3. Lay down Ch. X. 20.— ') 9787. 2865.— 4 P. S. 3. No. 3261. SZ. No. 1148.—I was not distinguished by either honesty or justice. Thus, from the tsar alone, society expected impartial reprisals, and by the way, the supreme power, having cast off its pre-Petrine features, ceased to participate in the direct administration of the court, which was to be carried out in its name in the established judicial instances. These judicial instances were different in the reign of Peter V, and during his reign. successors. During the existence of judicial places established by Peter V, the cases moved in a basin in order: for provincial and city courts, appeals were brought to the court courts, for court courts - to the Justice Collegium, and for the collegium, petitions were submitted to the Senate Secretary, who, with a report to the sovereign, proposed the case for consideration and consideration by the Senate. Those who dared to complain to the sovereign about the collapse of the Senate were guilty of a death sentence.) With the destruction of the judicial institutions of Peter V. and the concentration of judicial power in the hands of regional rulers, the judicial instances were as follows: the lowest level of court was the voivodeship court, to which appeal was submitted to the governor; for the governor - to the justice college, for a colleague - to the senate. The provincial voivode was not allowed to appeal to the police voivode's decision; but if the latter was at a great distance from the governor, in such a case the appeal at his decision was submitted to the provincial governor *), This. the actual order of movement of the court case according to the instances, from. of which some exceptions were allowed.
2. In connection with the establishment of the legal system of the courts, it is ahead of the appellate rite. However, legislation reached this last goal only in 1762, when the appallaschonic rite was established, which in its main features has been preserved to this day 3).
3. Having established the correct legal system of the courts, determined) P.S.
3. M. 3261, — having separated the movement of cases through these instances and the appellate order, the legislation in the 18th century sought to establish a general uniform jurisdiction. This aspiration is noticeable as early as the 17th century: The Code of 1649 prohibits the issuance of immunity charters to all sorts of people, doing so because from them 'in the cities there are great fines, offenses, and losses 7.' Despite this aspiration, however, in the 17th century, not only entire classes, but also individuals enjoyed special jurisdiction. These included: 1) the clergy, 2) church servants and peasants, 3) estate and palace peasants, 4) gosti, the gostinaya and cloth hundreds, where there are two secretaries each 1). The extension of general jurisdiction to city dwellers in the first instance of the court is a logical consequence of the abolition of their special jurisdiction in the middle instances (in the provincial magistrates) and in the highest instance (the chief magistrate). II. Police cases. We take the police here in a broad sense — both as the security police [Sicherheitspolizei] and the welfare police [Wohlfahrtspolizei]. The first strives, through its negative activity, to provide security to society; the second directs its positive activity towards promoting public welfare. In the 17th century