And in the border process itself, there are many records that not only testify to the development of border law in the eastern voivodeships, but also generally testify to the entire current of civilization at that time. It would seem that in a court of law, which is not actually one, as the Chamberlain is, as it were, an enforcement office, it would be in vain to look for the moments in question. However, the Chamberlain decides only about the act, and after the judgment has already been passed, he does not accept any objections from the parties55)^ however, the absence of the defendant is not considered by the law to be an obstacle to the construction and marking of the border56)^ because the Chamberlain, having before him the party that has already obtained a claim or to whom he had to grant the claim on the basis of the provisions of law, only carries out the will of that party and follows him in marking the boundary line. Money, it seems, was out of the question, as the deadline could not be postponed except due to a serious illness 57)^ or to provide documentary evidence, and even this ad munimenta extension was reluctantly granted, because the practical consideration here was that if the party had actual documentary evidence about the border, it would be sure to submit it in the land court, where the case regarding the violation of the border was already pending 58). Even the king's prohibition letter was not accepted, especially since the party submitted it after the actor had already been convicted 59). When the dispute has so aggravated the parties that it was impossible to even assume that a lasting agreement could be made, the bailiff's court will consider the matter or urge the parties to postpone the deadline. In general, it can be said that in the 16th century w. this postponement is applied by the bailiff's office whenever the dispute becomes acute. And in the meantime, suspending the case for a few weeks and deliberandum works
") Z. 3029 and extensive zap. 2961, 2963. "») Z. 3070. ") Z. 3086, 3076. »«) Zap. 2977. »•) Z 3106 cf. 2961. ") 8078, 3084. "). Cf. z. 2960. In gran. act of 1596 G Pr. 255 p. 424, the party rightly argues that the law does not allow Podiamorskie to accept new controversies after a convicted or acquired actor. ") Z. 29G0. »') 2943, 2946, 2983. »») Z. 3056. ") z. 2995.
XVII