Regula processus granicialis campestris Regni Poloniae, secundum praxim moderni saeculi ad dislimitanda bona regalia, spiritualia et terrestria. Editio secunda

RULE

OF THE FIELD BOUNDARY PROCESS

OF THE OPEN COUNTRY

OF THE KINGDOM OF POLAND

According to the Practice of the Present Age, for the Delimitation of Royal, Ecclesiastical, and Terrestrial Estates.

FOR PUBLIC USE.

With an Addition of Laws and Constitutions of the Kingdom, and of the New Law of 1768
on Boundaries.

BY THE AUTHOR

the Honourable MARTINO PACIORKOWSKI
Sworn Sub-Delegate of the Municipal Court Office of Opoczno
Second Edition, Enlarged by the Author Himself

* ✦ . § . ✦ * ✦ . § . ✦ * ✦ . § . ✦ * ✦ . § . ✦ * ✦ . § . ✦ * ✦ . § . ✦ *

At the Press of Jasna Góra, Częstochowa.
In the Year 1776.

This work, entitled Rule of the Field Boundary Process of the Kingdom of Poland, etc., with an addition of Laws and Constitutions of the Kingdom, compiled and written with great labour by the Honourable Master MARTINO PACIORKOWSKI, Sworn Sub-Delegate of the Municipal Court Office of Opoczno, I have examined and read with care, and therein I have recognised all things compiled and arranged for the common benefit of this Kingdom in the matter of delimitation disputes, which arise so frequently, through the singularly praiseworthy efforts of the Author for the public good; and I have found nothing contrary to the Orthodox Roman Faith. I therefore grant permission for so useful a work to be committed to the press and to see the light of day. Given at Cracow, 15th May, A.D. 1749.

MATHIAS ZIĘTKIEWICZ, Doctor and Professor of Sacred Theology, Canon of the Cathedral of Cracow,
Censor of Books for the Diocese of Cracow.
mpp.

PREFACE

To the Benevolent Reader.

Among the various branches of knowledge that appear most necessary for common human use, I have judged jurisprudence to be of the greatest utility, in particular in our Kingdom of Poland; and since, in order to acquire a thorough command of it, a great many volumes of laws must be studied, I thought it worthwhile to present to you, Benevolent Reader, this work which I have compiled in summary form over many years with great labour. I wished to call it the Rule of the Field Boundary Process, not because I might wish to instruct in this matter the Illustrious Right Honourable Sub-Chamberlains (Succamerarii), chosen from among thousands and proven and approved in all branches of learning, nor their Right Honourable Boundary Chamberlains, since I am more than fully aware that they have a perfect command of both the laws and the limits of estates — but so that the studious youth of jurisprudence might have a readier means by which to arrive more quickly at a mastery of this branch of knowledge. For one can plainly see that our young men spend several years in academies of jurisprudence, yet return to their own homes with little or no competence in this kind of knowledge, and involve themselves in the clamour of the law — not without great inconvenience to the judges — in the land courts, municipal courts, and Tribunal courts alike. I myself was not unlike this,

when in the first flower of my youth I attended cases in the municipal and land courts; and for this reason, when by God’s ordering I reached maturity, wishing to remedy this ill, I set down — with great effort, yet with willing spirit — a rule, with distinctions as to the delimitation of Royal, Ecclesiastical, and Terrestrial estates, both in the borderlands of Ruthenia, Prussia, and the Duchy of Masovia, and in the other palatinates and lands joined to the Kingdom of Poland, according to the intent of the laws and constitutions of the Kingdom, so that henceforth any man may without doubtful legal clamour take his stand concerning his own estates. There do indeed exist several books already treating of this matter, but what you will find elsewhere scattered in various places, you will find here gathered together in a single compendium. Therefore receive with a grateful spirit this modest work of mine, and guard it once received from the malicious criticism of a Zoilus. For although I have gathered together everything that I collected from various reading and from my own experience, and have set it forth for the public benefit, yet I am compelled to confess with Cicero that I pour out into another all that I know, and learn nothing new in order to teach. If however you should detect any errors, I would wish you not to decline to correct them. Farewell, and make the best possible use of this work.

On the Legal Process in Boundary Cases.

In boundary cases, according to the ancient institution of the public laws, the legal process is fourfold. The first is the original terrestrial, that is, the process of the land law and the land court. The second is the final executory field process of the Sub-Chamberlain. The third is the arbitral compromissorial process. The fourth is determined by amicable means through an amicable settlement. The terrestrial process is the origin and preparatory stage of the future field process, which most often arises from a case of fact, which is the mother of the boundary case, and is pursued in one of two ways: either in contumacy, or through contested proceedings.

By contumacy: when the respondent, after a penalty of contumacy has been obtained against him at the first session (for actions of this kind are not of the first peremptory session), fails to appear at the second session of the second citation, he is condemned by the plaintiff before the land court in the gain of the plaintiff’s right of path, and immediately ^[After the gain of the right of path has been obtained, a referral to the field.]

a referral of the case is made from the land court to the Sub-Chamberlain’s field office of that palatinate or land where the estates are situated, with the plaintiff’s right of path ready and gained, for the erection of the boundary mounds of the case.

At the session of the field hearing appointed by the Right Honourable Sub-Chamberlain to the parties by his summons letters, and once the service return thereof has been acknowledged by the court messenger in the proper district, and after the gain has been obtained in the land court or the Crown Tribunal: the party defeated in law shall not be admitted to contest the matter in the field before the Sub-Chamberlain’s court; adhering to the statute of the Kingdom, and indeed notwithstanding any documentary evidence or more apparent signs that the party defeated in law might present at that time, the Right Honourable Sub-Chamberlain shall adjudge the boundary path to the plaintiff, and the defeated party must follow it; and once the mounds, both corner mounds and wall mounds, have been erected, the Sub-Chamberlain shall order the party victorious in law to swear an oath with six noble witnesses at the final mound, and shall declare that it shall have the force of perpetual validity.

It is to be noted here. Although the boundary case, after the gain of the right of path has been obtained in the land court, carries on its face — by virtue of the summons letters or summons letters of the Right Honourable Sub-Chamberlain issued for the session of the field hearing of his office, at the instance of the plaintiff’s party victorious in law, for the disputed place — a satisfactory session; on the foundation of positive law and

the statute of the Kingdom, providing that the party defeated in law shall not be admitted to contest in the field, nor be given any opportunity to justify the matter of the boundary case — nevertheless, according to the later constitution of the year 1588, under the title On the Relaxation and Annulment of Banishment, contained in this book, the person under banishment may avail himself of the benefit of the law through a session issued for the purpose of quashing the ruling against the party victorious in law, suspending the execution of the land court decree in respect of the erection of the mounds, and prove that it was wrongly obtained, or escape on grounds of ignorance of the process. In such a case, therefore, the Sub-Chamberlain shall stay the execution and the erection of mounds, and shall refer the case, for the cognisance and resolution of the obtained and conducted process, to the Crown Tribunal of that province where the estates are situated. Or to ^[Where a session for quashing obtains, on account of a wrongly obtained process or ignorance thereof, a referral to the Tribunal must follow.] that court where the process was conducted and obtained.

The Original Terrestrial Process.

First, when the plaintiff wishes to delimit his estate with a neighbouring estate, and to resolve the differences that have arisen in respect of the boundaries, he is obliged, in the legal form described below, to summon by formal citation to the land court both the principal party — from whose side and estate the plaintiff seeks the separation and delimitation of his own estates — and also the collateral heirs: the one as the starting point of the boundary path, as the point from which it begins, and the other as the determining point of the boundary path, as the end point, that is, the party whose boundary wall the boundaries are directed toward.

First Land Court Citation against the Principal Party.

Augustus the Fourth, by the Grace of God King of Poland, etc. We command you, the Honourable [name], heir of the estates of the village of [name] (if there are several co-heirs, they are cited together), in your person and as regards all your estates generally, that you appear personally and peremptorily before Our Land Court at the next and immediately following land court sessions of [name] [name] to be held henceforth, at the instance of the Instigator of that same Our court, and of his informant, the Honourable [name], heir of the estates of the village of [name], plaintiff, who, adhering to his protestation made against you before the authentic records of the Kingdom, cites you for the delimitation of the said hereditary estates of himself the plaintiff — to see and hear the right of path adjudged to him the plaintiff by the sentence of Our court, and to see you bound and compelled to the restitution of revenues from the plots and fields wrongfully appropriated to himself, upon a prior rendering of account, and to the compensation of damages caused thereby, and to have penalties decreed against you for the acts of violence perpetrated, for the purpose of having such penalties decreed and extended against you, you are cited. Be present at the session to comply, and to respond judicially to the foregoing matters, these and others to be set forth to you at a future session. Given etc. etc. (If the co-heirs are minors, it shall be written in the plural, with the assistance of the guardians duly incumbent by law.)

First Uniform Citation against Both Collateral Heirs.

The royal title is written from the above, down to the words: and appear peremptorily, at the instance of [name], plaintiff, who cites or rather summons you, and this for the following reason: That you demonstrate your corner point or your own particular corner point, meeting the plaintiff’s boundary wall, who wishes to distinguish and delimit his estates and inheritance from the estates of [name], and that you attempt the same delimitation. Be therefore present at the session to comply, and to respond judicially to the foregoing matters. Given etc. etc.

Upon these first citations, issued both against the principal party and against the collateral heirs, a penalty of contumacy must be obtained in the land court. Or, with the consent of the parties, the matter can be done even at the first session (for no injury is done to one who consents): a referral to the field to the Right Honourable Sub-Chamberlain for the making of the boundaries.

Second Land Court Citation against the Principal Party and Collateral Heirs.

The above is written, with this addition: who cites you for the second time, after the penalty of contumacy has been obtained. Summons etc. etc.

Upon this second citation of the peremptory session, if the respondent, either in person or through his registered attorney (a registered power of attorney is moreover required by law in this case as

a matter of hereditary right) has not appeared in the land court, he is condemned by the plaintiff in that same court in the gain of the right of path; through which condemnation the plaintiff gains the right of path, and with the right of path ready is referred to the field law, to continue the further process according to the usage of the field law of boundaries.

Gain of the Right of Path.

And by virtue of the gain, the present land court, adhering to the common law and the contents of the citation, in contumacy of the respondent, adjudges the right of path in boundary proceedings, or the boundary path, to the plaintiff’s party; and refers the present case, for the making of the boundaries or limits, and for the further prosecution thereof in law, to the Sub-Chamberlain’s office.

And not only the principal party himself, but also the collateral heirs who fail to appear either in person or through their registered attorney, are condemned in a similar gain of the right of path.

When, however, both the plaintiff’s party and the principal respondent’s party appear, as well as the collateral heirs, either in person or through their attorneys, at that second session before the land court, a postponement is granted and conceded to the respondents (if they seek it judicially, as in a case of hereditary right) for the documents necessary to the case, until the next sessions. It is likewise within the discretion of the respondent’s party, if it does not wish to avail itself of this postponement, to consent to the plaintiff regarding a decree of referral to the office

of the Right Honourable Sub-Chamberlain, for the purpose of testing in the field the matter of the disputed place; the form of which referral is as follows:

Decree of Referral to the Field.

The present land court of [name], resolving the citation of the plaintiff’s party issued to its court, and having heard the contested submissions of the parties — since the plaintiff’s party acts in the present session not only in respect of the acts of violence committed, but also for the delimitation of the estates of [name] — therefore, adhering to the constitution of the year 1611, and suspending the resolution of the case of fact, refers the present case, in respect of the boundaries, for final adjudication, together with the collateral heirs entering appearance, to the field, to the Right Honourable Sub-Chamberlain of the district of [name], or his office; upon summons letters to be issued by the Right Honourable Sub-Chamberlain to both the respondent’s party and the collateral heirs; before which Right Honourable Sub-Chamberlain or his office the parties shall be obliged to appear and to prosecute the case, under the penalty of banishment to be proclaimed at that session by virtue of the present decree.

Form of the Summons Letters to the Field pursuant to a Land Court Decree.

[name] [name], Sub-Chamberlain of the Palatinate of [name], We command you, the Honourable [name], heir of the estates of the village of [name], in your person and as regards all your estates (if there are several co-heirs cited, it shall be written in the plural: you) generally, by

Royal authority and Our own, in which capacity We exercise Sub-Chamberlain’s authority in this matter, that you appear personally and peremptorily before Us, or before Our Sub-Chamberlain’s Field Boundary Office, at the place of the differences between the hereditary estates of the village of [name] of the undersigned plaintiff on the one part, and your likewise hereditary estates of the village of [name] on the other part, at such place namely as the said plaintiff shall appoint for Us or Our office, on the Monday next after the feast of [name], next and immediately to come, at the instance of the Honourable [name], heir of the said estates of [name], plaintiff, who, adhering to the decree of the Land Court of [name], issued on the [day] of [name] in the year [name], between himself the plaintiff on the one part and you on the other part, cites or rather summons you for the delimitation of the estates and the erection of mounds where there are none, and for the renewal of the old ones where they are found, for the purpose of testing the matter in that case; therefore you are cited to see and hear the right of path adjudged to him the plaintiff by the sentence of Our court as the more probable, and to be admitted to swear an oath at the final mound according to the intent of the statute. Be therefore present at the session to comply, and to respond judicially to the foregoing matters. Given etc.

The court messenger shall acknowledge the service return of these summons letters before the proper court where the estates are situated.

Form of the Summons Letters to the Collateral Heirs.

The same title of the Right Honourable Sub-Chamberlain, the name

and surname of the respondent and of the plaintiff, the session, and the place, shall be written from the above down to this point: who, adhering to the decree of the Land Court of [name], issued on the [day] of [name] in the present year, between himself the plaintiff on the one part and the Honourable [name], heir of the estates of [name], on the other part, whereby the referral to the field to the Right Honourable Sub-Chamberlain for the delimitation of the said estates was established, summons you, and this for the following reason: that you demonstrate your corner point, or your own particular corner point, meeting the boundary wall of the aforesaid estates, situated at the convergence of three estates, and acknowledge the same to the plaintiff, and that you attempt the same session. For which purposes you are cited or summoned. Be therefore present at the session to comply, and to respond judicially to the foregoing matters. Given etc.

When, through contested proceedings, the parties litigating between themselves advance the case in the Sub-Chamberlain’s field court, this rule is to be observed in all respects, providing for the security of the decree.

On Accessory Matters.

Although the satisfactory session for entering upon the field hearing of the Right Honourable Sub-Chamberlain for the delimitation of estates, pursuant to the intent of the decree, whether of the land court or of the Tribunal, does fall due — nevertheless any litigating party may avail itself of lawful exceptions, insisting upon the law, and invalidating that same session of the field hearing,

for the security of the judgment.

1st. The appearance must be sufficiently registered, both by the principal acting parties and by the collateral heirs; if any party presents itself through an attorney, it must produce a sufficient power of attorney.

2nd. If there are several co-heirs of the estates and only one heir of his own share raises the question of boundaries, and the others do not enter into the sessions issued or into the land court or Tribunal decree, without whose appearance the boundary case cannot be decided, a referral must follow, back to the same court from which it issued, for the enjoining of a summons to the other co-heirs.

3rd. If the summons of all the collateral heirs, pursuant to the intent of the decree, has not been interposed for the session of the field hearing, then the case must be referred back to that court for the decreeing of penalties of contravention; but if the collateral heirs appear without a summons and submit themselves to the Sub-Chamberlain’s court, then the Sub-Chamberlain, having decreed the penalties of contravention upon the contravening party upon whom the summons had been enjoined and entrusted, shall proceed to the delimitation.

4th. If at the first session of the field hearing a summoned collateral heir fails to appear, then upon him there must follow a proclamation of the penalty of banishment interposed by decree, and with the citation suspended for the conviction of the absent party; and once the proclamation has been obtained, through the path

of execution, a referral shall follow from the executory municipal court office to that court from which the case arrived.

5th. If the collateral position of royal estates obtains at a corner point or particular corner point of those same estates that wish to delimit themselves, such a delimitation cannot follow without obtaining a royal commission from His Sacred Royal Majesty, even if the corner mound or particular corner mound of the royal estates is visible; and if it has been enjoined by decree to obtain a royal commission from His Sacred Royal Majesty, and the plaintiff has not procured it, or has not engaged the commissioners in the full number required by law, then from that point, with the decision of the boundary case suspended, a referral must follow to that court from which the case came, for the decreeing of penalties of contravention of that decree.

Finally, if the court messenger is absent for the proclamation of the act and for the founding of the jurisdiction of the field hearing office — without whose presence and the founded jurisdiction the judge is deemed a private person — then in such a case the session of the field hearing lapses.

What Postponements Are Granted in Boundary Cases.

^[Five postponements are granted in the field to heirs of terrestrial estates; to holders of royal estates, however, no postponement is granted.]

1st, of illness; 2nd, the principal postponement of up to eight weeks, once only; 3rd, suspension inasmuch as a senator during a sitting of the Kingdom’s Diet, or a deputy during the exercise of his function, or a judge deputed to the Crown Tribunal; 4th, postponement

of soldier’s exemption, for soldiers quartered in camp; 5th, deliberation granted once to the Sub-Chamberlain’s court.

When the accessory matters have thus been resolved, after the registered appearance, the court shall proceed, by its sentence proclaimed to the parties, to the review of the boundary path, first of the plaintiff’s party and then of the respondent’s party; and it shall consider carefully and diligently the places and positions, the mounds if they are credible, and the boundary markers demonstrated by the parties from the starting point, through the intermediate points, to the end point, and proved by the documents deposited in the boundary path, noting faithfully from which quarter of the sun it begins and toward which it is directed, whether in a straight line or not, or obliquely, setting aside partiality, together with the protests and counter-protests declared by the parties, and shall inscribe these into the decree; and it shall likewise inscribe the documents deposited by the parties in the court, with the act and the day of session.

After the review of the boundary paths, before all else, regarding the corner point, if it is invisible and confirmed by no documents, ^[The corner point and the particular corner point are established first.] the court shall conduct sworn inquiries, and each party — not only the principal acting parties but also each collateral heir for its own part — shall call witnesses; when these have been completed, the court shall proceed to the other particular corner point and perform the like, and shall thereafter descend to the reading of the sworn inquiries and shall decide finally. Having decided the corner point and the particular corner point and proclaimed the sentence to the parties, and having erected the corner mounds and particular corner mounds, it shall form the boundary wall as straight as possible from the starting point, through the intermediate points, to the

end point — as straight as possible, for the entire force of boundaries rests in the straight line — and shall mark it with mounds, with a description of the places, trees, and all the markers found in the boundary path. Where, however, a natural boundary separates the estates, or a boundary road, the straight line is not observed.

If, however, there are boggy and inaccessible places where passage through them is impossible, or dense forests of great breadth and length, then between such estates ^[A sworn surveyor is necessary for boggy and inaccessible places.] a sworn surveyor shall be required to form the straight line artificially from the starting point to the end point, in the presence of the Right Honourable Sub-Chamberlain.

When, moreover, the boundary wall of two estates reaches a river and its bank, and on the other side ^[The corner point in the vicinity of a river.] there is a third estate, the Sub-Chamberlain’s court must take note of the corner mounds of that third estate, in what place they stand, and toward them, or from the opposite side, it shall form the corner point and erect two mounds on this side of the river where the estates are situated, not crossing the river, and on the other bank a third, on the same estates meeting it collaterally on that bank where they are situated — not, however, all three estates on one bank, because the heir would thereby have usurped both banks of the river for himself, if a mound were situated for him by crossing the river. The laws of the Kingdom contained in this book, under the heading Sub-Chamberlain, ^[The ancient natural course of the river is to be considered and assigned as the boundary.] will inform you of the remaining rules regarding rivers and the diversion of rivers and the ancient course to which one ought to have regard.

Now, if a river by its natural course diverts itself from one bank to the other, causing loss to one and gain to another, by means of what is called ^[Odsypisko.] odsypisko, each heir must be content with his own bank. [T.N. 1]

It often happens that the heir of one estate, ^[On collusion between the parties.] raising a boundary question against his neighbour, having entered into collusion with the collateral heir, acknowledging a corner point mutually to one another in a particular place, to the prejudice of a third estate — and this occurs most commonly when the mounds are not visible and the parties are wanting in proofs, or the position of the place where the corner point should be established is open to interpretation and explanation — in such case the Sub-Chamberlain’s court must take firm notice of the injury to the third estate, and review the boundary wall of the collateral heir marked with mounds, not formally, but only for its own information, as to whether or not the straight line meets at this place where it acknowledges the corner point to the neighbouring estate; and if collusion is alleged against the collateral heir, he must then clear himself by oath, on the ground that he proceeded with no collusion with the party. If, however, the collateral heir shall prove the extension of the boundary wall in a straight line or by his own mounds to the place which he acknowledges to the party, then the collusion objected was unwarranted and the sworn discharge is already less necessary.

On the Boundaries of Estates that Have Never Been Delimited.

A boundary question also arises between estates that have never been delimited, having formerly been of one lordship and inheritance. In such a case the Sub-Chamberlain shall consider the starting point (if one can exist) from the corner point and form the boundary wall in a straight line to the end point; if that is lacking, it shall be lawful for the Sub-Chamberlain to reach, with a new boundary wall and newly erected mounds, the neighbouring boundary wall, not crossing it in the slightest, and to form a triangle — but this must be done in the presence of the heir of that boundary wall which he is joining, upon a prior summons of the same; and such boundaries are concluded without an oath. If, however, one party shall gain the boundary path in its entirety, then the party shall at that time establish by oath the thing gained, according to the intent of the statute, with six witnesses of the same rank.

As Regards the Ecclesiastical Estates of the Most Illustrious Bishops or Cathedral Chapters, with Royal and Terrestrial Estates.

All the formalities pertaining to a boundary case having been completed beforehand, if the cathedral chapter wins the boundary path, then two canons deputed from the chapter to this case with the consent of the Most Illustrious Bishop are required to confirm it, with six

noble witnesses at the final corner mound. If, however, the Most Illustrious Bishop wishes to delimit his episcopal estates, whether as plaintiff or as respondent, with any neighbouring nobleman or with the leaseholder of royal estates, and if he wins the boundary path, then not the bishop but two canons deputed from the chapter are required to confirm the won boundary path with six noble witnesses.

It is to be observed that the Most Illustrious Bishop cannot on his own raise a question in respect of boundaries, except together with his cathedral chapter, and likewise respond as respondent.

If, however, the leaseholder of royal estates, together with the community (without whose appearance the case cannot be decided), wins the boundary path, then not the leaseholder but six subjects from the community shall be required to confirm the same at the final mound according to the intent of the law.

As Regards the Estates of His Most Serene Highness the Archbishop of Gniezno, First Prince and Primate of the Kingdom.

He may advance the right of path through his commissioners, as he is accustomed to advance it before every court and office of the Kingdom, yet with the assistance of the Most Illustrious Cathedral Chapter and of two canons appointed to the boundary case.

As Regards Conventual Estates.

If the convent wins the boundary path, then the Prior of that convent shall be required to confirm it with six noble witnesses, and not with religious.

By the same method, if a delimitation and confirmation of the boundary path of abbatial estates follows, if the abbot together with his convent wins the boundary path.

Estates Situated on the Borders of the Kingdom.

If a noble heir of terrestrial estates is situated in the vicinity of royal estates and suffers injury from the leaseholder of those estates, and the boundary wall of both estates, terrestrial and royal alike, meets the boundaries of a foreign province, and he wishes to delimit his estates from the royal estates and from the foreign province, then the nobleman shall be obliged first to procure commissioners for the delimitation of those estates at the General Diet of the Kingdom, so that commissioners may be appointed by constitution, and thereafter from the royal court of that province the Commonwealth of the Kingdom must obtain commissioners for the purpose of attempting those boundaries.

Furthermore, What is the Corner Point and the Particular Corner Point? They are to be understood as follows.

The corner point belongs to that estate which takes for itself the beginning of the boundary wall, and the collateral angle. The particular corner point, however, ^[At the convergence of 3 or 4 estates.] and the corner mound of the particular kind is so called for that estate, because it determines the boundary wall

of estates in the vicinity of the corner mounds of the other estate; ^[The mound of that estate which begins the boundary wall is called the corner mound; that which determines the end of the boundary wall is the particular corner mound.] and so in both corner points: one is the corner point which begins the boundary wall, and the other is the particular corner point which determines its own estate and cannot advance further. The intermediate point is understood thus: if, in its boundary path, the leading party demonstrates to the court a natural boundary, or at minimum five mounds, or three, or ancient boundary markers in the boundary wall, or likewise a boundary road assigned from antiquity as the boundary. This too must be observed when the boundary path is directed not from the corner mound itself but from the midpoint between mounds, and terminates at the midpoint of the particular corner point.

The Sub-Chamberlain’s cord must be of a dimension of a circle ^[The length of the Sub-Chamberlain’s cord, for measuring the mounds.] for the erection of corner mounds and particular corner mounds, otherwise known as węgielniki, of a length of five ordinary cubits; for wall mounds, of a length of two and a half: from the midpoint of the place assigned for the mound, the Sub-Chamberlain shall mark out the circle. It is necessary to describe how far each mound is from the next mound, and toward which quarter of the sun the boundary wall extends.

Final Observation on the Positions of Places.

