Istorijos šaltinių tyrimai

The goal of this article is to define regularities of litigations of Kaunas citizens in appeal courts and the process as well as peculiarities of the implementation of rulings thereof in Kaunas City Council. Traditional methods of historical investigation are employed, first and foremost including source analysis, descriptive method and the so called technique of case study. Historical facts related exclusively to the city of Kaunas and its citizens are subjected to analysis. The investigated particular litigation between Kaunas citizens was off and on for several decades of the 16th century. Andrius Barčius was the plaintiff and Burgomaster Simonas Gradovskis, after his death – voigt (town administrator) Petras Pečiūga (Pieczuga), assessor, later burgomaster Jonas Gradovskis (Gradowski), and lay judges (scabini) Jurgis Korčakas (Korczak) and Andrius Kotkūnas (Kotkun), as S. Gradovskis’ beneficiaries, were listed as respondents. Andrius Barčius, or Barčys, is an utterly obscure figure in the historiography of Kaunas. He was born before 1539. His grandfather was a wealthy citizen of Kaunas named Baltramiejus Sakanas, Sakonis, Sakūnas (Sakanos, Sakunos, Sakunis), in short referred to as Barčius (Barczius, Barczis), who died around 1519. His son, father of the plaintiff Jonas Barčius, died in 1539. The case is related to Andrius Barčius’ efforts to recover his grandfather’s (Baltramiejus Sakanas) and his father’s (Jonas Barčius) devise. Peripeteia of the case were comprehensively recreated on the basis of surviving books of Kaunas City Council and voigt as well as court books of the GDL Assessors’ and Relatio courts, dating back to the second half of the 16th century and incorporated into the Lithuanian Metrica. Three stages of the litigation have been distinguished: 1) early (1563–1581/1583), apogee of the case (1584–1586), and late (1587–1589). The year 1589 should not be considered the ultimate year of the litigation as due to lack of sources this is the point where further knowledge of the plaintiff A. Barčius and the case itself becomes unavailable. It is possible that by the beginning of the 17th century he had already passed away. The biggest problem that A. Barčius faced in his attempt to recover property was the large time span that had elapsed from the death of his father and grandfather. The property under dispute had long ago (and most often legitimately) been transferred into other hands, therefore its restitution was delicate and troublesome.