soothing to the inflamed passions of people with known hot temper. Appeals were, as everywhere, allowed in courts; and so the bailiff's judgment was appealed to the Chamberlain - and when the Chamberlain himself issued a judgment or led the proceedings - before the establishment of the tribunal, and we have only this period in mind here - appeals were made to assemblies or the Sejm or to the king - so, or the assessor's court awarded the action of one of the parties, and the res judicala went again to the execution of the Chamberlain 60). The parties, as our records show, often made use of this right of appeal. There was even the year 1566 - when, as we know, new iudicia nova courts were established - in which border disputes were taking a difficult path, because from the remission of the land courts they reached the provincial court; from there to the Sejm, where the assessor's court, after granting the act and confirming the verdict by the king, returned the case to the Chamberlain for execution, but due to the establishment of a new court that year, the appeal continued to the iudicium novum, from where it returned to the Chamberlain's court. An interesting example of such a case is provided by the records of the Przemyśl Chamberlain's Court from that year. However, it was an abnormal year due to the development of law, so due to the establishment of these temporary new courts, one could not conclude about any penny-making creeping into the bailiff courts, but rather it could be maintained that penny-pinching was rare. However, the leadership itself provided opportunities for the parties to make money. And so, in its development, it ordered to cite all border neighbors, the so-called wall panels, because if there was no demand for at least one wall panel, the deadline would have to be postponed 6 1). Such a wall keeper, if he had a reason to do so, had the right to stop the route, and then the Chamberlain could no longer build the boundary following the plaintiff, but ordered the last mound to be built in the retained place and took an oath from the plaintiff, and the border established was legal, and the matter about a further boundary was referred to the land court and as long as the matter was not settled there, the border was controversial in this part 62). It is easy to understand that in lands where demarcation took place sometimes for a whole week, where borders were rarely marked or were not known at all, there were more than enough opportunities to brake the route. However, as you can easily see from the acts, stopping the route was not very common. We also rarely see examples of border justice being thwarted. It happened that this goal was achieved by reprimanding the nobility of the opposing party's witnesses, but, as can easily be seen from the acts, this measure completely failed to achieve the goal 63); the goal was also not achieved when a party wanted to thwart the demarcation by an apparent sale or by donating goods, as we also have examples of, and the secession of a party from a contract also failed to achieve the goal, and only once do we encounter an example proving that the party, having taken away the elders and also the ushers, forced the chamberlain's office to resign.
") Z. 3102, 3107, 3103. ") Zap. 3068. cf. 3070. ") Zap. 3046, 3101, 2993. et 3078, 3080. «") Zap. 3053, 3054.
xvin refraining from further demarcation of the border 64). This is the only case among the large number of court judges' judgments collected in this volume.