Since boundary cases and acts are of a demonstrative kind, and can only be known and decided from the thing presented to the eyes, ^[An accurate description of the boundary path and the erection of the mounds is made.] the circumstances, positions, and situations of places must therefore be carefully observed

and specifically and expressly entered into the records, so that in future the circumscription and delineation contained in the documents may correspond to the signs that have been marked, and so that the heirs may also, all the more easily, as the marks fade with age over fifty years — in the course of which especially the renewal of boundaries and investigation of boundaries is accustomed to be made — restore those same boundaries by mutual consent in a shorter time, after the lapse of any decade, in the presence of the Sub-Chamberlain’s office, and renew the mounds broken down, trodden flat, and reduced to nothing, after the manner of the prior act. And any heir of estates, if he observes this, will leave peaceful tranquillity to himself and his successors. And first, because boundary paths are concluded in various ways — from the limits and starting point to the limits and end point — the following are to be generally observed: ^[What is to be observed in all matters in a boundary case.] east, west, south, north, or the eastern, western, southern, northern (also called the boreal and aquiline) quarter; for one proceeds, or is led, from the east, summer or winter, toward the west, from the south toward the north, and conversely, as shall seem good and pleasing first to the plaintiff as leading party; or also between the solar quarters, the southern and western, eastern and northern, or conversely; therefore from where the beginning commences and in what direction the steps are taken must be specifically noted. Finally, a delineation must be made of those same places before the eyes,

of the cultivated and uncultivated, the barren, sandy, marshy, muddy, boggy, and wooded — such as forests, groves, heathlands, thickets, briar patches, shrublands, oak woods, copses, thorn bushes, wastelands, and trees of various kinds, in which boundary markers in the form of a cross may be cut beside the mounds themselves lying adjacent (though this perishes with the passage of time, and is destroyed by the hand of man through the cutting down of the tree, wilfully or in ignorance). Likewise hills, headlands, valleys, hollows, slopes, ^[In the boundary path and the erection of mounds an accurate description is made so that posterity may the more readily investigate the boundaries.] knolls, barrows, and pits. Then there are to be observed and accurately noted in the records, if they occur or intervene in the boundary tract: streams, rivulets, brooks, rivers, waterways, watercourses; springs, torrents, lakes, ponds, cisterns, marshes, wellsprings, channels, runnels, fords, mud, mire, banks, shores, margins, the edge of a mere. Moreover roads, incidental, royal, paved, public, both those running straight and in a line and those running crosswise, leading, conducting, or going from village to village, from town to town, and conversely; crossroads, three-way junctions, divergence of roads, footpaths among them. Boundary stones, rocks, boulders, markers, mounds, crags, peaks, summits, ridgelines, heights, tops, roots of hills. Finally, the joining of lands, palatinates, territories, towns,

villages, mills, ironworks, works of iron, glass, paper, and all others of every kind and description — estates, that is; and these and other features of the same kind, positions and situations of places, circumstances, adjacencies, and connexions must be taken note of and specified and expressed precisely in the boundary act. Furthermore, the erection of boundary markers and metal markers is of two kinds: either by corner mounds on both sides of the boundary wall, three, or according to the convergence of estates and boundary walls even four, which are also called particular corner mounds and corner mounds, erected and built in a triangle or quadrangle in a rounded mound shape from earth; and by several wall mounds between the estates of both parties, erected and built from earth by the same method, or marked out in the open country by a ditch; of which mounds ^[The straight line is to be observed.] the straight line, the orderly and just spacing of each from the next, the number — how many paces each is from the next — together with the metal markers placed in the mounds, and with the abovementioned definition of the places, shall be described in the boundary act.

It is further to be noted that, in the completion of boundaries, ^[The natural boundary is to be observed in the absence of boundary markers.] rivers, waterways, brooks, and torrents, their channels, courses, and beds, are of the greatest observance as natural boundaries and limits, and are assigned to estates as a perpetual boundary, in the absence of boundary markers.

If a river or stream naturally and spontaneously diverts itself, the ancient channel is to be treated as the boundary; ^[The ancient course of a river, for the delimitation of estates and inheritances.] but if it is through the deliberate effort of a man, then the new channel or course is to be taken as the boundary, while the old channel entire is to belong to the estate in which it is situated.

Moreover, parcels of an estate or ^[It is lawful to reclaim avulsed portions, notwithstanding prescription.] quantities of land, fields, meadows, forests, and plots avulsed in any manner from their principal part — that is to say, from the estate and possession — and occupied, may by virtue of an act of general boundary restoration be reincorporated into their principal part or head; nor shall the allegation of any prescription stand in the way, provided the plaintiff confirms the same parcel within his boundary path by oath.

In actions and cases of boundaries no prescription runs; actions of boundaries are not extinguished by prescription and discharge; and it is likewise open to the plaintiff, at such time as he wishes and is able, to bring an action for boundaries; and the adjudication of boundaries by the ordinary judge is always open, just, and equitable.

In boundary cases, for winning ^[Three things are required to establish the corner point in law.] and legally establishing the right of path, three things are of primary necessity: documentary evidence, from which the truth is drawn; real mounds and clear and credible markers; and the acknowledgement of both boundary walls by the collateral heirs. By which real acknowledgement the corner point is established, the parties disputing the same among themselves.

The penalty for the destruction of mounds between estates ^[The penalty for the destruction of mounds between terrestrial estates.] on both sides terrestrial: for each corner or particular corner mound, adhering to the statute of the Kingdom, three marks; for each wall mound, six scuta, reckoning the scuta at two groschen — with the summoning of the field Sub-Chamberlain’s office for the restoration at the expense of the destroyer himself. (In the present day, however, larger penalties are extended according to the precedents of the decrees of the Crown Tribunal, having regard to the greater value of money.) ^[A similar penalty against those who erect mounds without authority.] Similarly against those who erect mounds without authority and out of turn, with the formal demolition and removal of the unlawfully erected mounds as a penalty.

The penalty, however, against leaseholders of royal estates ^[The penalty between royal and terrestrial estates.] who destroy the boundaries between royal and terrestrial estates: one hundred marks, with restoration at the expense of the destroyer through the engagement of commissioners. But against royal subjects who demolish boundaries: fifty marks, with the restoration thereof at the expense of the leaseholder of the royal estates, according to the intent of the constitution of the year 1578.

The penalty against a commissioner absent from the act of the commission, ^[A penalty of 100 marks for a commissioner who is absent.] after having signed the summons letters, is one hundred marks — saving the lawful impediment of illness.

Boundaries Determined by the Moderation of the Right Honourable Sub-Chamberlain, the Parties’ Boundary Paths Having Been Rejected, with the Oath Barred.

When it shall happen that the Right Honourable Sub-Chamberlain rejects by his sentence the boundary path of both parties — both plaintiff and respondent — as proved by no real documents, mounds, boundary markers, or sworn inquiry, but only from the thing presented to the eyes, the position of the place, the straight line considered, and the natural boundary — by the moderation of his court and in accordance with his conscience, he shall assign the boundary path to the parties with the oath barred, so that perjuries may not occur, and shall determine the boundaries.

When also at the session of the field hearing pursuant ^[Referral to the Tribunal in case of disagreement.] to a Tribunal decree, two Right Honourable Sub-Chamberlains, or their officials, shall be in disagreement in their sentences as to the adjudication of the boundary path, then before the erection of the mounds they shall refer the case back to the Crown Tribunal court for the cognisance and resolution of their sentences.

PRESCRIPTION

The prescription of possession is to be noted, and boundaries are to be shown.

^[Herburt, fol. 333.] By custom and ancient law it was observed: that the seller of an estate was bound to protect the buyer for three ^[The buyer of a village prescribes the right to bring an action after the lapse of three years and three months.]

years and three months from any claim by intervention and discharge. But because it often happens that the neighbours of the sold estate, whose boundaries likewise touch upon it, postpone troubling the buyer within the said three years and three months — until the seller and intercessor escapes through the prescription of the sale; after which has elapsed, they do not scruple first to disturb the buyer over the boundaries, even though they were present at the sale — for this reason we wish and enact: that when any estate ^[Prescription of three years in respect of boundaries with the new possessor of the estates.] is shown to the buyer by the seller, the neighbours of that estate shall be summoned by the buyer with the court messenger, to be present at that showing. If they shall have been unwilling to come, summoned thus by the court messenger, and within three years and three months shall not have raised a question of boundaries against the possessor, then the possessor shall be admitted to proof of his purchase with witnesses, and shall be assisted by the prescription of so long a time.

DELIBERATION.

The judge deliberates once, and the parties contest once.

^[Herburt, fol. 139.] We enact: that not more than once shall a land judge, a municipal judge, or a Sub-Chamberlain deliberate; and likewise a Captain and Vice-Captain, likewise once, for two weeks in a case of the municipal court office, shall deliberate until the next municipal sessions: under a penalty of three

marks of money to be paid to the prevailing party; for which penalty the Captain shall be obliged to do justice to the party, either before Us or before the land court, or otherwise wherever it shall please the party to pursue that penalty. After which deliberation of the judge, captain, or his office, no party shall be able to improve or supplement its contested claim; it shall only hear the decree arising from that contested matter upon which deliberation was had. But because provision has been made in the new statute that, before the proof of the sentence — that is, before the decree — a party may improve its contested claim or case: this is to be understood as follows: that this same improvement of the contested matter must be made once, at the peremptory session, that is, at the time when the judge is already receiving the matter for deliberation, or for examination; for if a party were required to improve its case several times, and the judge were likewise required to deliberate upon the same several times, then a great delay of justice would arise and be permitted.

Translator’s Note

[T.N. 1] Odsypisko: a Polish legal term for land deposited by the natural action of a river on one bank at the expense of the other. It denotes the accreted land itself, and the legal rule that such natural accretion belongs to the heir of the bank where it is deposited. The term has no established single-word English equivalent and is retained in italics.

Decree of Deliberation of the Sub-Chamberlain’s Court or Office.

Done at the field place of the differences between the hereditary estates of the villages of [name], of the Honourable [names], plaintiff, on the one part, and of the Honourable [names], principal respondent, on the other part, near three notable corner mounds (or not particularly notable ones), one of the said plaintiff’s village of [name], the second of the aforesaid principal respondent’s village of [name], [p. 27]

the third of the village of [name] of the Honourable [names], collaterally summoned, standing by a paved public road running from the city of [name] to the town of [name], on the Monday next after the Sunday of [name], in the year of the Lord [names].

Before the Right Honourable [names], General Sub-Chamberlain of the Palatinate of [names], in the presence of the Honourable and Noble [names] and others of various rank and condition assembled for this act, as well as the court messenger of the Kingdom, the Honest [names] of the village of [name], authentic and sworn, the jurisdiction having been founded and proclaimed pursuant to the intent of the decree of the Land Court of [name], issued on the [day] of [name] in the year [name] between the principal acting parties, he caused the parties to be called by that same court messenger to appear; at which place, ^[The respondent’s party protests.] the originally cited party, namely the Honourable [names], heir of the village of [name], protesting regarding the improper founding of the jurisdiction of his court at this place, as being on his own property and estate, and not at the convergence of three estates as the law requires, alleging that the mounds demonstrated by the plaintiff’s party are not true and legitimate mounds but merely hillocks containing no roundness or circle. The Honourable [names], heir of the estates ^[The collateral heir likewise protests.] of the village of [name], collaterally summoned, likewise protesting regarding the unlawful founding of the jurisdiction of his court, as not being at the convergence of three estates, offering to demonstrate

the same convergence elsewhere, and the true mounds situated according to the boundary act of the year [name]. ^[The plaintiff counter-protests against both, as well as regarding collusion.] The Honourable [names], principal plaintiff, counter-protesting against both — both the Honourable [names], principal respondent, and the Honourable [names], collaterally summoned — because they, having entered into collusion with one another, proceeding to the avulsion of the hereditary estate of the plaintiff who protests, wrongfully deny that same corner point and the true and legitimate mounds demonstrated to the court by the plaintiff himself who protests (which he offers to prove by documentary evidence in the further course of the case). Having noted the protests of the parties, the Sub-Chamberlain’s court orders the parties to register their appearance. The parties having appeared — the plaintiff’s party with the Honourable [names], heir of the estates of the village of [name], in person; the cited party with the Honourable [names], heir of the estates of the village of [name], likewise in person; the Honourable [names], heir of the estates of the village of [name], collaterally summoned, likewise in person — having appeared before his court and contested the matter judicially between themselves; the contested submissions having been heard, he finds them bound to satisfy the decree of the land court in the matter of the summons of both the cited party and the collateral heir for the present session to the field. And since the plaintiff’s party deposits in its court the service return of the court messenger of the summons letters issued both against the cited party and against the collateral heir, acknowledged in the proper municipal district of [name] on the [day] of [name] in the present

year by the court messenger of [name] and drawn from those same records — he therefore considers that the decree both of the land court and of his own office has been satisfied, and enjoins the parties to prosecute the case. In the prosecution of the case, since in the present case various doubts and complexities intervene, therefore, adhering to positive law, the Sub-Chamberlain’s court, lest through its own hastiness any party suffer detriment to its fortune (since the present boundary case has the force of perpetuity), deliberates for eight weeks, preserving for the parties at that place a peremptory session of appearance, together with the collaterally summoned party, by virtue of the present act.

Decree on Serious Contested Matters, Resolving the Deliberation.

Done at the field place of the differences between the hereditary estates of the villages of [name], of the Honourable [names], plaintiff, on the one part, and of the Honourable [names], principal respondent, on the other part, near three notable corner mounds (or not particularly notable ones), one of the said plaintiff’s village of [name], the second of the aforesaid principal respondent’s village of [name], the third of the village of [name] of the Honourable [names], collaterally summoned, standing by a paved public road running from the city of [name] to the town of [name], on the Monday next after the Sunday of [name], in the year of the Lord [names].

Before the Right Honourable [names], General Sub-Chamberlain of the Palatinate of [names], in the presence of the Honourable and Noble [names] and others of various rank and condition assembled for this act. At the today’s session, preserved by the decree of deliberation of his court, the jurisdiction having been founded and proclaimed with security of the present act by the court messenger of the Kingdom, the Honest [names] of the village of [name], authentic and sworn — the tenor of which decree of deliberation, submitted by oblata to the Sub-Chamberlain’s records, follows and is as follows: (The foregoing decree of deliberation is to be inserted here.) He caused the parties to be called to appear. At which place the Honourable [names], heir of the estates of the village of [name], originally cited, protests regarding the improper founding of the jurisdiction of his court at this place, as being on the property of the protestant himself, subject to no dispute, and not at the convergence of three estates, alleging those same mounds to be unreal. The plaintiff’s party counter-protests against the foregoing, that the Sub-Chamberlain’s court has situated itself at a proper place, alleging the mounds to be true and legitimate, not mere hillocks, and situated at the convergence of three estates. Having noted the protests, he enjoins the registration of appearance for the parties; the plaintiff’s party with the Honourable [names], heir of the estates of the village of [name], plaintiff, in person; the cited party with the Honourable [names], heir of the estates of the village of [name], likewise in person; the Honourable [names],

heir of the estates of the village of [name], through the Honourable [names], his attorney registered in the municipal records of [name] on the [day] of [name] in the present year, appearing before his court and judicially contesting the matter between themselves; the contested submissions having been heard, at the application of the collaterally summoned party, the Honourable [names], or his attorney — since a boundary case cannot be decided without the judicial acknowledgement of the collateral heir, nor can a corner point be established — therefore adhering both to the statute of the Kingdom and to the constitution of the year 1611 enacted on postponements, grants and concedes the principal postponement of eight weeks, in which session the party shall be required to prove, by a document or attestation of the Illustrious Right Honourable Marshal of the Crown Tribunal, under penalty of loss of the case. With the Honourable [names], originally cited, he suspends the present case for judgment until that same session of eight weeks, preserving for the parties the peremptory session of appearance by virtue of the present decree.

Decree on Preservation of the Session of the Granted Principal Postponement.

Done at the field place of the differences between the hereditary estates of the villages of [name], of the Honourable [names], plaintiff, on the one part, and of the Honourable [names], principal respondent, on the other part, near three notable corner mounds (or not particularly notable ones), one of the said plaintiff’s village of [name], the second of the aforesaid principal respondent’s village of [name],

the third of the village of [name] of the Honourable [names], collaterally summoned, standing by a paved public road running from the city of [name] to the town of [name], on the Monday next after the Sunday of [name], in the year of the Lord [names].

Before the Right Honourable [names], General Sub-Chamberlain of the Palatinate of [name], in the presence of the Honourable and Noble [names] and others of various rank and condition assembled for this act; at today’s session, preserved by the decree of the granted principal postponement, issued on the [day] of [name] in the year [name] and submitted to the records of his Sub-Chamberlain’s office and drawn authentically from those same records, the official jurisdiction having been founded and proclaimed with every security of the present act by the court messenger of the Kingdom, the Honest [names] of the village of [name], authentic and sworn, he caused the parties to be called to appear. At which session the parties — the plaintiff’s party, the Honourable [names], heir of the estates of the village of [name], in person; the cited party, the Honourable [names], heir of the estates of the village of [name], through the Honourable [names], a possessory deputy of that same palatinate, the Honourable [names], collaterally summoned, in person — appearing before his court and judicially contesting the matter between themselves; the contested submissions having been heard, at the application and declaration of the Honourable [names] as deputy, alleging judicially that the Honourable [names], originally cited, by divine permission lies

in a bed of illness and is in no way able to appear at the present session; he therefore grants and concedes a postponement of true illness, adhering to the statute of the Kingdom and the constitution of the year 1611, under the heading: Sprawy Sądowe, Gruntu się tyczące [Judicial Cases Touching upon Land], for eight weeks from the present act, counting the nearest. At which place and field session, before his Sub-Chamberlain’s court, the third party shall be required to confirm by oath in that oath formula: that at that time, when the present session was postponed for him, he was ill, with an illness truly permitted by God, so help him GOD and the Holy Passion of JESUS Christ. With the collateral heir, he suspends the present case until that time for appearance and judicial contest, preserving for all parties the peremptory session of appearance by virtue of the present decree.

Decree on Serious Contested Matters, on the Preservation of the Session of Both the Granted Principal Postponement and That of Illness.

Done at the field place of the differences between the hereditary estates of the villages of [name], of the Honourable [names], plaintiff, on the one part, and of the Honourable [names], principal respondent, on the other part, near three notable corner mounds (or not particularly notable ones), one of the village of [name]

of the said plaintiff, the second of the village of [name] of the aforesaid principal respondent, the third of the village of [name] of the Honourable [names], collaterally summoned, standing by a paved public road running from the city of [name] to the town of [name], on the Monday next after the feast of [name], in the year of the Lord [names].

Before the Right Honourable [names], General Sub-Chamberlain of the Palatinate of [name], at today’s session preserved by the decree of the granted postponement of illness of his Sub-Chamberlain’s court, the jurisdiction having been founded and proclaimed with security of the present act by the court messenger of the Kingdom, the Honest [names] of the village of [name], authentic and sworn, in the presence of the Honourable and Noble [names] and others of various rank and condition assembled for this act, by which decree there had been granted, according to the intent of the law, a postponement of illness to the Honourable [names], originally cited; at which place both the Honourable [names], originally cited, heir of the aforesaid estates of the village of [name], and the collaterally summoned Honourable [names], adhering to their prior protests made before his court regarding the improper and unlawful founding of the jurisdiction of his court, and renewing those same protests at present regarding the foregoing matters, against the above-named Honourable [names], plaintiff, solemnly protested, offering to demonstrate the true and legitimate corner point of the aforesaid three estates in another place. The Honourable [names], plaintiff, counter-protests

together with a protest against both — both the aforesaid Honourable [names], originally cited, adhering to his prior protests and counter-protests made at the foregoing sessions, and indeed renewing those same — regarding their entering into collusion to the prejudice of the fortune and avulsion of the hereditary estate of the protestant, wrongful non-acknowledgement of that same corner point, and denial of the founding of his court’s jurisdiction at this place; in proof of which, he reproduced before the court the boundary act of [names], issued on the [day] of [names], in the year of the Lord [name], drawn from the land records of [name], corresponding in its position and situation with the present place, on the basis of which the Sub-Chamberlain’s court duly and legitimately founded its jurisdiction. Regarding that wrongful repulsion he solemnly protests and counter-protests. Having thus noted the protests and counter-protests of the parties, the field Sub-Chamberlain’s court caused the parties to be called to appear by the aforesaid court messenger, and ordered their appearance to be registered. The plaintiff’s party — the Honourable [names], heir of the estates of the village of [name], in person; the cited party — the Honourable [names], heir of the estates of the village of [name], likewise in person; the Honourable [names], heir of the estates of the village of [name], collaterally summoned, likewise in person — appearing before his court and judicially contesting the matter between themselves; the contested submissions having been heard, he orders the parties to proceed to trial in the case. In the trial, he finds both the

collaterally summoned party of the Honourable [names] to satisfy the decree in respect of the granted principal postponement, and the cited party to satisfy the decree of the granted postponement of illness, and that the third party shall confirm immediately according to the intent of the law, and the court messenger is added for the pronouncing of the oath formula. And since, in satisfaction of the decree of his court, the Honourable [names], together with two noble [names], with the court messenger reading the formula to him, before the image of the Crucified Lord, swore a bodily oath in that oath formula — that at that time, around the immediate act of the field hearing, he was ill with a true illness permitted by GOD, so help him GOD and the Holy Passion of JESUS Christ — in the presence of the plaintiff’s party. And the Honourable [names] reproduced an attestation from the Illustrious Right Honourable Marshal of the Crown Tribunal, dated on the [day] of [name] in the present year, given at Piotrków in his favour; he therefore considers that both have satisfied the present decree of his court in the matter of satisfaction, and orders the parties to prosecute the present case. In prosecuting, he resolves the deliberation of his court accepted at the first act of the field hearing, with the resolution of the corner point and particular corner point demonstrated by the plaintiff’s party suspended for the moment. The court proceeded to the review of the boundary paths of both parties, and first ^[The commencement of the plaintiff’s party’s boundary path.] ordered the plaintiff’s party to begin the boundary path from the starting point, through the intermediate points, to the end point. The Honourable [names], plaintiff, heir of the estates of

the aforesaid village of [name], began and commenced his boundary path from the place of the founded jurisdiction and from the three corner mounds demonstrated to the court and proved by the boundary act written above, or from their midpoint; he led the court in a straight line from the northern quarter toward the south (or from the east toward the west, or between the western and southern quarters, toward the eastern and northern quarter, as may be the case). And he demonstrated to the court a wall mound of lesser note, standing not far from the corner mounds, namely at eighty paces distance; against which demonstration the Honourable [names], originally cited, protests, alleging that it is not a wall mound but a hillock raised by worms, containing no roundness or circle; the leading party counter-protesting regarding the wrongful denial of that wall mound as sufficiently notable; and in verification thereof demanded immediate opening of that mound, granting the application therefor, he ordered the same mound to be opened; in which mound, when opened, in the presence of the cited party, boundary markers were found, namely fragments of brick, charcoal of no small quantity, and some fragments of iron slag. Proceeding further from it toward the same southern quarter as straight as possible through the dense pine forest, with the path prepared and cleared, he demonstrated to his court

the second wall mound, a hundred paces from the opened one, not particularly notable; the court likewise ordered it to be opened, in which, when opened, nothing was found save stones mixed with earth, found to be of poor quality. Proceeding further through the same pine forest, the leading party reached a boggy place of difficult passage, through which, with the path prepared and laid with timber, and crossing on foot, it reached a dry elevated place, at which place it demonstrated to the court a mound taken for a wall mound, whose opening the plaintiff’s leading party requested; granting the application therefor, it ordered the same to be opened; in which, when opened, were found charcoal, fragments of brick, and iron slag, similar to what had been found in the prior mound. From which opened mound in a straight line toward the south, through the same dense pine forest grown with various kinds of trees, there follows a small river or torrent flowing from the west toward the east; crossing it by means of planks prepared for the crossing, it reached a public road running from the town of [name] to the village of [name], beside which public road it demonstrated to the court a wall mound sufficiently notable, having roundness and a circle, whose opening is less necessary since it is visible. From that mound, crossing the road by a straight path toward the south, a mound was found of similar roundness and height, immediately beside the aforesaid road, at a hundred paces

distance from it. And proceeding further from the same toward the same southern quarter, the court reached fields sown with various kinds of grain, where the leading party presented to the court furrows running lengthwise toward the village of the cited party, and to the left toward the village of the plaintiff, ploughed differently; in which fields the same leading party alleged that five mounds, one after the other in a straight line, had stood for some ten years past, but had now been ploughed up and reduced to nothing by the former heirs of the village of the respondent, proceeding to the avulsion of the hereditary estate of the plaintiff. And in verification of his allegation, he reproduced to the court an official inspection carried out by the court messenger and two noblemen, acknowledged before the municipal records by that same court messenger on the [day] of [name] in the year [name]; and likewise a protest on that account regarding the ploughing-up of the mounds in the field called Długie Pole, and the consequent taking of those same plots by force and power of the former heirs of the hereditary village of the present respondent, made by the Honourable [names] before the municipal records of [name] on the [day] of [name] in the year [name], on account of which ploughing-up the former heir had brought an action before the Land Court of [name]; to settle that case a decree of the Land Court of [name] intervened in the matter of a judicial inspection by the Honourable Boundary Chamberlain of the ploughed-up mounds, until finally

upon the death of the Honourable [names], former heir of the village of [name], the hereditary estate of the present plaintiff, the session had lapsed; and thereafter, with hostilities breaking out and ravaging our lands for almost twenty years, there was neither time nor place for vindicating the injury. Proceeding further in the same field toward the south, continuing his boundary path as straight as possible, the court reached three particular corner mounds, clearly notable, and at that place concluded and determined his boundary path. In connection with that determination, he reproduced the service return of the summons letters issued on the part of the plaintiff against the Honourable [names], heir of the estates of the village of [name], collaterally summoned, for the demonstration and acknowledgement of the corner point or particular corner point existing at this place, acknowledged before the municipal records of [name] on the [day] of [name] in the present year by the court messenger of the Kingdom, the Honest [names] of the village of [name], authentic and sworn, the tenor of which is as follows: (The summons letters are to be inserted here.) By virtue of which summons the Honourable [names], heir of the aforesaid estates of the village of [name], appearing in person, judicially acknowledged that same corner point or particular corner point as true, as situated at the convergence of three estates. After which acknowledgement by the collateral heir and determination of the plaintiff’s party’s boundary path, the cited party, namely the Honourable [names], solemnly protests against the whole boundary path of the plaintiff’s party, as not having been continued and determined from the starting point,

not in a straight line, proceeding obliquely; and further regarding the unjust demonstration of the allegedly ploughed-up wall mounds in the field called Długie Pole, which field from antiquity belongs entirely to his hereditary village of [name], which he offers to prove by sworn inquiry. The Honourable [names], plaintiff, counter-protests that his court duly and legitimately led and determined the boundary path in a straight line from the starting point, through the intermediate points, to the end point, on the basis of the boundaries of the year written above, reproduced before his court.

The plaintiff’s party’s boundary path having been concluded and determined, the Sub-Chamberlain’s court ^[The cited party’s boundary path.] proceeded to the review of the cited party’s boundary path. The sun declining toward the west, he ordered the present act to be adjourned to the morrow by the above-named court messenger, the apparitor of his court. On the following day, namely the Tuesday after the same feast of [name] in the present year, the jurisdiction having been reassumed and called by the court messenger, proceeding to the review: the resolution of the corner point and the particular corner point being suspended, the court proceeded first to the review of the cited party’s boundary path. At which session, on the call of the court messenger, the cited party demonstrated to his court three hillocks standing not far away, in a dense pine forest grown with various kinds of trees, beside a public road running from the town of [name] to the town of [name] through the village of [name], and there alleged the convergence of three estates to be, and not at the place from which the plaintiff’s party commenced its boundary path; at which place and

session, at the call of the court messenger, the Honourable [names], collaterally summoned, appearing in person, judicially acknowledged to the cited party that the true corner point was situated at that place, and firmly alleged it. The plaintiff’s party, namely the Honourable [names], protests against both the originally cited party and the collateral heir, regarding the improper demonstration of allegedly corner mounds and the acknowledgement thereof by the collateral heir, as proved by no documents; in connection with which protest made before his court, the plaintiff’s party requested the opening of those corner mounds, granting the application therefor, he ordered those same mounds to be opened in the presence of all parties; in which, when opened, nothing was found. From those mounds or hillocks, proceeding from the north toward the south, the cited party demonstrated to the court a hillock resembling a mound, alleging it to be the true first wall mound, standing eighty-five paces from the opened corner mounds, under the very forest called Nart, whose opening the same cited leading party requested. Granting the application of that same party, he opened the same mound, in which, when opened, nothing was found save rock, that is, earth congealed in the manner of brick; against which mound the Honourable [names], plaintiff, protested regarding the unlawful demonstration of that hillock as a wall mound. And because that pine forest from antiquity belongs to his estate of the village of [name].

