Lietuvos istorijos institutas

The article deals with the issue of assignment and administration of public punishments by Kaunas Castle Court in the late eighteenth century. In the period under investigation, this court imposed capital and corporal punishments, punishments by imprisonment, removal from office and banishment from the city. Death penalty was imposed on those offenders who were accused of homicide, robbery and theft, although the court did not impose qualified methods of capital punishment. Out of corporal punishments, only flagellation (as the principal and ancillary punishment for crimes against life, health and property, never administered to the nobility) and branding (as an ancillary punishment for thieves) were inflicted. The number of imposed strokes ranged from 50 to 400, with the most common number being 100 strokes. During the analysed period, the main place of confinement continued to the so-called Tower (Upper and Lower) Prison. The Upper Tower Prison registry was dominated by relatively short sentences of 3, 6 and 12 weeks, mostly for violent acts (slaps in the face, forfeiture of real estate, assault with a combat weapon, assault on a nobleman’s house and estate). The Lower Tower Prison was used less frequently (as a punishment for beating a nobleman with a non-combat weapon, unlawful incarceration, and unproven criminal charge offence), but the sentences delivered were longer: from 12, 24 weeks to half a year. From 1782 onwards, instead of imposing the death penalty in cases like theft, robbery and homicide, the court began to give imprisonment sentences (fixed or indefinite) which were non-existent under the GDL law and thus had to be carried out in the Kamianets-Podilskyi prison.

The article analysed case registration books of the Supreme Tribunal of the GDL in the 16th-18th century, their structure, development, and the main issues relating to the use of these books in court practice. The oldest surviving register books date back to the mid-17th century. At that time the structure of the records had already become well-established – each page contained a brief entry at the right-hand-side corner, offering data on the parties to the proceedings (names of claimants and defendants, positions held by them or their titles) which were copied from the writ of summons of the case. This structure of each entry remained unchanged until the very end of the 18th century. The case registration books not only informed the court about the considered cases and set the order of their hearing, but also performed other functions, for example, the proceedings of the case and the court rulings were recorded there. The laws only fragmentally provided for the keeping and use of registration books, usually the corresponding requirements were only introduced in order to prevent the misconduct of litigants and clerical staff. In order to organize the work of the court more efficiently, the registration books were started to be categorised according to the nature of the cases, however, the rational way of their use was not devised. Meanwhile, the fact that some of the registration books were singled out from the common system of use led to their wrongdoings, which had a strong negative effect on the efficacy of the GDL Supreme Court and affected the Supreme Court’s ability to effectively deal with appeals and other important cases.

Straipsnyje analizuojami Trečiajame Lietuvos Statute pateikti teismo rengiamų ir išduodamų dokumentų įvardijimai, jų samprata, taikymo sritis ir vieta teismo procedūrose. Taip pat siekiama atskleisti šių dokumentų ir jų pavadinimų kaitą vėlesniais amžiais (iki XVIII a. pabaigos) naudojantis Lietuvos Vyriausiojo Tribunolo pavyzdžiu. Tyrimas atskleidžia, jog tuo pačiu terminu šaltiniuose pavadintas dokumentas įvairiu laiku reiškė skirtingus dalykus arba turėjo kelias prasmes tuo pat metu. XVII–XVIII a. Lietuvos Vyriausiojo Tribunolo teisminėje praktikoje vartota tik dalis Trečiajame Lietuvos Statute minimų terminų, o kai kuriuos bėgant laikui išstūmė kiti. XVIII a. pradėta vartoti daugybė naujų polonizuotų lotyniškos kilmės terminų. Tai siejama su Abiejų Tautų Respublikoje vykusiais unifikaciniais procesais, kurie turėjo įtakos pokyčiams teismo procedūroje.