.
• Už vientisą ir laisvą Respubliką: Vilniaus miestiečiai 1794 metų sukilime. Darbai ir dienos 2004, 37, 149-180.
• Vilniaus namai archyvų fonduose. Vilnius : Savastis, 1998-2007. 13 kn.
• Vilniaus pirkliai krikščionys 1795-1824 metais: skaičius ir asmeninė sudėtis. Lituanistica 2011, 1, 26-40.
• Vilniaus pirkliai XIX amžiuje: statusas, veikla, galimybės. Vilnius : Vilniaus universiteto leidykla, 2016. 437 p.
• Vilniaus savivaldos institucijos XIX a. I pusėje: istorinis-teisinis aspektas. Lietuvos istorijos metraštis 2001, 2000, 147-163.