The cited party leading further toward the southern quarter, demonstrated to the court a boundary marker cut in the manner of a cross in a pine tree, and not far from that place, about one furlong away, another marker, similar to the first, cut in a beech tree. Against which demonstration of allegedly boundary markers the Honourable [names], plaintiff, protested, reproducing an official inspection carried out by the court messenger and two noblemen at that place, acknowledged before the municipal records on the [day] of [name] in the year [name], of those same incisions cut unofficially by private authority by the former heir of the village of [name]. Proceeding further and leading southward through the forest, the cited party reached transverse roads — one public road from the town of [name] to the town of [name], another running from the village of [name] to the village of [name] — beside which roads he demonstrated a credible mound; the plaintiff’s party denying it, requested its opening; in which, when opened, charcoal was found in smaller quantity, which the plaintiff’s party alleged was from roots burned at the time of a fire in that same forest. The cited party continuing its boundary path further, toward a small river or stream flowing from the forests from the west toward the east; crossing it, reached a higher place and a bushy alder thicket, and passing through it in a straight line, half a furlong from that alder thicket, showed the court a hillock, asserting it to be a mound;

the court, for better information to itself, ordered that same mound to be opened; in which, when opened, nothing was found. Finally, continuing its further boundary path and inclining obliquely to the left toward the quarter between the south and the winter east, the court was led to the middle of the fields where it alleged the mounds had been ploughed up by the above-named Honourable [names], plaintiff — which allegation it proves by no contestation of the case. The Honourable [names], plaintiff, protesting against the leading party regarding the improper conduct of his court through his own plots and fields, subject to no dispute since antiquity, and also regarding the trampling of grain by its boundary path, and because those plots and fields have from antiquity been manorial, belonging to the village and estate of the protestant himself; continuing further through the fields by the same boundary path, diverting itself this way and that, the leading party reached that corner point and those three corner or particular corner mounds where the originally plaintiff’s party had concluded its boundary path; there also the cited party determined its boundary path. The plaintiff’s party protests the nullity and invalidity of the entire boundary path, as not having been conducted from the starting point through the intermediate points, containing as it does the greatest obliqueness, and proved by no documents throughout its course. The cited party counter-protesting that it led the Sub-Chamberlain’s court duly and legitimately, and also regarding the wrongfully

alleged collusion with the collateral heir, the Honourable [names], who proceeded with no collusion with the protestant, but only according to the knowledge received from elderly residents of his village, demonstrated to the Sub-Chamberlain’s court his particular corner point and the determination of the boundary wall at the convergence of three estates, and from that point acknowledged to the protestant the corner mound.

The boundary paths of both parties having been concluded and carefully and diligently reviewed, for more sufficient proof of the boundary paths the court considers it fitting that a sworn inquiry be conducted by both the principal acting parties and the collateral heir, the Honourable [names], regarding that same particular corner point; enjoining that the said parties, having first drawn up interrogatories and communicated them to one another, party to party, shall conduct it immediately under penalty of loss of the case; and orders the parties to swear an oath on the impartiality of the witnesses; the court messenger is added for the pronouncing of the oath formula, and this immediately. Which oath, since the parties — both the principal acting parties and the collateral heir, the Honourable [names] — with the court messenger reading the formula to them, swore before his court; he therefore proceeded to conduct the same sworn inquiry, first for the plaintiff’s party and then for the cited party; then, the sun declining toward the west, he extended and limited his act to the morrow, and ordered the court messenger aforesaid,

apparitor of his court, to adjourn the same. The following day arriving, namely the [day] of [names], the sworn inquiries of the parties — both principal acting parties regarding both the corner point and the entire general boundary path, and that of the collateral heir regarding his particular corner point alone and the convergence of three estates at the place where he had acknowledged it to the originally cited party — having been concluded. The Sub-Chamberlain’s court, after the completion of those same sworn inquiries and the introduction of the matter, descended to the reading thereof; which having been read and weighed and examined in all their circumstances — since the court finds, both from those same sworn inquiries and from the documentary evidence of the plaintiff’s party, namely the boundaries of the year [name] drawn from the Sub-Chamberlain’s records, that the same corner point demonstrated by the plaintiff’s party, beside the paved public road running from the city of [name] to the town of [name], is true and legitimate; adjudging therefore that same place for the erection of corner mounds and the particular corner mound for the Honourable [names], collaterally summoned, and the more probable boundary path of the plaintiff’s party, as supported by mounds and boundary markers found therein; conducted in a straight line from the north, from the starting point, through the intermediate points, to the end point situated toward the southern quarter, judicially acknowledged by the Honourable [names], collaterally summoned, and agreeing with the cited party in the same. And the cited party’s boundary path having been rejected as containing obliqueness and confirmed by no documentary

evidence or sworn inquiries — favouring no party but having only GOD before its eyes — the court proceeded to the erection and raising of the mounds, first the corner mounds and then the wall mounds. The cited party — both the principal respondent and the collateral heir — moved to the Crown Tribunal courts of the Kingdom at Piotrków, not admitted. The party protests the grievance; the court, together with the plaintiff’s party, counter-protests that no grievance was done to either the cited party or the collateral heir through the adjudication of the boundary path — having examined the documentary evidence and in accordance with its conscience, it found the plaintiff’s party’s boundary path to be more probable and adjudged it to that party — and again proceeded to the erection of the corner mounds; first raising one corner mound for the plaintiff’s party, namely for the estate of the village of [name], toward the east, another for the cited party and its estate of the village of [name], toward the west — both mounds on one side of the paved road running from the town of [name] to the village of [name] — and a third on the other side of the road toward the north for the collateral estate of the village of [name]; all situated at an equal distance of five ordinary cubits; raised and built up from earth; and in each, metal markers, namely charcoal, brick, and iron slag, together with a glass bottle filled with millet, with a paper sheet placed inside it bearing a description of today’s act by which the mounds were raised, so that it may be clear to posterity in the event of any difference

arising. Then proceeding from those same corner mounds toward the south along the same boundary path of the plaintiff’s party, he raised the first wall mound at the place where the opening of the ancient mound was carried out by order of his court, and raised it anew from earth, eighty paces from the corner mounds; and proceeding further from that wall mound as straight as possible through the dense pine forest grown with various kinds of trees toward the southern quarter, he raised a second mound, similar to the first, at an equal distance, eighty paces from the first; and from the same, proceeding further along the same path through the same pine forest, he raised a third mound in a more elevated place, beside a boggy place standing at more or less four or five furlongs; crossing those boggy places, on the other side of them, half a furlong away, namely fifty paces from that boggy place, in a more elevated place, in a straight line toward the south, a mound was raised, the fourth in number; then proceeding further toward the south, directing his steps through the same pine forest, he reached a small river or torrent flowing from the west toward the east, on whose bank in a more elevated place a wall mound was raised, the fifth in number, eighty paces from the fourth; crossing it, the court reached a public road running from the town of [name] to the village of [name], not crossing that road — indeed beside it is

the mound, the sixth in number, a hundred paces from the fifth. Crossing that road, proceeding in a straight line toward the south, exiting the same pine forest, a mound was raised under the very edge of the pine forest on the boundary of the fields called Długie Pole, belonging from antiquity to the estate of the village of [name] of the plaintiff, the seventh in number, eighty paces from the sixth; and from that same seventh mound toward the south, proceeding as straight as possible through those same fields and open country, he ordered a ditch to be raised with a plough prepared for that purpose, extending to the particular corner mounds; which, at the application of the parties — both the principal acting parties and the collateral heir — as being subject to no dispute, he ordered to be renewed and raised up; and marked them all with metal markers, both all the wall mounds and the particular corner mounds, with charcoal, brick, and iron slag placed separately in each of them. After which erection of mounds — both corner and particular corner mounds, and wall mounds — the Sub-Chamberlain’s court decrees that the plaintiff’s party ^[The confirmation of the boundary path enjoined.] that has won the boundary path shall confirm it as the seventh with witnesses of equal rank, adhering to the statute of the Kingdom, at his final particular corner mound, in that oath formula: that by his boundary path he has taken no land or estate from the respondent, nor has alienated any from that hereditary estate; and this immediately — the court messenger is added for the pronouncing of the oath formula. (If the respondent shall interpose a motion, suspending the oath for the party that has won the boundary path,

then the matter must be admitted to the Tribunal courts of the Kingdom of that province where the estates are situated; but if no motion is interposed, the court shall proceed to attempt the oath.) Which oath the Honourable [names] together with six witnesses of equal rank, [names], with the court messenger reading the formula to them as described above, according to the intent of the statute before the face of his court and with the party present — the Honourable [names], plaintiff, before the image of the Crucified Lord; and the aforesaid witnesses, with two fingers raised to heaven and on bended knee, at the final particular corner mound swore; therefore the court wills and declares that those same boundaries shall have the force of perpetual validity, and ordered the court messenger to proclaim and declare this with a loud and sonorous voice in the presence of all assembled for this act. Which boundaries let no one dare violate or annihilate in any way, under a penalty of two thousand marks to be decreed by the competent court. (If the parties shall grant one another mutual common pasture, it shall be written:) And since both parties mutually grant to one another common pasture in the pine forests and deserted open country of their estates, according to ancient usage, the court therefore decrees that both parties shall enjoy those same freely granted mutual common pastures, yet without damage.

Decree on Serious Contested Matters, Issued at the Field Place of the Differences pursuant to the Intent of a Tribunal Decree.

Done at the field place of the differences between the estates of the village of [name], hereditary property of the Right Honourable [names], on the one part, and the estates of the village of [name], hereditary property of the Honourable [names], beneath the very pine forest called [name], not far from the mere belonging to the village of [name], at the convergence of three estates, and likewise of the village of [name] of the Honourable [name], collateral heir, beside a paved road running from the village of [name] to the village of [name], where at that place no corner mounds of those estates are standing, having been destroyed some ten years past by the subjects of the Honourable [names] of the village of [name]; on the [day] after the feast of [name], in the year of the Lord [name].

Before the Right Honourable [names], Boundary Chamberlain of Sieradz, and [names], Boundary Chamberlain of Łęczyca, of those same palatinates, as well as [names], Judge of Piotrków, and [names], Notary of Wieluń, of the municipal courts; by virtue of the decree of the Crown Tribunal of Piotrków, issued on the Friday after the feast of [names] in the present year between the parties named below, whereby the field hearing of the Sub-Chamberlain’s offices was enjoined at the seat of the estates noted above in the act, or at the place of

dispute, and there the settling and final decision of the claims in respect of the boundaries mutually brought before the Tribunal court, on account of the aforesaid right of path instituted by the offices — and indeed, for the originally plaintiff’s party, the offices of Sieradz or Wieluń or Inowłodź, and for the cited party who is likewise plaintiff, the offices of Łęczyca or Gąsawa or Sochaczew or Warsaw; the absence of one of the Right Honourable Sub-Chamberlains notwithstanding, provided that one Sub-Chamberlain or his official is present on behalf of either party — they shall first of all order or he shall order the production of documents establishing the boundary case, party to party, with a prior summary thereof drawn up and signed; they shall immediately enjoin a sworn confirmation of the real production thereof; they shall investigate, with a prior sworn inquiry if necessary, the convergence of three estates and the corner mounds, wherever they may be found; they shall review and note the boundary paths of the parties; they shall open or he shall open the old mounds; they shall erect new ones and renew the old; they shall adjudge to the party that demonstrates the more probable boundary path; they shall order or he shall order the party that wins the boundary path to confirm at the final mound according to the intent of the statute; and they shall finally adjudicate between the parties, every appeal and extension cut off. For the settling of the parties’ claims in the case of fact and

of acts of violence perpetrated, the municipal court offices — and indeed, for the part of the Right Honourable [names], original plaintiff, the offices of Cracow or Sandomierz or Radom; for the part of the Honourable [names], respondent and plaintiff, the offices of Opoczno or Chęciny or Stężyca — those offices, the absence of one of the Right Honourable officials notwithstanding, provided that one office or official is present, after the boundary case has been decided by the Right Honourable Sub-Chamberlains, shall investigate the acts of violence by prior sworn inquiry; shall impose penalties both personal and monetary according to the nature of the act; shall settle the account of revenues from the plots and fields wrongfully held and appropriated upon a prior rendering of account; and shall order or he shall order restitution to whom and from whom it shall be due; and they shall finally adjudicate and moderate between the parties in all and every one of their claims, every appeal cut off. Both the decision of the Sub-Chamberlain’s court and the decision of the municipal court offices, or the decision of one office or official, the parties shall be bound and required to obey and acquiesce in, under the penalty of banishment, to be proclaimed at that session of the field hearing. The foregoing being more broadly contained in itself, thus at today’s session, by virtue of the above-cited decree of the Crown Tribunal, the official jurisdiction having been founded and secured with all security of the present act, and proclaimed by the court messenger of the Kingdom, the Honest [names] of the village of [name], authentic and sworn, in the presence of the Honourable and Noble [names] and others of various

rank and condition assembled for this act, he caused the parties to be called to appear. At which place, the Honourable [names], originally cited and plaintiff, heir of the estates of the village of [name], protests against the Right Honourable [names], heir of the estates of the village of [name], regarding the improper founding of the jurisdiction and the situating of the field hearing court of the Sub-Chamberlain’s office, as being on his own hereditary property of the village of [name] and not at the convergence of three estates. The Right Honourable [names], heir of the aforesaid estates of the village of [name], counter-protests against the Honourable [names] regarding the wrongful denial of the jurisdiction founded at that place, and of the convergence of three estates thereat; in proof of which he reproduced before his court an official inspection carried out by the court messenger and two noblemen, acknowledged before the municipal records of [name] on the [day] of [name] in the year [name], on account of the destroyed mounds at the place of the founded jurisdiction, by the subjects of the hereditary village of [name] of the cited party; the same Honourable [names] counter-protesting that although the Right Honourable [names] reproduces before the court an official inspection for proof of the convergence of three estates, as though at the place of the founded jurisdiction, nevertheless that same inspection ought not to bear upon the place where the jurisdiction is founded, but upon the place which the cited party offers to demonstrate in its boundary path. The Honourable [names], collaterally summoned, protests

against the Right Honourable [names], not acknowledging — indeed in all respects denying — the convergence of three estates at the place of the founded jurisdiction, and offering to demonstrate it in another place. Having noted those protests and counter-protests, he orders the registration of appearance for the parties: the plaintiff’s party with the Right Honourable [names], heir of the estates of the village of [name], plaintiff and respondent, in person; the cited or plaintiff’s party with the Honourable [names], heir of the estates of the village of [name], likewise in person; the Honourable [names], heir of the estates of the village of [name], collaterally summoned, likewise in person; the Honourable [names], collaterally summoned likewise in person for the other part of the boundary wall and the corner point or particular corner point; (if there are several co-heirs both principal acting parties and collateral heirs, and they enter into the sessions, it shall be written in the plural). The parties having appeared and judicially contested the matter between themselves, he finds both parties bound to satisfy the Tribunal decree of the act written above, in the matter of the summons of the collateral heirs. And since both parties deposit in his court the service returns of the citations issued — one on the part of the Right Honourable [names] against the Honourable collateral heirs [names], acknowledged before the municipal records of [name] in the present year [name]; the other on the part of the Honourable [names], before those same records [name], on the [day] of [name] in the year [name], against the Honourable [names], collateral heirs — he therefore considers that both the Tribunal decree and that of his own court

have been satisfied, and orders the present case to proceed. In the prosecution of the case, he decrees both parties bound, before all else, to satisfy that same Tribunal decree in the matter of the production of documents pertaining to the present case; decreeing that those same parties shall both produce before his court all documents in their possession, with a prior summary thereof drawn up, and that each party shall communicate to the other and confirm the real production thereof, immediately, under penalty of loss of the case. And since both parties have produced those same documents and present themselves for the sworn confirmation of the real production thereof, those same parties being found admissible, the court messenger is added for the pronouncing of the oath formula; and since both parties, before the face of his court, before the image of the Crucified Lord Jesus Christ, with the court messenger reading the formula to them in that oath formula — that all the documents pertaining to the present case deposited in court they have truly produced, and nothing to the damage and prejudice of the party have they retained by them nor concealed, so help them GOD and the Holy Passion of JESUS Christ — swore; (but if the parties remit the oath to one another, which is lawful for the parties, then it shall be written:) and since the parties have remitted this oath of real production to one another, he therefore finds that the decree of his court has been satisfied, and

orders those same parties to proceed in the present case. The sun at last declining toward the west, he ordered the present act to be adjourned to the morrow by the aforesaid court messenger. The morrow arriving, namely the Tuesday after the feast of [name] in the present year, his jurisdiction having been reassumed and proclaimed by the court messenger of the Kingdom; in proceeding, the resolution of the corner point and the particular corner point being suspended, the court proceeded to the review of the boundary paths of both parties, and indeed first of the originally plaintiff’s party, the Right Honourable [names], heir of the estates of the village of [name]. The Right Honourable [names], heir of the estates of the village of [name], ^[The plaintiff commenced his boundary path.] therefore began and commenced his boundary path from the convergence of three estates and the place of the founded jurisdiction, proceeding from the quarter of the winter west (or likewise the summer west may be written, as may be the case) toward the quarter of the summer east, for half a furlong only to the small river called [name]; which small river he took as the natural boundary, and proceeding along that same small river for more or less ten furlongs, using it as the natural boundary, he reached the upper end of the mere belonging to the estates of the village of [name], hereditary property of the Honourable [names], cited party; and taking the midpoint of that same mere as his boundary wall, he led the court to the water sluice, commonly called upust [T.N. 1]; alleging that one half of that same mere had from antiquity belonged, and ought at present to belong, to his estate of the village of [name]. At which place, the Honourable [names], heir of the estates of the village of [name],

protested against the Right Honourable [names] regarding the wrongful usurpation of one half of his mere, hereditary from antiquity and belonging to his village of [name], and proving it by a certain division made between the former co-heir brothers, drawn up in writing at [name] and confirmed before the municipal records of [name] on the [day] of [name] in the year [name]; and also regarding the demonstration of the boundary path along that same small river taken as the natural boundary, since both banks belong to his estate. The Right Honourable plaintiff counter-protesting against the aforesaid protest of the cited party — because he, on the basis of positive law, in the absence of boundaries and mounds between those same estates, took the natural boundary for himself — and proceeding further along the same torrent flowing from the sluice toward the east, going more than one part of a mile, he led the court to the corner mounds or particular corner mounds not far from that same small river, almost one furlong from its bank, in a more elevated place, erected and situated by the Sub-Chamberlain’s court in the year [name] pursuant to the intent of a Tribunal decree, sufficiently notable, having the greatest roundness and a circle; at which place and around those same corner and particular corner mounds he concluded and determined his boundary path. And the Honourable [names], collaterally summoned, appearing there in person, judicially acknowledged that same corner point and particular corner point of the Right Honourable [names], meeting his boundary wall, and the estates of the cited party, namely the village of [name],

to be true and legitimate.

The boundary path having been concluded and determined, regarding the same corner point written above, the court proceeded to the review of the cited party’s boundary path. First the cited party took the commencement of its boundary path from those same corner mounds where the plaintiff’s party had determined its boundary path, from the east toward the west; and setting aside that same small river which the plaintiff’s party had alleged to be the natural boundary, proceeding toward that same western quarter, he demonstrated to the court an ancient hillock resembling a mound, standing a hundred paces from the corner mounds, alleging it to be the first and true wall mound, destroyed only by cattle, standing under the very forest called Nart. Against which demonstration of the mound, the Right Honourable [names] protested, alleging it to be not a true mound but a hillock. Proceeding further from it through the same pine forest, not particularly dense, directing his boundary path toward the east, the cited party reached a paved public road running from the town of [name] to the village of [name], alleging that same road to be the boundary road; taking it as a wall boundary and proceeding further through the pine forest grown with various kinds of trees, going almost half a mile, stood beside a boggy place called Biały Łąg, and there alleging the convergence of three estates, concluded and determined his boundary path; at which place,

the Honourable [names], heir of the estates of the village of [name], collaterally summoned, appearing in person, acknowledged the true convergence of three estates — of one collateral heir’s estate and of the two litigating parties — to be there, alleging that at this place, and not at the place from which the plaintiff’s party commenced its boundary path, the mounds had been destroyed — not by the subjects of the cited party, but of the Right Honourable plaintiff. (A protest regarding the nullity of the entire boundary path, and likewise against the collateral heir, shall be written.)

Both boundary paths of the parties having been concluded and judicially determined, the court considers, for better information to itself and more sufficient proof from the parties, that a sworn inquiry shall be conducted — by elderly witnesses of good repute and free from any charge of crime — by the parties, both the principal acting parties regarding the entire boundary path and the collateral heir regarding the corner point and the convergence of three estates at the place acknowledged by him; decreeing that those same parties shall conduct the aforesaid sworn inquiry, with prior interrogatories drawn up and communicated to one another, immediately; and the court messenger is added for the pronouncing of the oath formula regarding the impartiality of the witnesses. Which oath, since the parties — both the principal acting parties and the collateral heir — with the court messenger reading the formula to them, before the face of his court, before the image of the Crucified Lord, on bended knees, in the customary formula, swore a bodily oath;

he therefore proceeded to conduct the same inquiry, and ordered the court messenger to adjourn the present act to the morrow. The following day arriving, namely the [day] of [name] in the present year, the same sworn inquiries having been concluded, he orders the parties in the present case to respond directly. In the direct response, he descended to the reading of the sworn inquiries drawn out by all parties — both the principal acting parties and the collateral heir, the Honourable [names] — confirmed on oath and deposited in his court. Which having been read and weighed and examined in all their circumstances, ^[Decree of adjudication of the boundary path.] resolving the suspension of the corner point made above: although the collaterally summoned party acknowledged judicially the corner point or particular corner point, as being at the convergence of three estates, near the boggy place called Biały Łąg and beside the paved road running from the town of [name] to the village of [name] — yet since the cited party who is also plaintiff proves that same corner point, and the entire boundary path taken along that same public road, by no authentic documents and no sworn inquiries at the present session, the court therefore, the entire boundary path of the cited party having been rejected, and the more probable boundary path of the Right Honourable [names], plaintiff, having been found, assigns that same small river or torrent as the perpetual boundary and boundary wall to those same estates; and the court proceeded to the erection of corner mounds at the place of the founded jurisdiction. And

it fixes and determines that same place as a corner point, as being at the convergence of three estates, as is clearly apparent from the sworn inquiries. From that decree, both the originally cited party and the collateral heir, the Honourable [names], moved to the Crown Tribunal courts of the Kingdom at Piotrków. Not admitted; the party protests the grievance; the court counter-protests with the party that it inflicted no grievance; and after the motion interposed and not admitted, proceeded to the erection of those same mounds; and first raised the first corner mound for the estate of the village of [name] of the Right Honourable plaintiff, toward the southern quarter; a second for the cited party and its estates of the village of [name], toward the north; and a third toward the west, for the estate of the village of [name] of the Honourable [name], collateral heir; and from those same mounds, on the bank of that same small river or torrent, a first wall mound was raised, half a furlong from the corner mounds; in which mounds — both corner mounds and wall mound — boundary markers were placed, namely charcoal, brick, and iron slag, and fragments of glass. From which wall mound, by that same small river or torrent, the boundary wall extends through the middle of the mere and the water sluice, commonly called upust. (With the judicial declaration that one half of the fish at each release of water shall for all time concern the Right Honourable [names] or his successor heirs of the aforesaid village; and one half, however,

of the costs of the annual repair of that same mere shall for all time concern that same party.) Right up to the particular corner mounds or corner mounds of the estates of [names], which the court ordered to be renewed and raised up, with the placing of metal markers in each mound, as it placed in the prior ones. Those corner and particular corner mounds having been erected and renewed, the Sub-Chamberlain’s court orders the party that has won the boundary path, adhering to the statute of the Kingdom, to swear an oath with six witnesses of equal rank, and this immediately; the court messenger is added for the pronouncing of the oath formula. The cited party moved to the Crown Tribunal courts of the Kingdom at Piotrków; not admitted, on the ground that final adjudication of the present case, every appeal cut off, was pre-committed by the Tribunal decree. Which oath the Right Honourable [names], plaintiff, together with six witnesses of equal rank, namely the Honourable [names], on bended knees before the image of the Crucified JESUS Christ the Lord — the witnesses with two fingers raised to heaven — swore a bodily oath at his final particular corner mound, with the court messenger reading the formula, before the face of his court, the party not being present but having withdrawn rashly; he therefore declares that those same boundaries shall have the force of perpetual validity. Which boundaries let no one dare to violate or annihilate, under a penalty of two thousand marks to be decreed from now by the competent court, by virtue of the present decree.

The boundary act between the above-named parties having been concluded and determined by the Sub-Chamberlain’s offices of Sieradz and Łęczyca, and the municipal court offices named below — of Radom and Opoczno — engaged by the parties on today’s day, namely the [day] of [name] in the present year; the official jurisdiction having been reassumed and proclaimed by the court messenger of the Kingdom, the Honest [names], in the presence of the Honourable [names] — wishing to proceed to the execution of the Tribunal decree of the act written above. But since both parties, namely the Right Honourable [names] and the Honourable [names], staying further proceedings in law on account of various claims and acts of violence arising from the disputed estate, overcome by the persuasion of their friends, and reconciling neighbourly friendship between themselves, came to a composition; he therefore, approving that same amicable settlement, considers claims to be compensated against claims and acts of violence against acts of violence; annuls, voids, and cancels the protests, declarations, and the entire and complete process, and declares that nothing shall be to the detriment of the good name and unblemished honour of either party, by virtue of the present decree.

