When the judiciary wanted to resolve land disputes between peasants and rulers, it first referred to custom. So, in 1708, Mazepa wrote to the monastery peasants of the village of Ulanova (Glukhovsky UFZD) - “residents of Ulanova, formerly vassal subjects of the Cherigoves, who have lived in foreign villages for a long time, we recognize, and it is clear in God that His Eminence is dear. Father Archbishop of the Chernfgovek to the soldiers that you, for your lightness, have retired to the checker’s cathedral to lie down, is in charge; abroad, you sell the soil from the south of the country, you sell the fields there, you sow them and you allow them to reap the mines, and you allow all your belongings, in your hands, as they are tenacious there, you take them away for your own sake, as if they are not obedient and are contrary to the long-praised right, so we are severely punishing your unauthorized act, sawing. mention38) When selling their lands, the commonwealth peasants based their land rights on “an undisputed inheritance, “from father and father”; for example: “Yuvkhim Shvets, a commonwealth resident of the village of Plesivtsia, sold his estate with a bow to Kamyanoy, the Kamyansky priest Moisf Nekipflom... and I took money from him ready-made rubles 13, and a third heifer and two sheep; 1731 Arch. Mlre. Col., L 580. brand. summer AND AND CHILDREN hire and under cruel punishment we order, abyste to their quiet, tired groovts, at this hour the greedy ' mfr and were interested... no matter everywhere, this is usually the case, but according to the odetilil pachyushchie Elstsa for life to submit, their kunta to the powers will fall again, and they will lose theirs successio" 35°).
Later, when time demanded greater precision from the judiciary in their negotiations, the rulers began to rely on the written law, the Lithuanian statute, in their disputes with the peasants.
In 1737, the head of the Krolevets hundred, Klim Motsfian, sold his field to a Cossack, and when the last time he wanted to plow this field, the widow of the general judge Charnysh did not allow him to do so, on the basis that the father of the farmer “was under the citizenship of Panep Charvysheva, and after his death he married her, for some reason.” he was not subject to the clerk’s ability to reap, as a subject without the vfdom of her lady Charnisheva’s owner, to sell to the ‘side’. Mosifpan objected that the legal “citizenship” of his father could not be proven by any acts, to which the soldier responded that such an objection does not prove anything, “since in all of Little Russia there are no such fortresses to mention these particular fortresses of subjects, 160 all Aladly subjects in their homes, kromt the ground and Oruta real estate, in Malaya Rossi, are free in essence.” And since the actual “sub-subordination” of Moszboan’s father is not rejected by the very father of Tchvk, then Klim Moszfian of his land, acquired by his father in a subject state, is to be sold for renewal33) Arch. Chernig. Kaz, Nal., document Borisoglibsk. monast., ER 196, o >23 SAME Vansh section. [X art. 27 Lithuanians. stat, %°) not imfl rights and the disputed field was awarded to the widows of Charnyshia.
Mossfpan had to cede his field legally to the widow of Charnysh, despite the fact that, being a hundred-man clerk, he was already a goat.
Here we see that the statute prevailed over common law only because this law, in this case, was consistent with the interests of the class in charge of the judiciary.
But the same law, even in the hands of the same judicial power, lost its force when it contradicted the interests of the judges themselves: in 1720, the deed of sale of the Konotop town hall was completed, according to which “Ostap Shmatko, resident of the village. Popovka, a subject of the clearly noble goodness of his kindness Pan Hetman, sold his powerful father's courtyard, namely the hut with the chamber and the dance in Popovtsf, the nobleman of his grace, Pan 1oan Charnysh, judged the military general, for the worth of a good Lithuanian coin, ready for pennies of tallies twenty"
Finally, Charvyin’s widow, not recognizing Moszfpan’s right to alienate land, refers to art. Section 27 [X; and in 1776, during the transfers, it stung 10) Act of my meeting. The cited article of the statute says: “We establish that the boyars and people of the land, the princes, the lords and the zemyanskys, will purchase land, and will not hire plowing for the summer, without the will of his master; and if someone else bought the man’s land without the will of the master, but hired him and sowed the crops on it: and spend the money.”
“') The act of my gathering.