If, however, the parties have not entered into an amicable settlement, then the municipal court offices shall settle, cognise, and determine the account of revenues from the plots wrongfully held and delimited and all claims, shall order compensation and restitution thereof to whom and from whom it shall be due,

and in respect of the acts of violence perpetrated shall impose penalties according to the nature of the act, and shall finally decide, every appeal cut off.

Translator’s Note

[T.N. 1] Upust: a Polish term for a water sluice or mill-gate — the opening or device by which water is released from a mill pond or mere. The term is retained in italics and the Latin gloss (vulgo upust) indicates Paciorkowski himself treated it as a vernacular word requiring explanation within the Latin text.

Arbitral Decree on Serious Contested Matters, Issued by Virtue of a Registered Compromissorial Instrument.

Done in the field, at the place of the differences beside a public road running from the town of [name] to the village of [name], near two notable corner mounds at the convergence of three estates and boundary walls — one of the village of [name] of the Honourable [names], the second of the village of [name] of the Honourable [names], the parties originally acting between themselves, and the third of the village of [name] of the Honourable [name]; on the [day] after the feast of [name], next in order, in the year of the Lord [names].

Before the Right Honourable [names], Sub-Chamberlain of the Palatinate of [name], registered for this act as chief arbitrator; and before the Honourable [names] from the plaintiff’s party, and the Honourable [names] from the part of the Honourable [name], cited party, as arbitrators registered by the parties — (the parties must register a minimum of three arbitrators each, each for his own part, for the determination of the boundaries; if, however, they choose someone other than the Sub-Chamberlain as chief arbitrator, then among the arbitrators there must be a Boundary Chamberlain, without whose presence a boundary act of limits cannot be concluded) — by virtue of the compromissorial instrument, of the act of

the [day] of [name] in the year [name]; by which instrument power was granted and conceded to the Right Honourable chief arbitrator, together with the Honourable arbitrators, to withdraw from all sessions and from the Tribunal forum, in the matter of the boundaries brought mutually against one another before the Crown Tribunal court; to adjudicate and finally decide; to cognise all documents and decrees issued in that case; to adjudge to whichever party the more probable boundary path shall belong; to erect mounds and renew the ancient ones; to enjoin and attempt the oath at the final mound for the party that has won the boundary path; to cognise the claims of the estate; and to finally adjudicate between the parties in all matters, every appeal and extension cut off. At which session, by virtue of the abovementioned compromissorial instrument, the Right Honourable [name], Sub-Chamberlain of [name], together with the aforesaid Honourable arbitrators, three placed by each party, descending to the disputed place, founded his jurisdiction with the security of the present act, in the presence of the Honourable and Noble [names] and others of various rank and condition assembled for this act, and ordered the court messenger of the Kingdom, the Honest [names], to proclaim the same, and caused the parties to be called to appear. At which session the Honourable [names] personally appearing, summoned by the summons letters of the Right Honourable Sub-Chamberlain acting as chief arbitrator — (if the collateral heirs do not enter into

the compromissorial instrument, then they are rather to be summoned, at the instance of the litigating parties in the royal name, to attempt that same delimitation and the demonstration of the boundary wall, or corner point, at the convergence of three or four estates) — acknowledged that same corner point to be true and legitimate; and one of them, the Honourable [names], collateral heir, requested the chief arbitrator or his arbitrators to erect for him, or for his estate, at that place, a third particular corner mound not presently existing, by reason of its having been pushed away from that place at the prior session, at the time of the erection of two corner mounds by the former heirs of that same village of the Sub-Chamberlain’s office. The erection of that same particular corner mound being suspended for the moment, he orders the registration of appearance for the parties. The plaintiff’s party with the Honourable [names] in person; the cited party who is also plaintiff, the Honourable [name], heir of the estates of the village of [name], likewise in person; the Honourable [names], collaterally summoned, likewise in person — appearing and judicially contesting the matter between themselves; the contested submissions having been heard; the resolution of the corner point or particular corner point being suspended, the court proceeded to the review of the boundary paths of both parties. First the originally plaintiff’s party commenced its boundary path from that same corner point and the place of the founded jurisdiction, and from those same two mounds, from the east toward the west, in a straight line; (the further boundary path shall be written according to the form described above, concerning the other

delimitation, drawn up in conformity therewith, from the thing presented to the eyes, setting down what is found in the boundary path, at which places, as far as the other corner point or particular corner point. Likewise that of the cited party.) (Both boundary paths of both parties having been reviewed, he finds a sworn inquiry necessary for more sufficient proof.) More shall be written from the foregoing act down to this place. (Which having been read, and weighed and examined in all their circumstances with the mature deliberation of his court, and the documents of the parties having been reviewed, favouring no party, having only GOD and justice before his eyes; both parties’ boundary paths having been rejected as containing the greatest obliqueness, confirmed neither by documentary evidence nor by real mounds or boundary markers found in the boundary path — he directs the boundary path to the parties from the thing presented to the eyes, at the arbitration of his court, so that perjuries may not occur; and the court proceeded to the erection of corner mounds, or the renewal of two of them, and the new erection of the third, at the application of the collateral party. (The circumscription of the mounds erected shall be written from the foregoing act, yet without the confirmation, since no party has won the boundary path.)

Decree Between Estates Never Previously Delimited, on Serious Contested Matters.

Done in the pine forest at the place of the differences, near

a wall mound of the estate of the village of [name] of the Honourable [names], and the estates of the villages of [name] of the Honourable [names], plaintiff, and of the village of [name] of the Honourable [names], respondent, hereditary estates of both villages meeting wall-to-wall, having from time immemorial been of one estate and lordship, erected in approximately the middle of the boundary wall; on the [day] of [name] in the year [name].

Before the Honourable [names] of Sieradz, and [names] of Łęczyca, Boundary Chamberlains, by virtue of the decree of the Crown Tribunal of Piotrków, issued on the [day] of [name] in the year [name] between the parties named below, in the matter of the delimitation of estates never previously delimited, whereby etc. (The protests, if any intervene, and the appearance, shall be written from the foregoing acts in accessory matters; and the review of the boundary paths down to this place.) Which having been read and weighed and examined in all their circumstances — since it has been proved before his court that the above-named estates of the village of [name] and the village of [name] had from time immemorial existed as one lordship and estate, never delimited, and had now been disposed into distinct hands and persons by terrestrial dispositions or instruments of resignation by the former heir — the court therefore, both parties’ boundary paths having been rejected and indeed adjudged away from them, directs its boundary path from the thing presented to the eyes, according to its conscience, the oath barred to the parties so that perjuries may not occur, at the arbitration of its court; and setting aside that same wall mound demonstrated at the place of the founded jurisdiction, the court proceeded toward the east to the third mound in order standing

in that same boundary wall, and fixes and assigns a place beside that same third mound for the corner point to be established, not crossing that same boundary wall in the slightest toward the village of the collaterally summoned party; and there at that place raised two corner mounds and built them up, with metal markers placed in them, namely charcoal, brick, and iron slag; the third — being that same wall mound of the estate of the village of [name] — since the Honourable [name], heir of the aforesaid village of [name], appearing in person, did not request the renewal of his mound, was therefore left without renewal. Proceeding from those mounds as straight as possible toward the south, along the bank of the mere called [name], left to the estate of the village of [name], a first wall mound was raised; in the further course of the boundary path a wall mound was likewise raised, on the boundary of the embankment of that same mere, opposite the mill constructed in that same mere, at an equal distance of a hundred paces from the second; and proceeding further from the same, the court reached a small river flowing from that same mere through the water sluice, on the bank of which small river in a more elevated place a third wall mound was raised, into which were placed metal markers — charcoal and iron slag — as in the first and second wall mounds. Proceeding from that small river from the third mound toward the south and assigning that same river

as the boundary and boundary wall, as a natural boundary for those same estates, the court reached the other boundary wall of the neighbouring estate, and there, beside the wall mound in the ninth place in that same boundary wall, situated to the east from the corner mounds of that boundary wall, not crossing the same, the court determined the boundary path; and there, in the presence of the heir of the village of [name], the Honourable [names], collaterally summoned, ordered two particular corner mounds to be erected for the aforesaid estates of the village of [name] and the other of [name]; in which he placed metal markers — charcoal, brick, and iron slag — and finally determined the boundary path for those same parties. He wills and declares those boundaries to have the force of perpetual validity, with the judicial declaration that whatever lies to the right of the plots, fields, meadows, and forests toward the west shall belong entirely to the estate and village of [name]; and whatever lies to the left shall belong entirely to the estate of the village of [name], so he declares. Both parties shall, however, have free and common pasture in the forests and barren plots for all time, without damage to the sown fields and meadows, as they were from antiquity. As for all claims and injuries caused by the parties to one another, arising from the disputed estate — and nothing has been done rashly by either party, but everything has proceeded under the pretext and claim of ownership of the estate —

he considers those claims to be compensated against claims. The protests and declarations interposed by either party down to today he annuls, voids, and cancels, by virtue of the present decree.

Decree on Serious Contested Matters Between Ecclesiastical and Terrestrial Estates.

Done at the field place of the differences between the estates of the village of [name] belonging from antiquity to the parish church, and the estates of the village of [name], hereditary property of the Honourable [name], in the pine forest called [name], near three corner mounds of the two aforesaid estates and of a third of the Honourable [name], collaterally summoned, situated at the convergence of three of those same estates, sufficiently notable; on the Monday next after the Sunday of [name], in the year of the Lord [names].

Before the Honourable [names], Boundary Chamberlain of the Palatinate of Sieradz, and of the District of Piotrków, by virtue of the referral of the boundary case from the Land Court of Sieradz, and likewise by virtue of the summons letters issued by the Right Honourable Sub-Chamberlain of the Palatinate of Sieradz, to both the cited party and the collateral heirs, with the session fixed for today as contained in the act, falling duly; of which summons letters

the tenor follows and is as follows: [names], Sub-Chamberlain of the Palatinate of Sieradz, etc. (The service return of those same letters, drawn from the records, acknowledged both against the cited party and against the collateral heirs, is to be inserted.) At today’s session, the Sub-Chamberlain’s office subscribed below founded its official jurisdiction, in the presence of the Honourable and Noble [names] and others of various rank and condition assembled for this act, and ordered the court messenger of the Kingdom, the Honest [names] of the village of [name], authentic and sworn, to proclaim and publish the same with security of the present act, and caused the parties to be called to appear. The parties having appeared — and indeed the plaintiff’s party with the Very Reverend [names], Parish Priest of the Parish Church of [name], with the consent of His Most Serene Highness the Archbishop of Gniezno, Primate of the Kingdom, as the local ordinary, given in person for the delimitation of those same estates of the village of [name] belonging to the church, and with the Honourable [names], heir of the estates of the village of [name], likewise in person; and the Honourable [names], collaterally summoned, likewise in person — (if any of the collateral heirs enters a protest, it shall be written at that place before the appearance, after the founded jurisdiction) — the parties having appeared and judicially contested the matter between themselves; the contested submissions of those same parties having been heard; the resolution of the corner point being suspended, the court proceeded to the review of the boundary paths demonstrated by both parties.

And indeed first the Very Reverend Parish Priest commenced his boundary path from the place of the founded jurisdiction. (The boundary path shall be written according to the position of the places and what is found therein; whatever the leading party has shown, whether it proceeded in a straight line or obliquely, shall be noted in conformity with the form of the boundary path noted above.) And likewise that of the cited party. The boundary paths having thus been concluded, the court finds that a sworn inquiry is necessary for more sufficient proof from both parties, etc. More shall be written from the foregoing act down to this place. Which having been read, and weighed and examined in all their circumstances with the mature deliberation of his court — since it has been proved, both from those same sworn inquiries and from the documentary evidence deposited in court by the Very Reverend Parish Priest (the party’s documents establishing the matter, with the act and day of session, shall be written) — that that same boundary path is true and legitimate, as having been directed by the Very Reverend Parish Priest and concluded from the starting point, through the intermediate points, to the end point, demonstrated to the court by a straight path; whereas the cited party had not commenced from the convergence of three estates, had demonstrated no mounds at all in the intermediate points, had directed its boundary path with the greatest obliqueness, and had not determined it to the end point; the Sub-Chamberlain’s court therefore, having weighed those same boundary paths on both sides, finding the more probable boundary path to be that of the Very Reverend

Parish Priest of [name], and the cited party’s having been rejected, the same having been adjudged to the said Very Reverend Parish Priest, the court proceeded to the erection of mounds — both corner and wall mounds — and to the renewal of the ancient ones. And first, at the place of the founded jurisdiction, it renewed the ancient corner mound for the estate of the village of [name] belonging to the church and raised it up; renewed a second likewise for the estate of the village of [name] of the cited party; and a third for the estate of the village of [name] of the collaterally summoned party; and marked all three of them with metal markers, namely glass, charcoal, brick, and iron slag. Proceeding from those corner mounds from the north toward the south, a wall mound was raised sixty paces from the corner mounds. (The further erection of mounds shall be written out, both of the wall mounds and of the other corner point; the positions of the places and the distance of each mound from the next shall be observed.) All the corner and wall mounds having thus been raised, the court decrees that the said Very Reverend Parish Priest shall confirm the same in that oath formula, adhering to the statute of the Kingdom, at the final mound with six noble witnesses — that by his boundary path he has taken nothing of the estate and land of the aforesaid hereditary village of [name] of the cited party and appropriated it to his own village and ecclesiastical estate. The court messenger is added for the pronouncing of the oath formula; and since

the same Very Reverend Parish Priest, in satisfaction of the decree of his court, swore a bodily oath before the image of the Crucified Lord, the solemnities of oaths being observed, together with six noble witnesses [names], in the formula described above, before the face of his court, with the party present — he therefore wills and declares that those same boundaries shall have the force of perpetual validity; which boundaries let no one dare to violate or annihilate, under a penalty of two thousand Polish marks to be decreed by the competent court, by virtue of the present decree.

It is to be noted here: if the cited party had interposed a motion against the swearing of the oath, it must be admitted as at the first session of the field hearing, from the decree of the land court as the court of first instance, to the Crown Tribunal court; and a delineation of a map shall be made by the Sub-Chamberlain’s office, with a true and real representation of those same estates, and of the collateral estates and the boundary paths of both parties, and of the mounds raised — both corner and wall mounds — so that the Tribunal court may be able to cognise the straighter and more probable boundary path and subscribe to it; faith shall be given to it in that same court, if the delineation of that same map is made by a sworn person. This falls not only to the surveyor but is also the duty of the Sub-Chamberlain’s office; they must have experience in this.

Boundaries Between Terrestrial Estates, Made by Mutual Consent of the Parties by Virtue of an Amicable Settlement.

Done at the field place of the differences between the estates of the village of [name] of the Honourable [names], and the estates of the village of [name] of the Honourable [names], hereditary estates, near three clearly notable corner mounds in the pine forest called [name], at the convergence of three estates, and the third of the estate of the village of [name] of the Honourable [names], collateral heir, likewise hereditary; on the Monday next after the feast of [names], in the year of the Lord [name].

Before the Honourable [names], Boundary Chamberlain of the Palatinate of Sieradz and the District of Piotrków, by virtue of a certain amicable settlement dated the [day] of [name] in the year [name], drawn up and executed between the parties contained in the act for the purpose of the delimitation of the aforesaid estates, subscribed by the hands of those making the settlement, and likewise by the collateral heirs; the tenor of which settlement follows and is as follows:

As nothing can be more lasting and more perfect than that which proceeds from the free will of man, we therefore, the undersigned below, avoiding the great and intolerable costs and legal expenses which parties who have engaged in such cases are accustomed to bear upon themselves, and which bring

one almost to the final ruin of his fortune through a dispute over boundaries lasting several years — we have made between ourselves such a plan of the boundary path and boundary wall between our estates and villages, from corner to corner. (The boundary path agreed upon shall be described explicitly, by what places it runs, even if not in a straight line, for in such boundaries the straight line is rarely observed.) For the purpose of which delimitation we are obliged to request His Grace the Sub-Chamberlain of our Palatinate, and to bring him to the described place, at the latest within four weeks; which boundaries marked by mounds by His Grace the Sub-Chamberlain, together with our successors, we bind and shall be obliged to keep and observe for ever, under a pledge of two thousand marks — in case of contravention, we designate the forum of the Land Court of Sieradz or of the Crown Tribunal for the rendering of account — and to this we subscribe with our own hands under our customary seals. Given at [name], in the year [name].

At which session, by virtue of the aforesaid amicable settlement, at the application and official request of the parties to the settlement, at the disputed place, the jurisdiction having been founded there, and proclaimed by the court messenger in the presence of both the principal acting parties and the collateral heirs and other persons of various rank and condition assembled for this act,

the office proceeded to the erection of mounds by virtue of the aforesaid amicable settlement. And first it caused the corner mounds to be renewed, with the placing of metal markers — charcoal, brick, and iron slag; proceeding from those mounds from the west toward the east, a wall mound was raised at the place called [name], first in number, etc. (and thus the erection of those same mounds shall be described in sequence; the boundary path may also be set out in the Polish language.)

All the corner and wall mounds having thus been raised and the boundaries determined, by the authority of his office he wills and declares the same to have the force of perpetual validity, and ordered the court messenger aforesaid to proclaim the same; if any of the collateral heirs wishes to contest those same boundaries, let him do so now. Which boundaries all the parties shall be bound to keep and observe, under a penalty of two thousand marks, by virtue of the present act.

FOREWARNING

To the Reader Who Would Stir up Litigation.

To all and each of those who litigate, I wish sincerely that they would be pleased to proceed by the same method — the shorter, amicable way of settlement — and to resolve the boundary differences among themselves, avoiding

the immense costs of litigation, and subjections both in the Crown Tribunal courts and at the field hearing session, over a long series of years; for it may be said that a boundary case — and most of all between powerful parties — is immortal.

He who has the intention of delimiting his estates and inheritance from a neighbouring inheritance, let him first learn to be at home what he ought to be abroad before the contestation of the litigation. And since no one is judge in his own cause, let him consult those versed in the law in boundary cases, and learned men; let him review the documents and weigh them carefully and diligently, whether they correspond with the position and situation of the places in the boundary path which he wishes to claim for himself. Let him place no trust at all in the reports and allegations of his subjects, because they very often deceive; but his own eyes and the documents are more to be believed. For the allegation of subjects is flattering and servile, which seduces and incites to litigation: they allege one thing in private to please their master, and show another in court around the sworn inquiry, or give testimony out of ignorance; and from this come perjuries with offence to the Divine Majesty. I have known many who, relying on the allegation of their subjects and not having well considered the grounds of the matter to be pursued, lost their case. And even if some perchance won the boundary path, they nevertheless perished stripped of their substance — handing over their estate to creditors, and leaving to their successors only the chests of documents of a ruined fortune and exhausted funds.

Let a man take the measure of the costs and the fruit of the thing to be won. The outcome of war and of law is uncertain; their beginnings are always pleasing, their progress hard, their outcome doubtful — and every combatant loses in the end who does not begin from the end.

And mark this: that if you by force and power shall seize from your neighbour to the east, the collateral heir may wrest from you from the west.

And above all things they are to be avoided — even with just oaths, and the solemn formula weighing heavily upon him — that parcel of estate won and gained by oath is very precious; I advise no one to buy it so dearly; it is better to conclude the matter by the shorter path of friendship, without hazard to one’s conscience.

A point of honour also incites various men — and great men above all — to litigation; they use every means for the sake of a point of honour to win the matter and a favourable judgment. If it falls out justly for them, good; but if they win unjustly, it weighs heavily upon their conscience, and they are obliged to make restitution before the forum of conscience.

Consider therefore, Reader, these reflections, and take note of them if you wish to live in peace — which I wish you with a clear conscience, having seen so many examples played out in the lives of various persons.

ON ROYAL COMMISSIONS,

Or the Delimitation of Terrestrial Estates with Royal Estates.

Before the form and model of a commissarial act — in respect of the boundaries between the estates of His Sacred Royal Majesty on the one part and the hereditary terrestrial estates of the nobility on the other, erected or to be erected — is set forth, the difference, in particular how far royal commissions differ from the termination or delimitation of estates on both sides terrestrial, explained above, must first be considered; which may readily be gathered from the notes below.

And first, that for a future commissarial act, the referral of the land court to the field — which in the process described above, between estates on both sides terrestrial, is laid as its foundation — is not necessary; indeed, instead of the referral, a royal commission or instrument of commission must be obtained from His Sacred Royal Majesty, from the Chancery of the Kingdom, directed to certain ^[Five commissioners are to be present together with the Sub-Chamberlain.] principal persons — two of the dignitary order, two of the terrestrial officials, and a fifth of the Sub-Chamberlain or Boundary Chamberlain of whatever palatinate or land they may most readily be engaged — (who, on account of the absence of one or two, are customarily named in greater number) for the purpose of the delimitation of estates and the erection of mounds; which commission may also be issued outside the borders of the Kingdom, together

with a mandate to the leaseholders of the royal estates and to the collateral heirs.

And thereafter, in place of a summons, the summons letters ^[The summons letters and mandate must precede the session by two weeks.] of the lord commissioners, both to the Captain and to the collateral heir, for a certain fixed session and place, shall be issued and served by the court messenger and two noblemen two weeks before the session, together with the royal mandates; the service return of the same, once served, the same court messenger must acknowledge before the records of his own district; and the commissarial act itself must be concluded within the space of one year and six weeks.

Furthermore, that in the court and act of a commission, by virtue of the laws and constitutions of the Kingdom contained in this book, no postponement is granted, on the ground that it is an act of a single occasion; except that if the matter cannot be concluded in one day, it may be transferred to the next immediately following day and continued and executed on the morrow.

Moreover, no appeal from that commissarial court ^[In the commissarial act no postponement is granted. No appeal is granted.] and its decree lies to any higher court of the Kingdom, on the ground that it is an absolute court and has, by virtue of the laws of the Kingdom (its conscience alone obligated and burdened thereto), the absolute faculty and power of judging and distinguishing estates from royal ones.

Furthermore, as regards the form of this court: that ^[The royal subjects are required to confirm the mounds, not the leaseholder.] in respect of the right of path and the won boundary path, not the leaseholder of the royal estates but the peasant settlers of those same

estates, that is the village subjects, are required to confirm by oath the won boundary path regarding the true and just conduct and erection of the mounds at the very determination of the boundaries — namely six subjects from the community, in the oath formula prescribed by the statute of the Kingdom.

If, however, the heir of terrestrial estates wins the boundary path, then not his subjects but the nobleman himself, together with six witnesses of equal rank, shall be required to confirm the won boundary path in the oath formula prescribed by the statute of the Kingdom.

Moreover, when both parties are wanting in documentary proof ^[The commissioners make the boundaries in the absence of boundary markers.] and visible boundary markers, or only doubtful ones are standing, then in such a case, both parties’ boundary paths having been rejected, the commissarial court shall determine the aforesaid boundaries from the thing presented to the eyes and by the moderation of its court, on equitable and just grounds, the oath barred to the parties.

^[Prosecutorial letters against the commissarial act are void and of no effect.] Furthermore, any citations and summonses to any court of the Kingdom whatsoever — whether on account of a motion or appeal not admitted, whether in accessory matters or in the final sentence, or for the purpose of quashing or relieving the commissarial act, issued on whatever legal pretext and ground — are void and of no effect, once the commissarial act has been determined in full and complete form, in the customary legal form and with all prior solemnities necessary for that purpose.

Furthermore, the penalty for the destruction of mounds

erected by the commissioners is far greater than for terrestrial ones, with restoration at the expense of the leaseholder of the royal estates, through the same number of commissioners and the Sub-Chamberlain’s office designated by His Sacred Royal Majesty.

Finally, ^[Between royal and terrestrial estates no amicable settlement is granted.] whereas differences occasioned by the boundaries and limits between estates on both sides terrestrial may be resolved and settled by amicable composition, those between royal and terrestrial estates cannot be concluded and resolved by the same method and by amicable means, for the reason that they are estates of the Commonwealth, which cannot, without the consent of all the orders of the Kingdom, be alienated, nor in any part diminished, severed, or made to suffer detriment.

Commissarial Decree on Serious Contested Matters of the Parties, Issued by the Moderation of the Court.

Done at the field place of the differences between the estates of the village of [name], hereditary property of the Honourable [names], on the one part, and the estates of His Sacred Royal Majesty of the village of [name] belonging to the Captaincy of [name], presently leased to the Right Honourable [names], on the other part; beside a public road running from the town of [name] to the village of [name], and near three particular corner mounds or corner mounds — one of the aforesaid estates of the village of [name], the second of the estates of the village of [name]

of His Sacred Royal Majesty, and the third of the village of [name], hereditary property of the Honourable [names], collaterally summoned — situated on the border of the pine forest, at the place called [name]; on the Monday next after the feast of [names], in the year of the Lord [names].

Before the Illustrious Right Honourable [names], Castellan of [name], and the Right Honourable [names], Sub-Chamberlain of the Palatinate of [name] (the other several commissioners are to be given their proper titles, those who subscribed themselves upon the summons letters of the parties), commissioners designated and deputed by His Sacred Royal Majesty to decide, finally conclude, and determine the differences occasioned by the boundaries between the estates described above; by virtue of the Commission Letters issued under the title of His Sacred Royal Majesty, sealed with the seal of the greater or lesser Chancery of the Kingdom, sound, intact, and unimpaired, and bearing no mark of suspicion; ^[The Instrument of the Royal Commission of His Sacred Royal Majesty.] the tenor of which, word for word, follows and is as follows:

AUGUSTUS THE THIRD, by the Grace of God King of Poland, Grand Duke of Lithuania, Ruthenia, Prussia, Masovia, Samogitia, Livonia, Kiev, Volhynia, Podolia, Podlachia, Smolensk, Severia, and likewise Hereditary Duke of Saxony, Prince and Elector.

To the Right Honourable and Honourable [names] [names], sincerely and faithfully beloved by Us, Our royal grace. Right Honourable and Honourable, sincerely and faithfully beloved by Us: We have learned that differences have arisen on the occasion of the boundaries between Our royal estates of the town, namely

of [name] and the villages belonging to it, leased to the Right Honourable [names], Palatine of [name], [names], Our Captain, on the one part; and the hereditary estates of the village of [name] of the Honourable [names], on the other part. Which matter We, desiring it to be settled and composed, have thought it fitting to commit to your Sincerity and Fidelity, in whose good faith, integrity, and skill in conducting affairs We have confidence and knowledge; as We commit it by these presents. Enjoining and commanding the same, that by mutually consulting together on a time and day suitable for that purpose, and fixing it among themselves, and having summoned the parties whose interest it concerns by their summons letters to their presence, they convene at the place of the differences; and there, having heard and listened to the submissions and responses of those same parties, and received the sufficient testimony of elderly witnesses of good repute, by means of their bodily oath if necessary, and having fully cognised and examined the thing itself presented to the eyes and the position and truth of that place — favouring neither party, but having only GOD and His justice before their eyes — let them delimit and distinguish the said estates, and mark them with mounds and metal markers, in the manner customary in such matters; being diligent, however, to provide that by this delimitation Our royal estates be in no way diminished. In which matter We burden the consciences of your Sincerity and Fidelity. Whatever, moreover, they shall enact and decree in that matter, We will to be ratified and acceptable, and

that it be kept and observed inviolably by the said parties. The absence of one or of several of your Sincerity and Fidelity notwithstanding, provided those are present and in such number as by law ought to be present. Given etc.

Those Commission Letters of His Sacred Royal Majesty having been read out, at today’s session assigned to the parties by Us, or by our summons letters, as commissioners from His Sacred Royal Majesty, the commissarial jurisdiction having been founded and proclaimed with all security of the present act by the court messenger of the Kingdom, the Honest [name] of the village of [name], authentic and sworn, in the presence of the Honourable and Noble [names] and others of various rank and condition assembled for this act; the tenor of which summons letters issued to the Right Honourable Captain or leaseholder of the royal estates of the town of [name] and the villages belonging thereto, follows in this form: ^[Summons letters to the Right Honourable Captain from the commissioners.] We, [names] [names], commissioners designated and deputed by His Sacred Royal Majesty to perform the matters written below, give notice to you, the Right Honourable or Honourable [names], leaseholder or Captain of the royal estates of [name]: that the Commission Letters of His Sacred Royal Majesty have been presented to us, by which His Royal Majesty has seen fit to commit and command us to compose the differences occasioned by the boundaries between the above-named royal estates of [name], presently Your leaseholding, on the one part; and the hereditary estates of the village of [name] of the Honourable [names],

on the other part; to distinguish them by mounds and metal markers and others customarily done in such matters, except that first the sufficient testimony of elderly witnesses of good repute shall be received, by their bodily oath if necessary; and to mark and delimit them — of the Commission Letters themselves, of which fuller account will be given to You at the approaching session, in their tenor. Wherefore We command You and the community of the subjects of the aforesaid village of [name], by royal authority and Our own commissarial authority which We exercise in this matter, that You and the true community of the subjects, with Your assistance as leaseholder, appear personally, legitimately, and peremptorily before Us and Our commissarial court, on the [day] next after the feast of [name], next and immediately to come, at the aforesaid place of the differences, where We shall have been situated and stationed by the plaintiff’s party, at the instance of the aforesaid Honourable [names], heir of the village of [name], plaintiff; and that You judicially attempt the matter of the delimitation of the aforesaid estates, and respond to whatever by law shall be due. Certifying You that whether You appear or not at the fixed session, We shall nonetheless proceed to those matters that are incumbent upon Us from the prescription of the laws. Your contumacy and that of the subjects of the aforesaid royal estates subject to Your possession, and Your opposition, notwithstanding. Given at Our places of residence on the [day] next, in the year of the Lord [names].

^[Royal mandate to the Right Honourable Captain.] The series of the Royal Mandate of His Sacred Royal Majesty given to the same Right Honourable Captain is as follows: AUGUSTUS THE THIRD, by the Grace of God King of Poland, Grand Duke of Lithuania, Ruthenia, Prussia, Masovia, Samogitia, Kiev, Volhynia, Podolia, Podlachia, Livonia, Smolensk, Severia, and Chernigov, and likewise Hereditary Duke of Saxony, Prince and Elector.

To the Right Honourable or Honourable [names] [names], Captain or leaseholder of Our estates, sincerely and faithfully beloved by Us. We have designated certain of Our commissioners to make and establish boundaries between Our royal estates of the town or village of [name] of the leaseholding of Your Fidelity on the one part, and the hereditary estates of the village of [name] of the Honourable or Noble [name] on the other part. Wherefore We require Your Fidelity, that as soon as it shall have been summoned by the summons letters of the aforesaid Our commissioners, it appear before them at the aforesaid place of the differences, be present at the delimitation of the estates, and keep and observe firmly whatever they shall decree in that matter. Let it take care, however, that no detriment be done to Our royal estates by that delimitation. For Our grace. Given etc. The service return of which mandate, acknowledged for service in the estates of [name] before the municipal records of [name] on the [day] of [name] in the year of the Lord [names], by the court messenger of the Kingdom, the Honest [names] of the village of [name], together with two noblemen [names].

Thereafter were issued the summons letters of the Right Honourable Commissioners [names] against the Honourable [name], heir of the estates of the village of [name], collateral heir; the acknowledged service return of those same served letters by the same court messenger, before the municipal records of [name], together with the mandate of His Sacred Royal Majesty; ^[Summons letters to the Honourable collateral heir.] the tenor of which follows in this form: Done at the castle of [name], on the [day] of [name] in the year [name] etc. (Written from the authentic extract of the service return.) We etc., commissioners designated and deputed by His Sacred Royal Majesty to perform the matters written below. To you, the Honourable [names], heir of the estates of the village of [name], collateral heir: we give notice that the Commission Letters of His Sacred Royal Majesty have been presented to us, by which His Majesty has seen fit to commit and command us to compose the differences occasioned by the boundaries between the royal estates of [name] of the leaseholding of the Right Honourable [names], Captain of [name], on the one part, and the hereditary estates of the village of [name] of the Honourable [name], plaintiff, on the other part; to distinguish them by mounds and metal markers customarily used in such matters, and to mark and delimit them. Since, however, your aforesaid estates of [name] are said to lie contiguous to the estates principally to be delimited: we therefore command You, by royal authority and Our commissarial authority which We exercise in this matter, that You appear personally and peremptorily before Us and Our commissarial court, on the [day] next after the feast of [name], next and immediately to come, at the aforesaid place of the differences, where We shall have been situated and

stationed by the aforesaid plaintiff’s party, at the instance of the above-named heir [name], plaintiff; and that You judicially attempt this matter of the delimitation of the aforesaid estates, and acknowledge Your boundary wall from Your hereditary estates of the village of [name] and Your corner point or particular corner point existing at the convergence of three estates, and respond to whatever by law shall be due. Certifying You that whether You appear at the fixed session or not, We shall nonetheless proceed to those matters that are incumbent upon Us from Our office and the prescription of the laws, against You — Your absence, contumacy, and unlawful opposition notwithstanding. Given at Our place of residence on the [day] etc.

Likewise the Royal Mandate of His Sacred Royal Majesty given to the same cited collateral heir of the village of [name], of the following tenor: AUGUSTUS THE THIRD etc. The title shall be written from the foregoing act.

To the Honourable [names], heir of the estates of the village of [name], faithfully beloved by Us. Honourable, faithfully beloved by Us. We have designated certain of Our commissioners to make boundaries between Our royal estates of the town of [name] and the villages belonging to it, presently leased to the Right Honourable or Honourable [names] and [name], Noble [names], and his hereditary estates on the other part. Since, however, the above-named hereditary estates of [name] of Your Fidelity are said to lie adjacent to those same estates to be delimited, We therefore command Your Fidelity

that as soon as You shall have been summoned by the summons letters of the aforesaid Our commissioners, You appear before them at the place of the differences, attempt the boundary wall of Your estates, and where it is to be acknowledged, acknowledge it. Whatever, moreover, they shall decree in that matter, keep and observe it firmly and inviolably. For Our grace. Given at Warsaw etc. (It is to be noted that if there are several collateral heirs on the other boundary of the boundary wall, they are likewise to be summoned by summons letters and mandate.)

After which enrolment, the commissarial court caused the parties to be called to appear. Those having been called, the Honourable [names], heir of the estates of the village of [name], personally arriving at that place, ^[The collateral heir protests, not acknowledging for the plaintiff the convergence of three estates and the corner point at that place.] not acknowledging there the true convergence of three estates, but elsewhere, where he offers to demonstrate it; and the mounds which the plaintiff’s party takes as corner mounds for itself are not true mounds but hillocks — and on that account reproduced before his commissarial court the boundaries or official act drawn from the Sub-Chamberlain’s records of [name], of the act of [name] in the year [name], from which it appears that the corner point or particular corner point of those estates existed in another place, and on that account protested against the same Honourable [names], plaintiff, regarding the improper founding of his court, as being on his own property, subject to no dispute, proceeding only to the avulsion of the hereditary estate of the protestant

^[The plaintiff counter-protests regarding the improper repulsion.] The Honourable [names], plaintiff, counter-protested against the Honourable [name] regarding his improper repulsion of both the plaintiff himself and the commissarial court from the place of the founded jurisdiction, alleging that the boundary act which the collateral party produces does not bear upon this place of the founded jurisdiction at all, but upon another corner point and boundary wall of that same hereditary village; regarding which improper demonstration he solemnly protested. ^[The Captain likewise protests, not acknowledging the corner point at the place of the founded jurisdiction.] The Right Honourable Captain likewise protests, not acknowledging at the place of the founded jurisdiction the true corner point, nor the convergence of the three aforesaid estates, but elsewhere, where he offers and declares he will demonstrate it in his boundary path. Having noted the protests and counter-protests of the parties, he orders the registration of appearance for those same parties. The plaintiff’s party with ^[Appearance.] the Honourable [names] in person; the Right Honourable [names], Captain of [name], and the Honest [names], advocate, and the whole community of the settlers of the aforesaid royal village, cited, in the assistance of their master, in person; the Honourable [names], heir of the collateral estates of the village of [name], likewise in person; appearing before his court and judicially contesting the matter between themselves. The Royal commissarial court of His Sacred Royal Majesty, finding the appearance of the parties sufficient, orders those same parties to proceed to trial in the present case. In the trial, the contested submissions having been heard and

weighed carefully and diligently; the decision of the corner point or particular corner point ^[The decision of the corner point duly suspended.] of the aforesaid estates being suspended — as not having been acknowledged, indeed denied, both by the Honourable [names], collateral heir, and by the Right Honourable Captain — ^[The court proceeded to the review of the boundary paths.] the court proceeded to the review of the boundary paths to be demonstrated by the parties. The sun at last declining toward the west, he ordered the commissarial act to be adjourned to the morrow by the court messenger of the Kingdom, the Honest [names], apparitor of his court. The morrow arriving, namely the Tuesday after the feast of [names] in the present year, the commissarial jurisdiction having been reassumed and proclaimed by the aforesaid court messenger, he proceeded to the review of the plaintiff’s party’s boundary path first, and declared that it should follow the same. And first the plaintiff’s party commenced its boundary path ^[The plaintiff’s party’s boundary path.] from the place of the founded jurisdiction and from those same three corner mounds, from the west toward the east, as straight as possible; and demonstrated to the court a hillock resembling a mound, fifty paces from the corner mounds, at the edge of a dense pine forest grown with various kinds of trees; against which demonstration of the mound, both the Right Honourable Captain and his subjects protested, denying it to be a true mound but a hillock built by ants; and in verification thereof requested its opening, granting which application as allowable by law,

in which, when opened, nothing was found save ants mixed with earth. Proceeding further toward the same eastern quarter, through that same pine forest, the court reached a place called Czarny Smug, at which place it demonstrated to the court a hillock in the manner of a mound, having no circle or roundness; in which, when opened at the application of the party, nothing was found. Continuing its boundary path further toward the same quarter, and crossing with difficulty the boggy and waterlogged places called Białe Ługi, it demonstrated to the court, in a more elevated place, an oblong hillock, not resembling a mound at all; and likewise, when the same was opened, no metal markers were found. And proceeding further through the same pine forest with the path cleared, curving and not in a straight line toward the winter east, inclining this way and that, it demonstrated to the court a hillock of no small height, taking it as a wall mound; regarding which demonstration the Right Honourable Captain protested regarding the unlawful display, asserting that it had grown from the roots of a felled tree; the party having requested the opening, the roots of the felled tree and part of a rotted trunk were found therein. Continuing its boundary path further and inclining toward the southern quarter, the court reached a small river flowing from the mill of [name] of the village of [name]; which small river the plaintiff’s party took as the boundary wall and natural boundary, and proceeding along that same small river

for almost one quarter of a mile, and thereafter leaving it and proceeding through dry scrubland for three or four furlongs, it demonstrated to the court a ditch dug by human hand, alleging it to be a boundary ditch representing the boundary wall; at which place the Right Honourable Captain protested against the aforesaid Honourable [names] regarding the unlawful conduct of the commissarial court and the illegal demonstration of the boundary path, alleging that the small river flowing from the Captain’s mill is not the natural boundary of the aforesaid estates, since both its banks and bed are the proper property of the royal estates and belong to the village of [name]; and likewise that the ditch is not a boundary ditch, but has been erected only around a clay deposit, at present grown over with scrub. That ditch extending for only one furlong, the court reached a place called Ostra Górka, at which it demonstrated particular corner mounds or corner mounds, concluding and determining the boundary wall of its estate and of the royal estates of the village of [name]; and beside the particular corner mound of the collateral heir, the Honourable [names], heir of the estates of the village of [name], determined its boundary path. Against that entire boundary path the same Right Honourable Captain protested ^[The Captain protests against the entire boundary path of the plaintiff’s party.] — regarding its nullity as containing the greatest obliqueness, first toward the east and then toward the south, inclining this way and that in a curve, conducted partly through the proper plots of the royal estates of the estate

^[Determination of the plaintiff’s party’s boundary path.] of the village of [name], partly with the small river taken wall-fashion as a natural boundary, confirmed by no documents and demonstrated by no real mounds. The Honourable [names] counter-protests against the aforesaid protest, having duly and legitimately continued his boundary path, and offers and declares that he will prove the same both by documents in the course of the case and by sworn inquiries. At which place the same plaintiff’s party requested of the court of the Illustrious and Right Honourable Commissioners that the Honourable [names], heir of the village of [name], as the final collateral heir of the determined boundary path, be called to the court, pursuant to the commissarial summons letters issued at his instance against the same, of the following tenor: (Similar and conforming summons letters as against the first collateral heir at the commencement of the boundary path shall be inserted, with the name and surname and estates changed, and likewise by virtue of the royal mandate directed to that same cited heir for that purpose; a similar mandate as above.) To which application the Illustrious and Right Honourable Commissioners ordered the aforesaid Honourable [names], heir of the village of [name], as the final collateral heir, to be called to their court; ^[Acknowledgement of the corner point or particular corner point by the final collateral heir.] who, called by the aforesaid court messenger, appeared in person at that place, and there at that same place called Ostra Górka, acknowledged the convergence of the boundary walls of three estates, or the true particular corner point, of the village of [name], hereditary property of the Honourable plaintiff, and of the village of [name] of the royal estates, and of his own third collateral estate;

and proved it by the boundaries of the year [names].

The plaintiff’s boundary path having been reviewed and faithfully noted by the commissarial court, it proceeded to the review of the Right Honourable Captain’s boundary path. And ^[The Right Honourable Captain’s boundary path.] first he commenced his boundary path from this corner point or particular corner point, acknowledged by the Honourable [names], collateral heir, and proceeded toward the north from the south, and reached a oak forest called Dąbrowa, and there beside a road not much frequented running from the village of [name] to the village of [name], demonstrated to the court a hillock, alleging it to be the first wall mound, almost three furlongs from that same corner point; the plaintiff’s party requested its opening; in which, when opened, nothing was found save what appears to be mixed earth. From that mound, proceeding in a straight line through that same oak forest, he reached transverse roads — one running from the town of [name] to the village of [name], the other from the village of [name] to the village of [name] — between which roads he showed the court a hillock in the manner of a mound; in which, when opened, nothing was found. Proceeding further along the boundary path from that opened, allegedly mound, inclining toward the midpoint between the east and the north, he led the court to the boggy and waterlogged place Białe Ługi, and crossing the boundary of that same place, demonstrated to the court an incision in a birch tree in the manner of a cross; and from that tree proceeding toward the north through a forest grown partly

of pine, partly of oak, partly of hazel, for almost six furlongs from that birch tree, demonstrated to the court a similar incision in a maple tree, alleging those incisions as marking the boundary wall. The Honourable [names], plaintiff, protested against the unlawful demonstration by the Right Honourable Captain and his subjects — both of the hillocks and of the incisions freshly made not long ago by his subjects; regarding which unlawful act, he produced a protest and an inspection by the court messenger together with noblemen [names] of those same incisions, before the municipal records of [name] in the year [name], and proves it at the present session.

The Right Honourable Captain counter-protesting that those same incisions were made from antiquity, and the mounds are truly real, because antiquity was not in the habit of placing metal markers. Having thus noted the protests, he led the court to the boundary of that same forest, and beneath the very forest, toward the fields and plots of the estate of the village of [name], at the convergence of three estates, ^[Determination of the Right Honourable Captain’s boundary path.] with the collaterally summoned party present and acknowledging the same, determined his boundary path. The plaintiff’s party protests the nullity and invalidity of the entire boundary path, as having been conducted obliquely, neither through the intermediate points nor to the end point.

Both boundary paths of the parties having thus been concluded and reviewed, he limits the present act as the sun declines toward the west, to the morrow, and orders the court messenger

to adjourn the same. The morrow arriving, namely the [day] of [name] in the year [name], the jurisdiction having been reassumed from the abovementioned limiting incident, ^[In the prosecution.] he ordered the parties to proceed in the case. In the prosecution of the case, he finds ^[A sworn inquiry enjoined.] that a sworn inquiry is necessary for more sufficient proof of the boundary paths; decreeing that both parties, and likewise the collateral heir, the Honourable [names], standing in the position of an uncertain corner point — and indeed the principal acting parties in respect both of the corner point and of the general boundary path; and the Honourable [names], collateral heir, as regards his corner point or particular corner point only, where the true convergence of three estates may be found — shall conduct that sworn inquiry and call witnesses, with prior interrogatories drawn up and communicated to one another, and this immediately; and the court messenger is added for the pronouncing of the oath formula regarding the impartiality of the witnesses. Which oath, since the parties — both the principal acting parties and the collateral heir — before the face of his court, before the image of the Crucified Lord, with the court messenger reading the formula to them, swore; he therefore proceeded to conduct that same sworn inquiry, and orders the parties to call witnesses — first for the plaintiff’s party and then for the cited party. They called, produced, and swore. The sworn inquiries having been produced and concluded, he descended to the reading thereof. Which having been read and weighed and examined in all their circumstances with the mature deliberation

of his court — since both ^[Final decree.] parties are wanting in their proofs — the court, resolving the suspension of the cognisance of the corner point or particular corner point of the principal acting parties’ estates and of the Honourable [names], collateral heir, made previously: both those same parties’ boundary paths having been rejected as proved by no documentary evidence or sworn inquiries — save that in the one and only corner point both parties and the collateral heir acknowledged to one another the convergence of three estates; whereas in the boundary paths one party had continued obliquely into the other’s proper plots, demonstrated hillocks to the court in place of mounds, and conducted its boundary paths through almost all four quarters of the compass, starting from the north and going first toward the east, then toward the south and west — the commissarial court, for the reasons alleged above, from the thing presented to the eyes and in part from the sworn testimonies of elderly witnesses, favouring neither party and having only GOD and its conscience before its eyes, declares that it directs the boundary path at the arbitration of its court and erects the mounds (the oath barred, so that perjuries may not occur on the part of either party); and assigns the place called [names] for the corner mounds of those same aforesaid estates, and the court proceeded to the erection of mounds — first the corner mounds at that same assigned place; and indeed first for the plaintiff’s party and its estate a corner mound was raised toward the east,

for the royal estates toward the west, and for the Honourable [names], collateral heir, and his estate of the village of [name] toward the north; with the placing of metal markers in each of them, namely charcoal, brick, and iron slag, and glass bottles filled with millet, with a description in parchment of the present act by which the delimitation of those estates is made, with the year and act, so that it may remain for posterity in the event of any question arising. And from that same corner point, toward the south a first wall mound was raised, eighty paces from the corner point; (and so the boundary path and the erection of the mounds shall be written out and accurately described, so that the description thereof corresponds with the position of the places); and the court reached the particular corner mounds or corner mounds situated in the southern quarter, pursuant to the acknowledgement of the collateral heir, and ordered those same mounds to be renewed with the placing of metal markers, as placed at the original corner point. The boundaries having been duly and legitimately determined, the Illustrious and Right Honourable Commissioners by their authority order the parties to keep those same boundaries and observe them inviolably, and will and declare that they shall have the force of perpetual and inviolable validity; and decree in the present that whatever is on the right side of the hereditary estates from the original corner point to the determination of the particular corner point shall belong entirely to the estate of the village of [name].

Terrestrial estate; and whatever is on the left side and left hand, similarly entirely, shall for all time belong and pertain to the aforesaid estates of the village of [name] of His Sacred Royal Majesty; this also being provided and safeguarded: that the heirs and leaseholders of the aforesaid estates now delimited shall not deny one another mutual pasture in their respective estates (being careful, however, of damage), but shall maintain it among themselves, and their successors for all perpetual times. Which the above-named court messenger was ordered to proclaim and announce, by virtue of the present decree.

Commissarial Decree on Serious Contested Matters of the Parties, with the Oath Enjoined upon the Party That Has Won the Boundary Path.

Done in the pine forest or forest grown with various kinds of trees, called [name], at the place of the differences between the estates of the village of [name], hereditary property of the Honourable [names], on the one part, and the estates of His Sacred Royal Majesty of the village of [name] belonging to the Captaincy of [name], presently leased to the Right Honourable [name], on the other part; near three particular corner mounds or corner mounds of the aforesaid estates and the third of the village of [name], hereditary property of the Honourable [names], collaterally summoned; on the Monday next after the feast of [names], in the year of the Lord [names].

Before the Illustrious Right Honourable [names], Castellan of [name], and the Right Honourable [names], Boundary Chamberlain of the Palatinate (the other several commissioners are to be given their proper titles, those who subscribed themselves upon the summons letters of the parties, now present), commissioners designated and deputed by His Sacred Royal Majesty to decide, finally conclude, and determine the differences occasioned by the boundaries between the estates described above; by virtue of the Commission Letters issued under the title of His Sacred Royal Majesty, sealed with the seal of the greater or lesser Chancery of the Kingdom, sound, intact, and unimpaired, and bearing no mark of suspicion; the tenor of which, word for word, follows and is as follows: AUGUSTUS THE THIRD, by the Grace of God King of Poland (this instrument is to be inserted to the end). Those Commission Letters of His Sacred Royal Majesty having been read out, at today’s session assigned to the parties by Us, or by our summons letters as commissioners from His Sacred Royal Majesty, the commissarial jurisdiction having been founded and proclaimed with all security of the present act by the court messenger of the Kingdom, the Honest [name] of the village of [name], authentic and sworn, in the presence of the Honourable and Noble [names] and others of various rank and condition assembled for this act; the tenor of the summons letters issued both to the Right Honourable Captain or leaseholder of the royal estates

of the town of [name] and the villages belonging to it, and to the community, or settlers and subjects of the village of [name], follows in this form: We, [names] [names], commissioners designated by His Sacred Royal Majesty to perform the matters written below, to you, the Right Honourable [names], leaseholder of the royal estates of [name], and to the Honest [names] [names] etc. (to be inserted as in the immediately preceding commissarial act). The series of the Royal Mandate of His Sacred Royal Majesty given to the same Right Honourable Captain is as follows: (the mandate is to be inserted word for word.)

Thereafter were issued the summons letters of the Right Honourable Commissioners against the Honourable [names], heir of the estates of the village of [name], collateral heir; the acknowledged service return of those same served letters by the same court messenger, before the municipal records of [name], together with the mandate of His Sacred Royal Majesty; the tenor of which follows in this form: Done at the castle of [name], on the [day] of [name] in the year [name] etc. (Written from the authentic extract of the service return.)

Likewise the Royal Mandate of His Sacred Royal Majesty given to the same cited collateral heir of the village of [name], of the following tenor: (the service return of the court messenger of that same mandate is to be inserted; which likewise must be placed with the court messenger together with two noblemen.)

After the enrolment of both the summons letters and the mandates, issued both to the Right Honourable Captain and to the Honourable [name], collateral heir.

The commissarial court caused the parties to be called to appear. Those having been called, the Honourable [names], heir of the estates of the village of [name], appearing in person at that place, ^[Acknowledgement of the corner point by the collateral heir.] acknowledged there the true convergence of the aforesaid estates and the real corner mounds of the aforesaid parties, and his own collateral heir’s particular corner mound at the determination of the boundary wall. At which place the same Right Honourable Captain protested, in his own name and in the name of the community ^[The Captain protests against the collateral heir.] of the royal village of [name], regarding the improper acknowledgement of the corner point by the aforesaid Honourable [name], collateral heir, alleging that they are not true mounds but hillocks, not situated in the proper legal form and in the customary triangle. Both the Honourable [names], original plaintiff, and the collateral heir, the Honourable [names], counter-protested ^[Both the plaintiff and the collateral heir counter-protest.] against the same Right Honourable Captain, regarding his non-acknowledgement of the true corner point and convergence of three estates — denied by words alone, not by documents — and in verification thereof the plaintiff’s party reproduced the boundary act conducted by the Royal Commissioners, by which it is proved that the true corner point and real mounds exist at that place according to the description of that same act; and on the basis thereof offers to demonstrate the boundaries and boundary wall of the aforesaid estates as far as his particular corner point.

Having noted the protests and counter-protests of the parties,

the court orders the registration of appearance for those same parties, (written according to the declaration of the Honourable counsels); appearing before his court and judicially contesting the matter between themselves.

The Royal commissarial court of His Sacred Royal Majesty, ^[In trial.] finding the appearance of the parties sufficient, orders those same parties to proceed to trial in the present case. In the trial, the contested submissions of the parties having been heard and weighed carefully and diligently: the decision of the corner point or particular corner point ^[The decision of the corner point being suspended, the court proceeded to the review of the boundary paths.] of the aforesaid estates being suspended, the court proceeded to the review of the boundary paths to be demonstrated by the parties. The sun at last declining toward the west: (the adjournment to the morrow shall be written.) The morrow arriving, namely the [day] of [name] in the present year, the commissarial jurisdiction having been reassumed and proclaimed by the aforesaid court messenger, he proceeded to the review of the plaintiff’s party’s boundary path and declared that it should follow the same. And first the plaintiff’s party commenced its boundary path. (The boundary path shall be described accurately from where it begins, with a clear expression of the position of the places, and whatever the party shall demonstrate in the boundary path, together with the protests and counter-protests declared by the parties in the boundary path, and the documents, if any were produced in proof thereof.)

It reached the place called [names], at which it demonstrated ^[Determination of the plaintiff’s party’s boundary path.] the particular corner mounds determining the boundary wall of its estate

of the village of [name] and of the royal estates of the village of [name]; and beside the corner mound of the collateral heir, the Honourable [names], heir of the estates of the village of [name], determined and concluded its boundary path. Against that entire boundary path, ^[The Right Honourable Captain protests the nullity of the entire boundary path.] and regarding the nullity thereof, the Right Honourable Captain protested, as not having been continued and determined in a straight path, in accordance with the purport of the boundary act of the year written above, but diverging this way and that obliquely, through the sown fields and plots. The Honourable ^[The plaintiff counter-protests against the Right Honourable Captain.] [names], plaintiff, counter-protesting against the foregoing, as having duly and legitimately continued his boundary path in a straight line from the starting point, through the intermediate points, to the end point, and determined the same in the customary practice and form of law. At which place the same plaintiff’s party requested of his court that the Honourable [names], heir of the village of [name], as the final collateral heir of the determined boundary path, be called, pursuant to the commissarial summons letters issued at his instance against the same, of the following tenor: (Similar and conforming summons letters as against the first collateral heir at the commencement of the boundary path shall be inserted, with the name and surname and estates changed, and likewise by virtue of the royal mandate of His Sacred Royal Majesty directed to that same collateral heir.)

To which application the Illustrious and Right Honourable Commissioners ^[Acknowledgement of the corner point or particular corner point by the final collateral heir.] ordered the aforesaid Honourable [name], heir of the village of [name], final collateral heir, to be called to their court,

who, called by the abovementioned court messenger, appeared in person and there at that same place called [name] acknowledged the convergence of the boundary walls of three estates, or the true particular corner point, of the aforesaid plaintiff’s estate of the village of [name] and of the royal estates, and of his third collateral estate; and proved it by the boundaries of the year [names].

The plaintiff’s party’s boundary path having been reviewed and faithfully noted by the commissarial court, it proceeded to the review of the Right Honourable Captain’s boundary path. And first he commenced his boundary path (it shall be written in conformity with the position of the places, after the manner of the original act, as far as the determination thereof).

And thus continuing his boundary path further, the Right Honourable Captain reached by the same boundary wall the convergence of three estates, with the collaterally summoned party present and acknowledging the same, ^[The plaintiff protests the nullity of the entire boundary path of the Right Honourable Captain.] and determined his boundary path. Upon the conclusion thereof, the plaintiff’s party protests the nullity and invalidity of the entire boundary path, as having been continued through the proper plots of the village of [name] and not determined through the intermediate points. Both boundary paths of both parties having thus been concluded and reviewed, the present act is limited as the sun declines toward the west (the adjournment to the morrow shall be written). The morrow arriving, namely the [day] of [name] in the year [name], the jurisdiction having been reassumed etc., ^[In the prosecution a sworn inquiry is enjoined.] he ordered the parties to proceed in the case. In the prosecution of the case, he finds that a sworn inquiry is necessary for more sufficient proof of the boundary paths; decreeing (it shall be written from

the immediately foregoing act) down to this place:

The sworn inquiries having been produced and concluded, ^[Final decree.] he descended to the reading thereof. Since it is clearly apparent both from those same sworn inquiries and from the documents of the plaintiff’s party — namely the boundary act of the year [name] drawn from the records of the Kingdom’s Chancery — that the Honourable plaintiff, on the basis of that same act conducted in the customary legal form by the Right Honourable Commissioners, commenced his boundary path from the starting point — namely from the particular corner point of the estate of the village of [name] of the Honourable [names], collaterally summoned — from the true and legitimate mounds and the convergence of three estates; and continued the same, namely through the intermediate points, with only three wall mounds, true, real, and visible (as appeared from their opening, proved them); and determined the same to the end point, according to the acknowledgement of the collateral heir. Whereas the Right Honourable Captain had commenced with the greatest obliqueness, not from the true convergence of three estates, and had conducted the same through the plaintiff’s party’s own fields and plots, and had not determined it to the end point either. The court therefore, having regard to the foregoing, the more probable boundary path of the plaintiff’s party having been found and adjudged to it in its entirety, and that same Right Honourable Captain’s having been adjudged away from him as confirmed by no documents, proceeded to the erection of mounds and the renewal of the ancient ones, with this judicial declaration: that the plaintiff shall, after the erection

of the aforesaid mounds, confirm, with six witnesses of equal rank, according to the intent of the statute, the won boundary path at the final particular corner mound, in that oath formula: that by his boundary path he took nothing of the land and estate of the above-named estates and has not alienated anything from the same, so help him GOD and the Holy Passion of JESUS Christ.

And first he ordered the corner mound for the estate of the village of [name] of the plaintiff to be renewed and raised toward the east; a second for the royal estates of the village of [name] toward the west; and a third for the collateral estate and village of [name] toward the north; with the placing in each of them of metal markers, namely charcoal, brick, and iron and glass slag. Proceeding from those mounds by a straight path toward the south, the first wall mound was raised sixty paces from the corner mounds; (and so the erection of the wall mounds shall be written, and of the final particular corner mounds, with sufficient description of the places, the distance of each mound from the next, and their number up to the determination thereof.)

The boundaries having been duly and legitimately determined and the mounds raised, the court messenger is added immediately for the pronouncing of the oath formula for the party that has won the boundary path. The cited party — the Right Honourable Captain — moved to the Tribunal courts of the Kingdom at Piotrków; not admitted, adhering to the law and the constitution

of the year 1588. The party protests the grievance; the court counter-protests with the party that, the oath having been sworn — since the plaintiff’s party having won the boundary path, in satisfaction of positive law and the decree of his court, before the face of his court, after the cited party withdrew from attempting the oath, with the court messenger reading the formula, on bended knee, at the final particular corner mound before the image of the Crucified Christ the Lord, and the witnesses with two fingers raised to heaven — he considers that same party having won the boundary path to have satisfied the decree of his court; and wills and declares by the authority of the present act that those same boundaries shall have the force of perpetual validity. And whatever is the property of the estate of the village of [name] from the original corner point toward the south, on the left side, shall belong entirely to the estate of the aforesaid village of [name]; and whatever is on the right side, likewise all entirely, shall for all time belong and pertain to the aforesaid estates of the village of [name] of His Sacred Royal Majesty. Which the above-named court messenger [names] was ordered to proclaim and announce. As regards, however, the claims of the plaintiff’s party in respect of revenues wrongfully received from the plots appropriated by the Right Honourable Captain, and of acts of violence perpetrated, the commissarial court refers the present case, as not falling within the competence of his court, to the competent forum for final adjudication. By virtue of the present decree.

As Regards the Delimitation of Terrestrial Estates with Royal Ones, in the Contumacy of the Leaseholder.

All the formalities pertaining to the boundary case having been completed beforehand, and the summons letters and mandate having also been issued to the Captain or leaseholder of the royal estates and to the community of subjects, as well as to the collateral heirs, according to the form set out in the original commissarial act; and the service return of the court messenger acknowledged in the proper district once served.

If the Captain or leaseholder of the royal estates fails to appear at the session assigned by the Right Honourable Commissioners by their summons letters, then the commissarial court in its full number, according to the intent of the law, together with the Sub-Chamberlain or his office, the jurisdiction having been founded and the act enrolled at the place where the plaintiff’s party has stationed them, shall proceed notwithstanding the contumacy of the Captain or leaseholder of the estates and of the community of subjects of that Captaincy; and shall, in the customary legal form, order the plaintiff’s party to conduct and demonstrate its boundary path before the court, with prior sworn inquiries also in verification of that boundary path; and shall adjudicate the case justly and equitably and determine the boundaries, even notwithstanding any collateral heir’s

The nature of boundaries is in the manner of a building that has four walls and corners, otherwise known as węgielniki. An estate of great length and breadth, however, whose neighbouring estates meet it with their own boundary walls — in such a case one estate may have not only four but five, six, seven, or even eight boundary walls, and as many corner points, according to the model of the present diagram. [T.N. 1]

A river delimiting estates as a natural boundary.

The same river’s new course, which is not reckoned as the boundary.

absence; and at the final mound, if the plaintiff’s party shall have won the boundary path, it shall order the party to swear an oath with six witnesses of equal rank. After which oath has been sworn, it shall declare those same boundaries to have the force of perpetual validity.

If, however, the plaintiff’s party’s boundary path shall be rejected, and the court shall direct another from the arbitration of its own court and from the thing presented to the eyes, then such boundaries shall be concluded without an oath.

Translator’s Note

[T.N. 1] Page 115x interpolates a diagram page between pp. 115 and 116. The text on this page describes in prose the analogy between a boundary system and a building with walls and corners, and provides two brief captions for a diagram of a river serving as a natural boundary alongside a new course of the same river that is not counted as the boundary. The diagram itself is not reproduced in the Markdown source; the captions are translated as they appear.

On Royal Commissions and Commissioners, for the Delimitation of Royal and Terrestrial Estates.

Formerly two dignitaries and a Sub-Chamberlain were given for commissions on boundaries.

But henceforth five commissioners shall be appointed.

^[Herburt, fol. 95.] Likewise, since injuries and oppressions, and sometimes even acts of killing, were committed between Our registered and unregistered estates and those of Our neighbouring subjects; and since many difficulties arose in the delimitation of the boundaries, with Our Captains or leaseholders oppressing Our neighbouring subjects under cover of Our royal name and Our estates, or obstructing the delimitation of the boundaries — therefore, from the virtue and royal benevolence innate in Us, for the sake of all justice and peace for Our subjects in this matter, We promise: that to all Our subjects of whatever rank and condition, seeking boundaries from the side of Our estates, We and Our successors, according to the ancient statutes, for the discernment of equity, shall appoint and shall cause to be appointed the commissioners of that land and district in which the estates to be delimited are situated,

namely two dignitaries and two officials, together with the Boundary Chamberlain thereof.

The commissioners, having received an oath from the elderly witnesses on both sides, shall make the delimitation.

^[Herburt, ibid.] Which commissioners, after they have gone out, must summon the elderly witnesses from both sides; from whom, having received an oath, they shall proceed to the delimitation according to their recognition and testimony. If, however, those same elderly witnesses are in disagreement, then the commissioners according to their consciences, reconciling the disagreements of the elderly witnesses according to their own private judgment, shall pursue and conclude the delimitation itself. Where, moreover, the commissioners themselves should disagree, We will that the defined authority and power to conclude shall rest with the sentence of those who are in agreement by a majority of voices — the opposition of Our officials, namely the Captain or leaseholder, notwithstanding.

If commissioners are lacking in the proper district.

^[Herburt, ibid.] If, however, there were few dignitaries in that land or palatinate in which the boundaries are to be made who could be designated for those boundaries, or if they happened to be absent — in that case, from a neighbouring palatinate, or even from a more distant one,

We shall designate commissioners for the making of those same boundaries; none, however, other than those who shall have possessions in those lands where the boundaries are to be made.

The Captains shall defend the royal estates until the delimitation.

^[Herburt, fol. 49.] We enact: that henceforth the Prefects of Our castles and cities shall not obtain commissions for the fixing of boundaries, but noblemen alone; ^[A nobleman who obstructs a commission shall be liable.] yet so that nevertheless it shall be lawful for Our Prefects or Captains (as has been received by ancient custom and is provided by statute) to defend Our estates until the declaration of the boundaries.

The Captain or leaseholder of the royal estates shall go out to the delimitation of the estates, and shall provide for the commissioners if he holds free estates.

^[Herburt, fol. 96.] We shall command Our Captain or leaseholder of Our estates to go out and descend together with those same commissioners to delimit those same estates, and to provide for the commissioners at his expense — in particular with respect to those estates which We hold free and without encumbrance.

The session of the commission for delimiting the estates: two weeks.

^[Herburt, ibid.] The commissarial summons together with the mandate

to the Captain must be served by the court messenger and two noblemen two weeks before the delimitation, so as to certify the Captain both as to the time and as to the place.

Moreover, Our aforesaid commissioners, two weeks before they convene together for the making of the boundaries, shall inform Our Captain or leaseholder ^[The mandate shall be served in the presence of two noblemen.] of the time and place of their convening through the court messenger and two noblemen, and also through their own letters and Our mandate.

On the honour and security of the commissioners.

^[Herburt, ibid.] If any commoner, in the matter and court of the boundaries, ^[A violator of the commissarial act shall be referred to the Captain of that place for due penalties.] or on any other occasion, should inveigh against the commissioners in words and dishonour them — such a person shall be punished with imprisonment, or otherwise with a sitting of half a year. The execution of that penalty the Captain of that place shall carry out, under the penalty prescribed in the statute against those who should neglect to carry out its execution. Should any person, even a commoner, seize and brandish arms — even if he wounded no one — he shall pay the penalty with his neck; which the Captain shall likewise execute. Nobility, however, for such excesses shall be punished according to the statute.

What has once been decreed by the commissioners in the delimitation of estates shall not be renewed.

^[Herburt, ibid.] In order that what has once been decreed by Our commissioners (which We grant with respect to the delimitation of Our royal and noble estates) shall no longer be renewed, We enact: that after the delimitation of Our royal and noble estates, Our Captains shall do no injury in the plots of the nobility; and Our subjects shall have no usufruct in the delimited plots, neither bee-keeping nor any other advantage.

Whatever the commissioners shall have done shall stand. No reviewers shall be appointed.

^[Herburt, fol. 97.] We shall appoint Our commissioners to make the boundaries; and their judgment We shall not obstruct by Our inhibitions; We shall designate neither assessors nor commissioners, nor a reviewer, after the boundaries have been made. But whatever Our Commissioners ^[Commissioners shall make the boundaries between the royal estates notwithstanding the contumacy and opposition of the possessor.] shall have decreed, that shall be ratified and firm. Moreover, when Our commissioners convene at the place of the boundaries — whether Our Captain or leaseholder has gone out or not, whether he has produced the elderly witnesses or not — the commissioners themselves shall nonetheless pursue and conclude those same boundaries: the opposition and likewise the absence of Our Captains, and of those who seek remedy on account of injuries to the boundaries by way of motion and appeal,

notwithstanding in the slightest.

On commissioners unjustly cited, and on other courts.

^[Herburt, ibid.] Whoever should cite the commissioners, or any court or office, on account of any process — and such person shall be determined to have cited them unjustly — shall be required to give twenty-eight marks to each separately as a penalty. Likewise to the party, if the same should be cited.

Letters of the commissioners issued for the delimitation need no confirmation.

^[Herburt, fol. 271.] Induced by the petitions of Our subjects, We permit: that it shall be in the discretion of Our subjects to petition and obtain from Us a confirmation of the letters of boundaries issued by five commissioners ^[A completed commissarial act requires no approval.] deputed by Us according to the tenor of the statute. Which letters, in which Our commission and mandate shall have been inserted and the seals of the commissioners affixed, shall obtain authority and perpetual force, even if no confirmation of Ours intervenes thereupon.

How royal estates that have not been delimited are to be defended, and how Captains are to be proceeded against in law for injuries.

^[Herburt, fol. 48.] Likewise We enact: that leaseholders of the estates of Our Royal Table, ^[The land court is assigned as the forum for the Captain in matters of boundaries.] if they suffer injury from neighbours or others, shall be required to stand before the land court, after they have been summoned on account of the injury suffered. Even if they drive cattle or livestock to royal lordships or courts on account of a difference of boundaries, or on account of the destruction of crops — they shall be required to give to suretyship for a decree of the lords, according to the custom of the land long observed. If they do otherwise, they shall pay penalties like other nobles; which penalties may be sought and exacted from them, even in money, if any they shall have inscribed in the royal estates.

The boundaries of estates, metal markers, the testimony of elderly witnesses, and other possible evidences, make boundaries.

^[Herburt, fol. 267.] Moreover, for the removal of difficulties in the making of boundaries, We enact: that Our commissioners, having only GOD before their eyes and favouring neither party, having first examined the metal markers and diligently investigated the truth of the matter — both from the testimony of elderly witnesses, sworn if necessary, and from other possible indications — shall establish the boundaries between Our royal

and hereditary estates according to their arbitration and conscience.

When the boundaries have been made, the Captains shall not commit injury.

^[Herburt, ibid.] So that what is defined once by Our commissioners appointed for the delimitation of Our royal and noble estates may no longer be called into dispute: We enact that after the delimitation of Our royal and noble estates, Our Captains or officials shall not commit injury in the noble plots. And Our subjects too shall have no use of such delimited plots — neither in bee-keeping nor on any account.

The boundaries erected by the commissioners are to be kept for ever by the Starostas.

^[Constitution 1550, fol. 598.] So that what has once been made by Our commissioners, whom We appoint for the delimitation of Our royal estates and those of the nobility, shall never be renewed: We enact that after the delimitation of Our royal estates and those of the nobility, Our Starostas or officials shall not

commit injuries in the noble plots. And Our subjects shall have no use of such delimited plots — neither in bee-keeping nor in any manner. Constitution 1550, fol. 598. Załuski.

We leave in force the statute concerning the erection of boundaries between Our estate and the terrestrial estates.

^[Constitution 1562, fol. 621, vol. 2.] And any Starosta who destroys the boundaries: he shall be required to erect them again by the feast of Saint JOHN the Baptist next to come, under pain of deprivation of the office of the Captaincy or of the leasehold of the castle; and they shall be kept firmly with mounds in perpetuity. And where anyone should be summoned in respect of them at the instance of the Instigator of Our office from the denunciation of the Captain or leaseholder, We exempt all persons from such summonses.

On boundaries in the Duchy of Masovia.

^[Constitution 1569, fol. 790, vol. 2.] Boundaries in the Duchy of Masovia, made by commissioners appointed by Us between Our plots and those of the nobility, lawfully — that is, where Our mandate with the commissarial summons, issued in time according to the statute dealing with this matter, has been or shall in the future be issued to the Starosta or leaseholder of Our estates;

and which shall in the future be made, even where Our steward was not present at their making, who in respect of such boundaries has and can have no interest in the future according to the law and ancient observance — all shall be firmly kept by the Starostas and leaseholders of Our estates and by Our subjects for ever; which We confirm by this constitution, and according to the old laws of the Crown, according to which also in Masovia commissioners are and shall be appointed, the confirmations of those commissioners shall be issued from Our Chancery, to whoever shall have need of it. And those noblemen who are summoned on behalf of the Starostas in the name of Our Instigator, for any injuries or losses that might be contained within those boundaries — all of them We exempt from such summonses.

On destroyed boundaries.

^[Constitution 1578, fol. 977, vol. 2.] Boundaries that have been juridically concluded by Our commissioners between Our estates and those of the nobility — let neither Our Starostas and leaseholders nor the subjects in Our estates dare to violate or destroy them. And if any have been destroyed since the constitution of the year one thousand five hundred and sixty-two, they shall erect them again at their own expense through the commissioners, before the feast of Saint JOHN the Baptist next to come, having paid the party one hundred marks

as a fine, as often as they shall be summoned. And if Our subjects — namely commoners — should obstinately, without the command of the Starosta or Our leaseholder, destroy such boundaries — they shall be punished by a fine of fifty marks, as often as they shall be summoned; notwithstanding, the Starosta or leaseholder shall at their expense bring out the commissioners for the repair of the destroyed boundaries, at the latest within twelve weeks of their destruction.

On royal commissions and commissioners for boundaries.

^[Constitution 1588, fol. 1210, vol. 2.] Royal commissions for boundaries shall always be given from Our Chancery without any difficulty to whoever has need of them. And the commissioners, together with the Sub-Chamberlain or Boundary Chamberlain of that land, may be appointed not only from that but also from another closer palatinate, even if they have no residence in that palatinate or land. Which commissioners, when they subscribe themselves upon the summons letters, are required to arrive at the session and bring that commission to execution by making the boundaries. And if they cannot be concluded in one day, they are to conclude them on the following days without departing, so that the commission shall not lapse for the nobleman. And where a commissioner, having subscribed himself upon the summons letters, should fail to arrive at the session, he forfeits to the party one hundred marks, for which the forum shall be before the Tribunal, excepting true

illness, which according to the law he is required to swear. The Starosta, like the nobleman, shall have no more of a retinue than thirty persons with friends and servants; and subjects at most twenty, for the showing of markers and the erection of mounds. And so that perjuries may not occur with offence to GOD, the commissioners are first to examine the markers shown from both sides by an elderly witness, and consider the matter among themselves according to their conscience; and if either party should show legitimate markers and probabilities: they shall require that party to prove it through elderly witnesses. And if both sides show uncertain markers, then without taking oaths from both sides, on account of the risk of perjury, they are to make the boundaries according to their conscience, inclining toward the statute and juxta æquitatem. And since some Starostas and leaseholders of Our estates are accustomed to exceed the measure in the defence of the estates: We therefore declare the prior statutes made in this matter as follows — that defence is not to be understood as the ploughing up of another’s labour, namely crops, buildings, and any work that shall have stood for a year without the Starosta’s obstruction; but only as the enjoyment of Our estates, or the bringing of an action after the year to the land court. And if a court, Starosta, or leaseholder should do anyone injury or harm beyond this, the forum for that shall be in the land court where those royal estates are situated. And if the leaseholder had no residence in that palatinate

or land, then where he has it, execution shall be made on his estates without delay according to the constitution of the year 1562. And where he has no residence in the Crown, proceedings shall be taken against him according to the procedure agreed at this Sejm against those without possessions; and if he has a sum inscribed in the leasehold, the legal process and execution shall be extended to that sum. And Starostas and leaseholders shall be free to summon anyone before the land court for injuries and losses that occur on the royal plot, both in Our benefit and that of the Commonwealth and in their own; and where oaths are prescribed for them by law, they are to discharge them both in Our name and in their own, saving the appeal to the Tribunal, where such cases are to be determined without remission of the cause. The subjects of Our villages too shall be able to summon before the land court for their own injuries cum assistentia Capitaneorum vel Tenutariorum. Likewise those from Our towns without assistance, according to custom. And where boundaries do not exist, the judges shall be required to send out a commission and conclude the boundaries for the nobleman without interruption. If also, after a commissarial delimitation, a nobleman should take away royal land beyond the boundaries, and be summoned for it before the land court: the court itself shall be required to go out, or to send sworn boundary officials with the court messenger to that plot; and ex re oculis subjecta, at the next sitting shall make a decree, and

shall order the reimbursement of losses according to the liquidation of the injured party by oath.

Provision for boundary commissions.

^[Constitution 1598, fol. 1456, vol. 2.] Inclining ourselves to the ancient laws, We annul all summonses to the Sejm or to the court, issued against the commissioners and the party for the delimitation of all Our estates of whatever kind from terrestrial estates, issued by leaseholders or by Our Instigator; declaring that a commissarial act, conducted by the full number of commissioners according to the laws, is not to be called into any doubt nor impugned, according to the ancient law.

On the manner of delimiting the estates of the inhabitants of Prussia with their adjacent ones.

^[Constitution 1601, fol. 1507, vol. 2.] Since there has not been and is not to this day any means by which the estates of the palatinates and lands adjacent to the Prussian lands under Our authority might be delimited; and the manner of the courts in the palatinates and adjacent lands differs from the courts of the palatinates and lands of Prussia, and in Prussia the Sub-Chamberlains have no jurisdiction in boundary laws — therefore, providing that difficulties from this quarter may not grow on both sides: We enact by the resolution of the present Sejm with the consent of all the estates, that where such differences arise, or

shall arise, without summoning one another before the land courts, the parties, or the party that needs delimitation, may immediately summon to the field; and from one side — that is, from the palatinates and adjacent lands — a Sub-Chamberlain; and from the other side, from Prussia, a land judge or a certain assessor — since they conduct boundaries in Prussia — shall be brought out. Before these, the parties shall appear in secundo termino tanquam peremptorio and dispute the right of path; and to whomever it shall be ordered to lead the boundaries and to swear them according to law, the appeal from their sentence, or where they should disagree, from their divergence, shall be left open to the Tribunal, the prosecution of which shall be directed to that same court among the cases of that land or the other, when they shall be adjudicated at the Tribunal — and in particular that land from which the plaintiff making the summons shall be; and if the plaintiffs are joint, then from that one from which they first lodge the summons. And this is to be understood with respect to the delimitation of hereditary estates and of the estates of Our Table.

Declaration on the boundary commissions of Prussia.

^[Constitution 1613, fol. 185, vol. 3.] Since the inhabitants of Prussia have complained before Us through their deputies that in boundary cases, between Our royal estates and hereditary noble estates, they have not only great difficulty and burden, but must bear delays and arrears

not without futile expense — and this because in even the smallest cases the commissioners admit appeals, and therefore they asked Us to grant them some relief in this matter — We therefore, so that they may know Our favour in this matter too, permit that the lord commissioners may adjudicate and settle small differences that do not exceed two Chełmno włókas without appeal. However, where the difference exceeds the said number of włókas, as the measurement of sworn surveyors shall show — in such cases an appeal from the final sentence to Us shall be permitted. [T.N. 1]

On boundary commissions and commissioners of the Palatinates of Kiev and Bracław.

^[Constitution 1613, fol. 172, vol. 3.] Since on account of the great danger and frequent enemy alarms, the small number of senators, and the vast remoteness of the Palatinates of Kiev and Bracław — when a delimitation of noble estates from Our estates occurs, a nobleman can in no way bring a senator to the commission; whereby the injured person can never obtain justice and delimitation — therefore, providing against this, at the petition of the land deputies of those palatinates, We enact and will: that a senator together with the Sub-Chamberlain and other land officials

specified in the commission, having subscribed himself for the conduct of the commission, shall be required to appear under a fine of ten thousand marks on the senator, for which We preserve the forum for the injured party before the Tribunal. These commissioners, however, appointed by Us, are to conduct themselves according to the constitution of the year 1588 made concerning commissions.

On reviews.

^[Constitution 1647, fol. 125, vol. 4.] Since complaints reach Us from the land deputies that leaseholders of Our estates are conducting reviews inter Bona ab utrinque Nostra cum præjudicio fundi Terrestris per Commissionem antea non dislimitati — We therefore, inclining ourselves to the ancient law concerning commissions made for the delimitation of Our estates with terrestrial ones, declare that Our estates are to be delimited from terrestrial ones by commissioners alone and not by reviewers; without prejudice as between Our estates ab utrinque, which have been and are to be in the future conducted by Our secretaries and not by commissioners. And such reviews, whether conducted in anticipation or after the commission, both before this constitution and in the future, cannot prejudice the terrestrial estate or the commission.

Provision for boundary commissions.

^[Constitution 1651, fol. 712, vol. 4.] Although the security and authority of boundary commissions is sufficiently safeguarded by the common law, there are nevertheless those who, in contravention of the public laws, attempt to invalidate such commissions conducted according to the prescription of the law by various means — by mandates issued to the Sejm and to the court. Therefore, providing against this now and in the future, and reassuming the constitutions of the years 1550, 1567, 1588, 1598, and all other statutes and constitutions on the authority of commissions, by the authority of the present Sejm: We provide that every person who should wish to invalidate such legitimately conducted commissions, whether by mandates or by other means, shall be punished by a fine of five thousand marks, to be recovered before the Crown Tribunal inter causas Officij peremptorie.

Reassumption of the constitutions on commissions.

^[Constitution 1703, fol. 111, vol. 6.] Reassuming the prior constitutions concerning commissions, all commissions and decrees issued by them conducted to this day between Our estates and terrestrial ones, according to the statutes and ancient laws, We preserve inviolably and confirm. Which constitution is also to serve the Grand Duchy of Lithuania

with respect to the delimitation of Our Table estates and terrestrial estates situated in the Crown and in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.

Translator’s Note

[T.N. 1] Włóka Chełmińska (Chełmno włóka, Latin mansus Culmensis): a unit of land area specific to Prussian law, equal to approximately 16.8 hectares or about 41.5 acres. Used as the threshold measure for whether appeals are permitted in Prussian boundary commissions.

The Forum of Persons of Noble Estate with Ecclesiastical Persons in Real Civil Cases of the Crown and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.

^[Constitution 1635, fol. 857, vol. 3.] And so that, as in criminal cases on account of the forum, We might bring the ecclesiastical estate together with the noble estate to a settlement also in real civil cases: We enact that as regards real cases — on account of simple civil, terrestrial, and boundary injuries — the forum of every nobleman with an ecclesiastical person shall be, by ordinary process, before the land court and in the field; and such cases shall be conducted on appeal before the Tribunal coram Judicio Composito, like other ecclesiastical cases. And if any ecclesiastical person were found to be such as to hold the common law in contempt and to allow banishment to be obtained against him: the loci Ordinarius shall execute the same upon his person and upon all his estates generally — his own but not the terrestrial ones — until real satisfaction is given to the injured party. The people of the Greek faith, however, as in the first constitution in the matter of the forum in Personalibus, remain in their ancient customs.

Soldiers’ Exemptions.

^[Constitution 1627, fol. 544, vol. 3.] Reassuming the ancient constitutions on soldiers’ exemptions, with the consent of the Sejm We enact and provide: that exemptions from both Our Chanceries of both Nations, as well as from Our Hetmans, shall be accepted before all courts — excepting the cases expressly specified by the constitutions of the years 1611 and 1622.

ON REVIEWS

Between Estates on Both Sides Royal, and on Reviewers Assigned by His Sacred Royal Majesty.

Reviews, in place of commissions, between estates on both sides royal but of different possession and leasehold of Captains or leaseholders, are customary when a difference and dispute over a plot arises between leaseholders. In that situation, by decree of His Sacred Royal Majesty, certain reviewers are given and deputed for the settling of differences — not indeed from the senatorial order and terrestrial officials, but selected from the royal court from among the secretaries of His Sacred Royal Majesty, or such other

principal and suitable persons as both parties shall have obtained from His Sacred Royal Majesty; with the Sub-Chamberlain or Boundary Chamberlain of that land or palatinate, or in his absence in that palatinate where the estates are situated, another, even from a more distant one, added to them.

Which reviewers have authority equal to that of commissioners in deciding plot disputes and the distinction of leaseholdings one from the other by boundaries — except that they do not have the absolute faculty of making a final decision, there being open to the parties hereafter from their final sentence, to His Sacred Royal Majesty after the court, a free appeal — after the manner of the commissarial act, customarily made for commissions between royal and terrestrial estates. Collateral heirs are required at the review act, and their acknowledgement, if their boundary walls meet the corner mounds of the royal estates; and likewise the production and sworn inquiry of elderly subjects from both leaseholdings.

Most of all in that act, the peaceful and long-standing possession of plots held by the one side peaceably and continuously against the other prevails. Which is inquired of by elderly witnesses bound by oath and proved by sworn inquiry. For since the estates are on both sides of royal right, nothing falls away from them even if it has accrued to one party, nor can they suffer detriment — except for the villagers and their leaseholders from whose side a portion of the plot avulsed has been adjudged

to the other party; the cognisance and adjudication of which matter falls to the revisory court. The reviewers, both parties’ boundary paths having been examined and reviewed, with due regard to the acknowledgement of the collateral heirs, the metal markers and real mounds having been examined, but above all a careful investigation having been made of continuous use and lordship, and of the testimony of elderly witnesses — shall adjudge the right of path to that party which has proved peaceful possession, demonstrated boundary markers, and relies on the acknowledgement of the collateral heirs; and shall moderate the matter and business of the boundaries of the acknowledged boundary path — both corner and particular corner mounds, and wall mounds — the oath being barred to the leaseholders themselves, as is customary in such matters of ambiguous and doubtful boundary paths of both parties, by their revisory sentence. From which, if an appeal shall have been made, and at the session arising from the appeal His Sacred Royal Majesty shall have approved the reviewers’ sentence, those boundaries are always valid and acquire the force of perpetual firmness. As regards acts of violence, if any occurred, the forum is assigned in the court of His Sacred Royal Majesty after the court as for leaseholders of the royal leasehold.

Exemptions for soldiers and others sent on embassies.

^[Constitution 1638, fol. 1638.] Exemptions for soldiers in camp, or on a war footing or expedition, or

in the service of the Commonwealth — We provide that all courts shall accept the same in personalibus only in those cases that the ancient constitutions have described and circumscribed, upon the attestation of the Hetmans, or the colonels acting in place of the Hetmans. And likewise for those who shall be sent on an embassy — whether by Our Hetmans in the affairs of the Commonwealth, or by Us ourselves, likewise in the service of Ours and the Commonwealth’s, ad exteros Principes & ad externas Respublicas.

Soldiers’ exemptions.

^[Constitution 1673, fol. 105, vol. 5.] We reassume the prior constitutions on exemptions in soldiers’ cases, which the Tribunals and other courts are to observe in the cases in which they are required to proceed according to law, according to the ancient law.

Exemptions.

^[Constitution 1676, fol. 363, vol. 5.] The exemptions of Our Right Honourable Hetmans, as they are permitted by the ancient law — so that they may have their force in every court in personalibus only: We declare. If, however, condemnations should stand against soldiers’ persons remaining in camp in Personalibus Terminis before any present cap-tribunal courts anywhere: such condemnations likewise, which are contrary to law, We annul by the authority of the present convention, the principal matter restored in integrum.

Since to soldiers performing military service ^[Postponement of soldier’s exemption.] and in actual service of the Commonwealth, the postponement of soldier’s exemption has been circumscribed and granted by so many constitutions in every court and tribunal of the Kingdom — both the plaintiff and the respondent may therefore avail themselves of this benefit of the law in boundary cases before the field Sub-Chamberlain’s court (with prior reproduction of the attestation before that court), since personal appearance is required for the winning of the boundary path. This postponement must also be granted to the collateral heir when the corner point or particular corner point is not visible and is subject to dispute.

On the Office and Power of the Sub-Chamberlains.

^[Herburt, fol. 478.] First of all, the Sub-Chamberlain in the matter of delimitation shall consider the natural boundary — namely a stream or river flowing between, or a new or ancient channel otherwise called Rzeczyłko, delimiting the estates.

Frequent disputes between Our subjects over boundaries in distinguishing their estates give rise to serious questions, from which expenses increase and those in disagreement are sometimes subjected to excessive labour. And since rivers and river channels for the most part ^[The Sub-Chamberlain shall consider the natural boundary.] flow and are held between estates, possessions, and villages — if any villages or estates meet one another

by the mediation of any river or stream, and between those same estates there are no legally made boundaries: then every such estate shall hold its own bank of that river or stream, extended to that estate; and that same river or stream shall always be held as the boundary. Which river or stream, if even abandoning its original ^[The ancient course of a river is assigned as the boundary.] channel it diverts its course or flow through other places, without the agency of man but by its own natural force — nonetheless the original channel of that same river, where the flow of water previously was, shall be the true boundary of those estates. In which ancient river or stream, otherwise the channel of the ancient river, the people inhabiting either of those villages or estates may lawfully carry out their fishing, as they did when the water had its original or ancient course in that same ancient channel. But if a river or stream of this kind were diverted by the industry of man from its ancient course and channel, so as to flow into another new channel — then that new channel shall delimit the estates; and shall yield likewise as that ancient channel was accustomed to yield: one bank to one estate, the other to the other which it washes. In which case, when the diversion of the river is by the industry of man, one of those same estates — namely that in which the ancient channel remains — shall have full and entire ownership of the channel and banks of the ancient river or stream.

^[Herburt, fol. 479.] Moreover, the Sub-Chamberlain, under his honour and conscience,

admits the party who shows more notable boundary markers to prove his case; but where the markers are lacking on both sides, proof shall be offered to the plaintiff with witnesses.

As regards the boundaries of Our nobility, We have thought fit to ^[The party who shows more probable markers shall be admitted to confirmation.] provide as follows: that if it should happen that any litigant for boundaries should show or produce the mounds called kopce — at least three — or other notable markers in the open country, commonly wiązdy; and in forests, markers in the manner of a cross, as is the custom — then Our Sub-Chamberlain, discerning the one who has shown better and more notable markers or mounds, shall under his honour and conscience be required and bound to send him to prove his case. Where, however, both parties lack notable markers between the estates — then the plaintiff shall be admitted to prove the boundaries with witnesses as the law requires.

The Sub-Chamberlain shall not transpose the session of the parties, unless they consent or a cause exists.

^[Herburt, ibid.] Since Sub-Chamberlains or their Boundary Chamberlains for the most part transposed the delimitations of boundaries, either out of favour or on account of the necessity of one party, the other being unwilling — and from this, through negligence, favourable delays were committed in the delimitation of boundaries — We, providing for this error, have decreed and decree to be perpetually observed: that from now on, the Sub-Chamberlains of all lands of the entire Kingdom shall not transpose boundary sessions of their own accord, against the order of the law,

under a penalty of fourteen marks to be exacted by Us from whoever shall do otherwise — except where the consent of the parties shall concur, or a legitimate cause shall intervene.

A party condemned in the land court ^[Herburt, fol. 477.] is not admitted to contest in the field; indeed, notwithstanding any documentary evidence whatsoever, or more apparent signs, if the defendant should produce any at that time, it is nonetheless to stand with the plaintiff’s conduct and the oath with witnesses.

At that same field session, it shall not be permitted to the cited party to raise any contest before the Sub-Chamberlain or his office regarding the right of path — which he has already lost in the land court — but the plaintiff shall lead the office according to his own will and conscience; and shall make the boundaries by raising mounds and making other metal markers, notwithstanding any opposition whatsoever of the cited party, nor any documentary evidence or more apparent signs, if any he should produce at that time. ^[The plaintiff shall confirm as seventh.] When these things are done, beside the final and particular corner mound, the plaintiff shall swear with six witnesses of equal rank regarding the true and just delimitation: that he has taken nothing of the land and estate from the cited party, and alienated nothing from him.

Furthermore, if the condemned party should not comply even in the field, ^[Herburt, fol. 478.] the same applies: where the plaintiff shall have sworn the oath with witnesses, the Sub-Chamberlain decrees that the boundaries shall endure in perpetuity.

If at the field session the respondent should fail to appear and be in contumacy: the Sub-Chamberlain or his office shall nonetheless be required to follow the plaintiff and make the boundaries according to his leading. Nonetheless beside the final and particular corner mound, the plaintiff shall swear with witnesses, notwithstanding the absence of the cited party, in the presence only of the Sub-Chamberlain’s office. Which boundaries, made as aforesaid and confirmed by the oath of the plaintiff, the Sub-Chamberlain or his office shall decree to endure and be kept in perpetuity.

MINORS.

If Co-Heirs Cited in a Boundary Case Were Minors.

^[Herburt, fol. 283.] If there were several participants or co-parties of one and the same estate, cited by some other person for the making of boundaries; and among those cited parties there were some co-heirs who were minors, likewise cited — ^[Minors are required to respond in a boundary case.] then proceedings shall be taken against such parties, both by the land court and by the Sub-Chamberlain’s office, notwithstanding their minority. To which delimitation the court and Sub-Chamberlain’s office shall proceed. Nevertheless the Sub-Chamberlain or his office shall reserve for them an action for their interest against the plaintiff of the boundaries; ^[The reserved action of the minor is saved.] namely when they shall attain the years of discretion — then it shall be lawful for them to proceed at law against those

by whom they should consider themselves to have been prejudiced; yet they shall proceed only for their own portion and interest.

When Minors Reach the Years of Discretion, They May Proceed for Injuries Suffered; Prescription Not Obstructing Them.

^[Herburt, ibid.] Wishing to succour and provide for children, especially those in need, We enact: that if an injury shall have been done to any persons by someone following the death of their father — on coming to the years of discretion, they may proceed at law against those who committed the injury, and the exception of prescription cannot be opposed to them, unless the lawful age be then fully completed in them. And if within the due time they shall have neglected to proceed for the injuries once done to them, then the exception of prescription stands against them on account of the negligence alleged.

Collateral Heirs Must Be Summoned.

^[Herburt, fol. 475.] Against neighbours or collateral heirs, who if together with the cited party must necessarily be cited both to the land court and to the field court, the following procedure must be followed, so that they may not obstruct the delimitation in the field.

If, however, there were other noblemen having neighbouring

estates, whose boundary walls were adjacent and contiguous to the estates between which such boundaries were to be made, and who considered themselves to have an interest by virtue of their contiguity in those same boundaries — such neighbouring collateral heirs shall likewise be summoned by the plaintiff for one session, together with the principal party, before the land court; and likewise as with the principal party, so too shall the plaintiff proceed with them, so that they may not obstruct the boundaries at the field session.

MOUNDS.

The Penalty and Satisfaction for Destroyed Mounds.

^[Herburt, fol. 447.] If anyone shall have destroyed or violently annihilated — in part or in whole — any mounds erected, or other metal markers: such a violator shall pay to the party proceeding against him three marks of current money for every particular corner mound. For other mounds destroyed and all metal markers destroyed and annihilated, he shall pay six skots. And the same violator shall nonetheless be required to bring the Sub-Chamberlain’s office to the place of the violated boundaries at his own expense, and to restore and newly erect those same boundaries destroyed by him — which he shall be required to do, after notification by the court messenger and noblemen on behalf of the party that suffered such injury, within eight weeks: under a penalty of fourteen marks succumbing to the party and the same to the court. Which penalty having been paid, in

the next eight weeks he shall be required to restore the boundaries as aforesaid; and as often as he shall refuse and be unwilling to restore those boundaries — so many times shall he forfeit the aforesaid fourteen marks to the party and the same to the court, in each successive eight weeks.

What Penalty Is Paid by One Who Erects Mounds Without Authority, and How He Gives Satisfaction.

^[Herburt, ibid.] If anyone on another’s soil or estate, without the Sub-Chamberlain and his office, shall of his own accord, voluntarily, and rashly erect and make boundary markers — such a person shall likewise pay three marks for every particular corner mound, and six skots for others (as above). And nonetheless all the mounds and metal markers so unlawfully made shall be formally destroyed, removed, and annihilated by the Sub-Chamberlain’s office: so that in future no prejudice may come to the injured party from any trace of them — which shall be done under a penalty of fourteen marks to the party and the same to the court. And proceedings shall similarly be taken against such a person, in each eight weeks: as against the violent destroyer of boundaries as described above.

What Postponements Are Admitted to the Respondent in the Field.

^[Herburt, fol. 478.] The cited party may, however, defer such a field session

by true illness, and likewise by a principal postponement, and not otherwise.

On the Sub-Chamberlain in Masovia.

^[Masovian Exceptions, Constitution 1576, fol. 947, vol. 2.] The land Sub-Chamberlain, according to the ancient custom observed in the Palatinate of Masovia, shall himself and through his Boundary Chamberlain conduct the site inspection and how it shall be conducted, and similarly the cases concerning boundaries, and shall bring them before the land court. And so that the contests which the parties shall raise before him or his Boundary Chamberlain may also be raised and presented before the court in his presence, and likewise the title deeds that the parties have between themselves be shown. And the court, according to the ancient custom and his testimony, and from the contests of the parties and their presentations or title deeds, as it shall understand according to the common law — shall have the power to adjudge both the right to proceed and the proof. And this has been preserved from of old, because the court shall make a legal decree from the contest, and the land notary shall write down the contest sufficiently; the common law therefore has not and could not permit the Sub-Chamberlain or his Boundary Chamberlain to have records. Appeal, however, shall be free to the party according to the ancient custom.

On the Making of Boundaries.

^[Ibid.] When one nobleman brings an action against another nobleman, so that between those estates of theirs adjacent to one another — where the boundaries were

not fixed but only use and possession of the parties — he should begin proceedings in court: then the court shall adjudge and send the appropriate land officials; and whichever party shows better and more notable markers before them, and through elderly witnesses and witnesses would prove its peaceful possession of that estate — for how long and through what places it held its estate — and those officials should accept this: then there boundaries shall be made and new mounds erected, overriding the objection of the other party. And if on both sides they should see or accept no boundary markers: then the respondent shall have the right to proceed, and through what places he shall go with witnesses and shall swear, not transgressing the first boundary of his entry or passage — then mounds or boundary markers shall be made according to the ancient custom of the land.

On the Renewal of Boundaries.

^[Herburt, fol. 948.] When one person summons another to renew boundaries with him and erect mounds through the old boundary markers between their estates — which markers and ancient boundary wall or mounds he would name in the summons and undertake to confirm by oath — such a person shall by law have the priority of presentation and proof through elderly witnesses from those same markers. Which, if the land official accepts them and the other party denies them: the plaintiff with witnesses shall prove by oath that those markers are old and true boundary ones between those estates,

or the ancient boundary wall, or between the boundary road and the old mounds; according to which markers he shall present his passage and use; and so following those markers through which he passes and swears, there boundaries shall be made and mounds erected. Which witnesses the plaintiff shall name and enter before the land court at the nearest sitting after the judgment, in the manner with an oath formula; and at the place of the differences with those witnesses of his passage from corner to corner through the places and boundary markers, as mentioned above — he shall be required to swear at the sitting appointed to the parties by the official before that same official. Which act in its entirety the aforesaid official shall be required to declare before the land court of the mounds and boundary markers made or circled, and to enter them in the land records. And where one party should have a privilege, or any letters, or any deeds concerning the boundaries or certain boundary places — namely certain boundary features — that party shall have priority in presenting and supporting those boundaries and places, according to its title deeds and ancient observance. And this — if from that time on it should not depart from such laws or title deeds through newly made boundaries, and from the making of boundaries and the erection or circling of mounds — then both parties, both the respondent and the plaintiff, shall pay the Sub-Chamberlain the fee of puskopy, that is thirty groschen, and the Starosta another thirty groschen of Polish currency; and to the court messenger six

groschen from those same boundaries they are required to pay. And where mounds have been erected or boundaries made between the parties by mutual will: then both parties shall be required to give that same office only thirty groschen and no more; and to the court messenger three groschen.

On the Authority of Officials at a Site Inspection in Masovia.

^[Masovian Exceptions 1576, fol. 937, vol. 2.] When a Boundary Chamberlain or court messenger fixes a certain day for the parties for the conduct of a site inspection at the estate in accordance with the summons, and the fixing of that day has been recorded in the land or municipal records — if any party should not attend at that appointed day of the named inspection, nor appear before that official at the place and session of the inspection: such a party shall, from such a removal of that aforesaid official made before the court at the next sitting, be condemned and adjudged to the loss of the matter concerning which that summons was brought and the inspection was to take place. And if the official himself should fail to come on that appointed and recorded day for the conduct of that inspection, intercedente legali impedimento: then another day for the conduct of that inspection, the same Sub-Chamberlain’s office shall fix at the next land sittings and shall be required to come to it — since no one should or may lose through the office. And if one party should drive away the other by open threats or any violence from the inspection,

or should mock it with any dishonourable or quarrelsome words: against such a party that office has full power to adjudge penas in Statuto Regni descriptas, which adjudication it shall bring before the court, and the court on sufficient proof shall confirm the same according to the testimony of that official; and that obstructor or violent hinderer of the inspection shall be required to respond to a summons according to law, without any further inspection, without any postponement. For which inspection the person who took a site inspection need give no more to the Boundary Chamberlain or court messenger than three groschen to both, and they too shall not demand more.

The Election of the Land Court and the Sub-Chamberlain’s Court, and the Sub-Chamberlain’s Oath.

^[Constitution 1588, fol. 1211, vol. 2.] The election for the election of officials of the land court — after the departure or death of any of them — according to the ancient custom, the Palatine, and in his absence the senior Castellan of that palatinate or land, shall fix at the latest within six weeks at the customary place. And if the Palatine should not fix that sitting within six weeks, then the Castellan shall be required to do so. In the same manner shall the election of the land Sub-Chamberlain proceed, who is also required to be sworn from that time — excepting the present holders, from the date of this constitution. And

such elections We safeguard with the same security as the Tribunal judges. And the Sub-Chamberlain shall swear as follows: ^[The oath formula of the Right Honourable Sub-Chamberlain.] I, [name], swear to the Lord GOD that I will judge justly, according to the Lord GOD, the written law, and the justice of the parties’ contests, listen carefully to those contests and receive them; likewise consider the boundary markers and their probabilities, and faithfully describe them; and likewise keep my records and those of my predecessors faithfully, and enter matters in them; and at which court I shall have no regard for any person — neither friend nor enemy, rich nor poor, stranger nor kinsman — showing no favour or disfavour to anyone in that my court; and taking no gift from anyone with respect to that court. So help me Lord God, and this Holy Gospel.

On the Relaxation and Annulment of Banishment.

^[Same year, fol. 1220, vol. 2.] If anyone being under banishment should reconcile himself with the opposing party and receive from that party itself a release from that banishment: then such a person shall be given a relaxation of banishment from Our Chancery, which he shall obtain at the latest within twelve weeks after the release; and during that time he shall have standing before every court, and may register any recognitions. And since all cases and actions are customarily obstructed by the party defeated in law by various means: therefore We provide that at every instance — even Bannitionis in ipso puncto — the party defeated in law shall be

required to allege ^[A wrongly obtained process is to be proved.] male obtentum without bringing a separate action therefor. And in such a measure a free appeal to the Tribunal shall be permitted. And when the Tribunal shall recognise that process to be good and shall have imposed banishment on the party defeated in law: no annulment shall be given to such a person any longer. Nevertheless after such banishment, the party defeated in law shall have twelve weeks’ free time for a settlement cum jure vincente; and may make deeds for the settlement of that case, may dispose of and sell its estates, and satisfy creditors authoritate præsentis Constitutionis mediante — otherwise if it is not willing, then the Starosta shall already be required to carry out execution against that person under banishment. And if the banishment was obtained in contumaciam: then at the summons of that Starosta and the opposing party by the person under banishment before the Tribunal, he may annul that banishment by his oath, even if he has no annulment jure victus. And where from anyone in any case banishment has been lifted by per definitivam sententiam: there no relaxation from Our Chancery shall be needed. Likewise where banishment has been imposed on anyone in Contumaciam in any case: immediately ^[A discharge is granted on account of ignorance of the process.] upon swearing super ignorantiam illius Bannitionis, he shall have standing in illo Judicio, and thereafter may remove that banishment from himself in the manner described above.

On Sub-Chamberlain’s Surrogacies.

^[Constitution 1601, fol. 1503, vol. 2.] Since it is provided by law that Sub-Chamberlains shall sub-delegate surrogates to their places in their own cases — those surrogates, however, must be for that one act only; and it is necessary that they be sworn, as the Sub-Chamberlains are; and it is difficult to persuade persons of good judgment and honourable reputation to this. We therefore enact: that each Sub-Chamberlain, when he has his own case, shall be required to bring out the nearest Sub-Chamberlain or his Boundary Chamberlain, or a sworn judicial official of his land or district, for such acts; who as a sworn official shall conduct the boundary act, and having subscribed himself upon his summons letters, shall be required under the penalty enacted for commissioners to arrive at the appointed time. This is to be understood for future times.

Ecclesiastical Persons in the Crown Holding Hereditary Estates.

^[Constitution 1607, fol. 1603, vol. 2.] Since some ecclesiastical persons are accustomed to acquire terrestrial hereditary estates for themselves and their relatives and successors: We therefore declare that from such paternal estates and those serving them and their relatives and successors in whatever manner — and not given and founded for the Church — ecclesiastical persons shall be required to perform the military expedition, and shall be subject to all

other burdens like the secular estate. Likewise, with respect to all injuries arising from the plots and estates mentioned: they shall be required to respond to the injured party as is appropriate in the land court and municipal court; and likewise when by way of appeals and remissions such cases shall fall to the Crown Tribunal, they shall be adjudicated by all the secular judges and by six ecclesiastical persons delegated to all cases by the ecclesiastical estate according to the constitution, from the side of the hereditary estates. However, if an ecclesiastical person should be found among the co-parties in such a case: such cases shall be adjudicated by the secular court alone. Likewise cases concerning such estates as began to be adjudicated cum Personis sæcularibus and thereafter lite pendente fell to ecclesiastical persons, whether by succession or upon the acquisition of a right — the secular court shall adjudicate in the manner described below, ex regestro causarum sæcularium, fine rejectione: excepting those estates which have been or shall be attached to the Church per commutationem or by the sale of ecclesiastical estates, which are subject to the ancient prerogatives of the Church. The onera publica æquivalentia remain upon the commuted and sold estates. Other cases — both ecclesiastical and secular — in sæculari shall be conducted according to the constitution of 1578. And in boundary cases, those parish priests who have no subjects

and no separate farms, but are founded only on tithes and annuities, shall not be joined together with the heirs, but such cases shall belong to the heirs alone.

Which Cases of Ecclesiastical Persons Fall Under the Terrestrial Law.

^[Herburt, fol. 452.] Ecclesiastical persons, for estates or injuries to estates subject to the common law, shall proceed by the terrestrial law. The injuries are in respect of boundaries, peasants, fugitives, killing, and wounding — otherwise according to the statutes of King John Albert.

Judicial Cases Touching upon Land, Personal and Simple, and Postponements of True Illness and for the Principal.

^[Constitution 1611, fol. 78, vol. 3.] In judicial cases that concern land and are called personal and simple, no postponements shall be permitted — except that if ^[A postponement of illness is granted.] an oath in such and other cases falls upon someone and is ordered to a party, then through the court messenger of that land, a resident with full authority, a postponement of true illness shall be permitted, both to the plaintiff and to the respondent, until the next sittings. At which sittings, from the preserved session, the party to whom the postponement shall be granted shall

swear as a third, that it was truly ill; and after the oath it shall be admitted to the case.

A postponement shall also be given for the principal ^[Ibid., fol. 79.] likewise through ^[A postponement for the principal.] a possessory deputy sent with full authority, if personal sessions fall in different courts — that is, if an oath has arisen for someone, he is required to discharge it first in the case that involves the greater sum, and that one shall be postponed as the lesser to the next sittings; and thereafter he shall prove this to the one to whom the postponement was given by the signatory letters of that court, that he truly had a case under oath there, and a proceeding from which that case arose — so that the plaintiff may not be mocked and damaged in vain sub amissione causæ.

Adding to this: if in injuries and land differences ^[Ibid., fol. 79.] that arise between neighbours ^[A boundary case cannot be decided without cognisance of it.] there are no boundaries made, and one summons another either to escape injuries or wishing himself peace — then the boundary case shall first be adjudicated, and then the injuries considered. However, without delay the boundaries are to be continued; otherwise, if the party shall not pursue them, the actions brought for injuries and losses shall have free recourse to the law, without any opposition or legal impediment.

The suspension of cases is required to run for senators, commissioners, and deputies.

Security of the Lord Senators and Land Deputies.

^[Constitution 1659, fol. 591, vol. 4.] Reassuming in full the constitutions of the most recent Sejms concerning the security of the lord senators, Crown officials, commissioners, deputies to foreign lords, and land deputies, and their wards — by the authority of the present convention We declare that all decrees and condemnations that shall have stood against any of the lord senators and land deputies elected to the Sejm, whether by contest or in contumacy, at whatever election sitting, in whatever court of the greater or lesser tribunal, and that shall be standing until the relation sittings — all such decrees and condemnations We annul. After the relation sitting, however, within two weeks each of the lord senators and deputies shall be required to conduct himself in quocunque Judicio at the instance of any person. And so that there may be no doubt about this in the future, by the authority of the present convention We declare this law to be a perpetual law. Which shall also serve for deputies to foreign lords, residents, or commissioners post expeditam functionem.

On the Security of the Right Honourable Senators and Honourable Land Deputies, both of the Crown and of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.

^[Constitution 1661, fol. 721, vol. 4.] Inclining ourselves to the constitution of the year 1659 on the security of the Right Honourable Senators and Honourable

Land Deputies — all condemnations, and any courts and actus quosvis Juridicos obtained during the present and future Sejms up to the relation sitting, both before the Tribunal and in quibusvis subselliis in præjudicium & aggravationem of both the Right Honourable Senators and the Honourable Land Deputies and their spouses, etiam in causis dotis & inscriptionum — We annul and destroy, wishing that the tribunals of all courts shall in everything conform to this law. That same security shall also cover the Inspectors of Our estates.

Security of the Lord Senators and Land Deputies of the Crown and of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.

^[Constitution 1667, fol. 927, vol. 4.] Reassuming the constitutions of the years 1659 and 1661 on the security of the lord senators and land deputies, and all those who are secured by the mentioned constitutions, written pro perpetua lege — We declare that they shall not be required to swear to the legality of their presence at the Sejm and of their function before the Tribunals; but Our Right Honourable Senators, deputies ad Exteros, and commissioners shall, by the attestation of whichever Right Honourable Marshal is at the Sejm; and the Honourable Land Deputies by the attestation

of the Honourable Marshal of the Deputies at the Sejm, upon showing their presence, shall be required to conduct themselves super suspensionem Causæ ex Regestro incidentis simpliciter. Any sworn proofs super suspensionem ex occasione prorogationis causæ contrary to the prescription of the law, ordered in whatever tribunal of the Kingdom and of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, as contrary to the law, We repeal and annul. Which constitution shall also extend to those condemnations and decrees issued and obtained during the preceding and present Sejm. That same constitution shall cover those who from the dependency of the present Sejm shall be elected at the relation sittings to the Treasury Tribunal.

Security of the Right Honourable Senators and Honourable Land Deputies.

^[Constitution 1678, fol. 565, vol. 5.] Since against the express laws written concerning the Right Honourable Senators and Honourable Deputies before the Crown Tribunals there have been excesses — in that some in the exercise of their function have been burdened by decrees, and some by condemnations — therefore, reassuming all constitutions, and in particular those of the year 1659 and of the year 1661, likewise of the year 1667: all such decrees and condemnations — and in particular those obtained against the Honourable Władysław and his son Jan Dobrski and other persons in that same case — We annul; and We enact by the authority of the present convention that municipal courts

shall not dare to execute such condemnations sub privatione Officij; and those executions carried out during the Sejm We declare pro nullis & irritis, salvo negotio principali. Safeguarding this for the future: should anyone dare to obtain a decree or condemnation against the Right Honourable Senators and Land Deputies sub tempus per legem exemptum, such person shall be required to succumbere pænæ mille Marcarum Polonicalium ^[Penalty of one thousand marks.] to be vindicated from the register of the lord senators and deputies.

Soldiers Exempt from Courts.

^[Constitution 1609, fol. 1681, vol. 2.] Guarding against those dangers that might fall upon the Crown and Our adjacent domains from various sides, and which could not be repelled without soldiers — We therefore, for all those who on any side, wherever the need of the Commonwealth indicates, shall have been directed by the Crown Hetmans and of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania — reassuming in full the constitution of the reign of King Stefan in the year 1578, We exempt them from all courts in general, exceptis Causis ad Inscriptiones, Expulsionis, Violentiæ & Rei judicatæ.

Exemptions.

^[Constitution 1620, fol. 373, vol. 3.] Captains of cavalry and those who at that time shall be

in Our service and that of the Commonwealth are to have exemptions from all laws, going according to the constitution of the year 1590 made on exemptions — excepting recentia crimina from the date of the Sejm. Which constitution shall also serve the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.

A Vault for the Sub-Chamberlain’s Records in Sandomierz; On the Records and the Boundary Notary of the Palatinate of Sandomierz.

^[Constitution 1631, fol. 698, vol. 3.] Considering the security of the boundary records of the inhabitants of the Palatinate of Sandomierz, so that they may not be kept in private houses as has been the case up to now — for this reason We designate a vault in Our castle of Sandomierz for the keeping of the Sandomierz boundary records; which vault the Right Honourable Starosta of that place shall show. And so that access for everyone needing extracts from those records may be the easier — the Honourable Sub-Chamberlain of Sandomierz shall be required to provide from his Sub-Chamberlain’s office a notary resident in that same palatinate. Which notary, before he takes those boundary records into his administration, shall be required to swear an oath at the land sittings of Sandomierz in these words: I, [name], swear to Almighty GOD, One in the Holy Trinity, that I shall faithfully enter into the boundary records the boundary acts presented

to me for inscription by the Sub-Chamberlain’s office — changing nothing, adding nothing — as well as the contests of the parties; having no regard in this matter to anyone, whether poor or rich, friend or enemy. And all the records given over to me by the Honourable Sub-Chamberlain of Sandomierz or his office, I shall keep faithfully. So help me Lord GOD, and the Passion of Christ the Lord. Every Boundary Chamberlain of that palatinate shall therefore, after the conduct of the boundaries, be required to send the act of those same boundaries, properly written up, into the hands of the said Sub-Chamberlain’s notary, sub amissione Officij sui, within the course of six weeks, and to enter it in the records of his district. And since the Honourable Krzysztof of Tęczyn Ossoliński, the present Sub-Chamberlain of Sandomierz, ex nunc releases the revenue from the Sandomierz customs for the provision of that Sub-Chamberlain’s notary — We therefore approve this for that same notary for all time. In this same manner the Palatinate of Cracow receives the act and the Sub-Chamberlain’s notary. And since the Palatinate of Sandomierz shall at the next sitting, which shall be fixed and conducted immediately after the Sejm in that same palatinate, designate a certain tax for the transcription of the land records of the Palatinate of Sandomierz, and shall there draw up a more sufficient ordinance concerning this matter,

which We approve by the present constitution — therefore, providing in this for the needs of the noble estate of the Palatinate of Sandomierz, since access to the land records is not always open, We order that all boundary acts and divisions in general from each district shall be separately extracted specificè in unum Volumen and thereafter all together from all the districts delivered to the records of the Honourable Sub-Chamberlain of Sandomierz as boundary records, and kept in proper order by the said Sub-Chamberlain’s notary together with the others. And so that those boundary acts and divisions from each district may be properly extracted and delivered to the Sub-Chamberlain’s office: the Honourable Land Notary of the Palatinate of Sandomierz shall be required to see to this with diligence sub quadrupla pæna contra negligentes Officiales sancita & sub amissione Officij sui. And in the future all acts of perpetuities, as mentioned above, shall no longer be submitted to the land or municipal records, but to the Sub-Chamberlain’s records of that palatinate.

Equation of the Palatinates in the Sub-Chamberlain’s Offices.

^[Constitution 1677, fol. 464, vol. 5.] Equating, as in an equal Commonwealth, the prerogatives of the Sub-Chamberlain’s office between the Sieradz ^[Equation of Sandomierz with Sieradz.] and Sandomierz palatinates — We will that in Sieradz, as in Sandomierz, there shall be

as many Boundary Chamberlains in the palatinate as there are districts; and likewise a Sub-Chamberlain’s notary — in which matter the constitution serving the Palatinate of Sandomierz, which the Palatinate of Cracow also adopted in the year 1631, under the title Vault for Sub-Chamberlain’s Records, shall in the future serve the Palatinate of Sieradz.

Delimitation of the Inhabitants of the Palatinates of Ruthenia, Bełz, Podolia, and Volhynia Among Themselves.

^[Constitution 1601, fol. 1505, vol. 2.] We enact that the inhabitants of the palatinates of Ruthenia, Bełz, Podolia, and Volhynia — between whose hereditary estates the matter concerns not jurisdiction or forum with respect to the estates, but only the delimitation itself and the settlement of the plots — since such differences requiring settlement only in the matter of use itself, having no controversy over jurisdiction and forum, require delimitation: therefore, without waiting for a principal commission according to the ancient laws and constitutions, an inhabitant of any of those palatinates who requires boundaries from the adjacent inhabitants of another palatinate of the above-named palatinates shall bring out both Sub-Chamberlain’s offices — both that of his own district and that of the district from which the differences arise — as well as the standard-bearer and the military judge of both districts. Which Sub-Chamberlains,

standard-bearers, and military judges shall be required to subscribe themselves upon the summons of the injured party, and to appear at the appointed time of the summons under a fine of one hundred marks — for which each shall be required to answer before the Tribunal among the official cases, if he should be unwilling to subscribe, or having subscribed should fail to appear, excepting the cause of true illness. Upon such a summons and notification the respondent shall be required to appear before the plaintiff’s party and lawfully dispute over the ownership of the plot and the differences; and the absence of one or two of the mentioned officials shall not obstruct this — indeed, those who assemble at that time shall be required to conduct that act. There, for the weightier proofs, an oath shall be adjudged to whichever party by the Sub-Chamberlains or their offices, together with the other dignitaries — that is, the standard-bearers and military judges — yet preserving in this a free appeal to the Tribunal from such a decree, if any party should consider itself injured by such a decree. And if those two offices should be in disagreement among themselves and should issue different sentences or decrees: then to both parties, from either side, from the decree of whichever court and office, there shall be a free appeal to the Tribunal; the recognition of those decrees being in that palatinate which shall fall due first — that is, either Volhynian, or Kievan, or Bracław — after the conduct of such

a case. And the Sub-Chamberlains, standard-bearers, military judges, and that office shall, for the effective conclusion of such decrees, send their sufficient sentences, with the sufficient contests and presentations explained, to the Tribunal — for the Poles in Polish writing, and for the Volhynians in Ruthenian writing. For which such session the parties shall be required to appear in an equal retinue — that is, of thirty horses only, counting among them servants and friends, without any firearms, only with customary weapons — that is, with sabre, sword, cutlass, and rapier — under a fine of five hundred marks: for which the respondent shall give account and shall have a complicated session before the Tribunal among the official cases. And where there should be an adjacency of an estate of His Royal Majesty leased by anyone: then by the customary method, according to the law, such differences shall be delimited by commissioners.

Delimitation of the Palatinates of Ruthenia, Bełz, and Volhynia.

^[Constitution 1647, fol. 124, vol. 4.] Reassuming the constitution of the year 1601 and declaring it, on the delimitation of the palatinates of Ruthenia, Bełz, Volhynia, and Podolia — We will and enact by the force of this Sejm: that for such a division of plots and differences between those three palatinates — Ruthenian, Bełz, and

Volhynian — and their districts and lands, those needing boundary proceedings may bring out together with the Sub-Chamberlains or their offices not only the standard-bearers and the land office but also other land officials together with the Sub-Chamberlains or their offices — that is, stewards of the table, cup-bearers, under-stewards, military judges, sword-bearers, treasurers — provided they are from whatever district or land of those palatinates; then sufficiently and fully such a delimitation may be conducted, provided there are not fewer than three from one side and likewise from the other side. Adding to this: when the summons from the plaintiff’s commissioners reaches the cited party and shall have been acknowledged in the municipal court ubi bona Citati ratione quorum res est consistunt, the cited party shall be required pro tempore & loco assigned by the summons of the plaintiff’s commissioners to bring out his own commissioners from his own side; and for him an equal number shall likewise be sufficient as for the plaintiff. And if by the appointed time from the plaintiff’s commissioners the cited party shall not have brought out his commissioners, and either shall have gone out himself or shall not have gone out (in which only true illness, juxta Statutum in Termino sequenti comprobanda, can excuse him) — then the commissioners brought out by the plaintiff shall be able to delimit on their own and erect the mounds; and this We enact to be ratified and firm. Referring in that delimitation first to documentary evidence, and in defectu to the testimony of elderly witnesses, and according to the statute,

natural markers and possibilities, without prejudicing the right of path if either party should have it; and if even that should be lacking and both parties should have doubtful documents — they shall be able to divide the disputed plot in half, so that every avenue to differences may be closed. And when such a commission stands, it can never be disturbed.

Since boundary cases and their decision are accustomed to take ^[Constitution 1768, under the title: Union of the Crown Tribunal in Boundary Cases, fol. 220.] the most time in the Tribunals, and justice is frequently made to suffer through inadequate and poor delineation of maps produced before the court — therefore We enact lege præsenti that such cases shall necessarily have their first instance before the land court, which court non intrando in cognitionem of that case, nor prescribing any rule, shall send it to the plot cum præfixione Termini Condescensoralis Granicialis & optione conducendi Geometræ iurati; and there the Sub-Chamberlain’s office — whether the Sub-Chamberlain himself (who all shall be sworn by the formula in the constitution of 1588) or his Boundary Chamberlains — admitting no appeal in præliminariis causæ, with prior summons of the collateral heirs, having regard to the documents and boundary markers or the natural boundary, and in defectu of those obvious ones, with prior sworn inquiry and testimony of elderly witnesses, shall adjudicate that case finaliter.

The map, if it shall be necessary, formed on the plot, shall be signed; and the case of such a court per apellationem

from a final sentence, or in a case not admitted, by grievance, shall then go to the Tribunal. Which Tribunal, if from any legitimate considerations it should not be able to approve the Sub-Chamberlain’s decree at the table, shall then refer the matter to a second field hearing on the plot, and shall designate another Sub-Chamberlain and not a Boundary Chamberlain; and if at such a second field hearing conducted on the plot the first boundary decree should be approved, then that decision shall transire in rem plene iudicatam; and We will that the party wishing to disturb such decrees be punished pænis convulsionis Decretorum.

Cases not having delineationem Mappæ & exequitationem Ductuum, even if begun before the Tribunal, shall be adjudicated first and foremost before the land court cum decernenda Condescensione ad Campum. The party raising a boundary question concerning a plot ^[Acts of violence are prohibited in disputed places under penalties.] possessed by a neighbour shall in no way violently take possession of the plots or forests claimed, nor commit any damage, sub pæna siedzenia Wieży czterech Niedziel & mille marcarum ex Regestro Terminorum Tactorum vindicandarum & responsione for such damage and violence, etiam ante decisionem Causæ Granicialis extendendæ. And the party possessing the plot or forest in dispute shall upon its adjudication to the other party be required to surrender it una cum calculo seu bonificatione.

Boundary Chamberlains shall be possessioned residents ^[Sub-Chamberlains must be residents of the palatinate.] in the palatinates or land, sub amissione Officij; and in the Palatinates of Kiev, Volhynia, Podolia, Bracław, and Bełz, on account of the remoteness of the districts, We permit the Honourable Sub-Chamberlain to have three Boundary Chamberlains in each district.

And since the Convocation Sejm drew up a penalty for officials ^[On official reports at field hearings, fol. 219.] who write dissenting opinions at field hearings, and the rigour of that penalty metum incutere seems to the judges — wishing sometimes to avoid an unjust sentence and the risk of responsibility in the promotion by Activiorem Partem of the case before the Tribunal — We therefore, clarifying the Convocation constitution, will it to be understood as follows: that if from indifferent proofs and evidence such cases conducted by per aliter sentientes Officiales should be written in disagreement, and before the Tribunal from those two sentences one ex potiori iustitia should prove to be more just — then in that case the sentence of the other official shall not carry pænalitatem for the one writing the dissent; but the one writing the dissent shall be subject to punishment only in the case where his sentence should prove manifestly favourable contra Documenta or aliter obloquentibus Inquisitionibus, or contrary to the Rule of the Tribunal decree.

Furthermore, if those same officials having agreed in resolutione Jurium, specifically in puncto

of ordering the session and of satisfaction, they should be required to write dissenting opinions — then in that case also they shall be subject to the penalty per Constitutionem 1764 imposite & per Tribunal irrogandæ. The dissenting sentence, however, shall be null.

DESIGNATION

Of Trees and Other Markers, in Respect of the Observation of the Position and Situation of Places.

Metal markers which are required to be placed by the Right Honourable Sub-Chamberlain into the mounds at the time of their erection, namely: Dimoscorium ferreum — iron slag (Zużel). Dimoscorium Vitreum — glass slag from a glassworks (Szklany Zużel z Huty). Vitrum — glass (Szkło). Carbones —

charcoal (Węgle). Lateres — brick (Cegły). Milium — millet (Proso), concealed in a glass bottle into which a paper or parchment sheet is placed, with a description of the year and the act by which it was concluded and determined, so that it may be clear to posterity, upon the opening of the mounds, in the event of any future difference, pursuant to the intent of the decree.

These matters, therefore, having been declared and explained in the manner aforesaid as regards the boundary legal process — since it is not enough merely to establish boundaries through many and various turns of the law, and to erect them once established, but also to preserve them once erected, sound and intact — in the event therefore of the boundaries or mounds, whether of one, several, or nearly all of them, having been destroyed, ploughed up, and dispersed by the opposing party, or having collapsed with the passage of time, or having been erected by private authority and of one’s own motion, omitting the ordinary field Sub-Chamberlain’s office — what else remains for the person who suffered injury therefrom but to proceed at law for those that were destroyed or privately erected; to seek from the court the restoration of those dispersed and the demolition of those privately raised, with the decreed penalties; to bring the case on that account before the competent court — for which, to elicit the truth from the thing presented to the eyes, an official inspection by the court messenger and two noblemen is altogether required by law, with a description of the position of the places.

Translator’s Notes

[T.N. 1] Buxus in classical Latin denotes the box tree (Buxus sempervirens); Cis (spelled Ciss here) in Polish denotes the yew (Taxus baccata) — a different species. Paciorkowski groups them as a single entry. Both are evergreen trees of similar dense-wooded character; the English rendering “box / yew tree” follows the source’s grouping without resolving the botanical discrepancy.

[T.N. 2] Terebintus in classical Latin is the terebinth (Pistacia terebinthus), a Mediterranean tree not native to Poland. Paciorkowski equates it with Polish Modrzew (larch, Larix decidua), which is the ecologically appropriate Polish equivalent. The translation “larch” follows the Polish gloss as the operationally intended meaning in this context.

INDEX

A

Accessory matters in boundary cases. Page — 9. 10. 11.
Corner point and particular corner point, which are subject to resolution first. — 12.
Corner point near a river, how it is established. — 13.
Corner point and particular corner point, how they are to be understood. — 17.
Avulsed portions: lawful to reclaim them, notwithstanding prescription. — 22.
A completed commissarial act requires no approval. — 121.

B

Benefit of the law for a person under banishment, after the gain of the right of path. — 2.
Delimitation of ecclesiastical estates. — 15.
Conventual estates. — 16.
Estates situated on the borders of the Kingdom. — 17.
Between royal and terrestrial estates no amicable settlement is granted. — 85.

C

First land court citation against the principal party. — 4.
First citation against the collateral heirs. — 5.
Second citation against the principal party and collateral heirs. — 14.
Collusion of the parties, to the prejudice of a third estate. — Ibid.
Royal commissions and commissioners for royal estates. — 82.
It is lawful for commissioners, by the moderation of their court, to determine the boundaries. — 84.
Five commissioners shall be present for boundaries. — 116.
Commissioners, having first conducted a sworn inquiry, shall make the boundaries. — 117.
If commissioners are lacking in the proper district. — Ibid.
A nobleman is required to obtain a commission. — 118.
The Captain shall provide for the commissioners. — Ibid.
The session of the commission: two weeks before the delimitation. — 118.
Security of the commissioners. — 119.
The decrees of the commissioners are firm. — 120.
Commissioners shall make the boundaries notwithstanding the contumacy of the Captain. — Ibid.
Commissioners unjustly cited. — 121.
The land court is assigned as the forum for the Captain in matters of boundaries. — 122.
Commissioners shall make the boundaries according to the markers and the testimony of the elderly witnesses. — Ibid.
Captains shall not commit injury after the delimitation. — 123.
A party condemned in court shall not be admitted to contest. — 142.
Collateral heirs must be summoned. — 144.
Cases of ecclesiastical persons fall under the terrestrial law. — 156.

D

A postponement for documents is granted in a boundary case. — 6.
Postponements are granted for illness, for the principal, for deliberation, for suspension inasmuch as the judge is a senator or deputy, and likewise for soldier’s exemption. — 11.
Decree of referral to the field. — 7.
Deliberation of the court. — 25.
Decree of deliberation. — 26.
Decree resolving the deliberation. — 29.
Decree of the granted principal postponement. — 31.
Decree on serious contested matters on the preservation of the session. — 33.
Boundary path of the plaintiff’s party in that same decree. — 36.
Boundary path of the cited party in that same decree. — 41.
Decree on serious contested matters, pursuant to a Tribunal decree. — 51.
Decree by virtue of a compromissorial instrument. — 65.
Decree between ecclesiastical and terrestrial estates. — 72.
Commissarial decree by the moderation of the court. — 85.
Boundary path in that same decree, of the heir of terrestrial estates. — 95.
Boundary path of the Right Honourable Captain in that same decree. — 99.
Commissarial decree with the oath for the party that won the boundary path. — 104.
Delimitation in the contumacy of the leaseholder. — 114.
Declaration on the boundary commissions of Prussia. — 130.
On reviews and reviewers of royal estates. — 135.
Postponements in the field. — 146.
Ecclesiastical persons holding hereditary estates. — 154.
The ecclesiastical forum in boundary cases. — 134.

F

The Sub-Chamberlain’s cord for measuring the mounds. — 18.
Diversion of a river. — 21.

G

Boundaries by moderation of the court. — 24.
Boundaries by virtue of an amicable settlement. — 77.
Boundaries: the Starostas are to keep them for ever. Constitution 1550. — 123.
Boundaries destroyed by the Starosta. Constitution 1562. — 124.
Boundaries in the Duchy of Masovia. Constitution 1569. — Ibid.
Destroyed boundaries. Constitution 1578. — 125.
Boundaries are first to be erected before acts of violence are adjudicated. Constitution 1611. — 157.

I

Summons letters to the field from the Sub-Chamberlain. — 7.
Summons letters to the collateral heirs. — 8.
Summons letters of the commissioners and the mandate. — 88. & 90.
In the commissarial act no postponement is granted, nor appeal. — 82.
Oath of the party that has won the boundary path. — 142.

L

Gain of the right of path. — 6.
Boundaries of estates never previously delimited. — 14.
The natural boundary is to be considered. — 21.

M

Minors are required to respond in a boundary case. — 143.
For minors the reserved action is saved. — Ibid.

O

Observation of the position of places. — 18.
East, west, etc. are to be observed. — 19.
On commissions for boundaries. Constitution 1588. — 126.
On boundary commissions of the Palatinates of Kiev and Bracław. Constitution 1613. — 131.
On reviews. Constitution 1647. — 132.
On the Sub-Chamberlain in Masovia. Constitution 1576. — 147.
On the making of boundaries. Constitution. — Ibid.
On the renewal of boundaries. Constitution. — 148.
On the authority of officials at a site inspection in Masovia. Constitution 1576. — 150.
On the election of the Sub-Chamberlain and his oath. Constitution 1588. — 151.
On the relaxation and annulment of banishment. Ibid. — 152.
On Sub-Chamberlain’s surrogacies. Constitution 1601. — 154.
On postponements for the principal and for illness. Constitution 1611. — 156.
On soldiers’ exemptions. Constitutions 1638, 1673, 1676. — 137.
On those same exemptions. Constitution 1627. — 135.

P

The original terrestrial process. — 3.
Prescription does not run in a boundary case. — 22.
Prescription of the new heir: three years and three months. — 24.
Penalty for destroyed mounds. — 23.
Penalty against those who erect mounds by private authority. — Ibid.
Penalty against leaseholders who destroy mounds. — Ibid.
Penalty against an absent commissioner. — Ibid.
Prosecutorial letters against the commissarial act are void. — 84.
The Sub-Chamberlains of Sandomierz and Cracow are permitted to appoint a boundary notary. Constitution 1631. — 162.
Equation of the Sub-Chamberlain of Sieradz with the Sub-Chamberlain of Sandomierz. Constitution 1677. — 164.

R

The straight line is to be observed in boundaries. — 21.
Referral to the Tribunal on account of disagreement of sentences. — 24.
Delimitation of the inhabitants of Prussia. Constitution 1601. — 129.
Reassumption of the constitutions on commissions. Constitution 1703. — 133.
Delimitation of the inhabitants of the Ruthenian palatinates. — 165.
Delimitation of those same palatinates. Constitution 1647. — 167.

S

An accurate description of the mounds once erected shall be made. — 20.
The royal subjects are required to confirm the won boundary path, not the Captain. — 83.
The Sub-Chamberlain’s office. — 139.
The Sub-Chamberlain shall consider the natural boundary. — Ibid.
The Sub-Chamberlain shall not transpose the session for the parties. — 141.
The Sub-Chamberlain shall admit to confirmation the party showing more probable markers. — Ibid.
Mounds. — 145.
Penalty for mounds unlawfully erected. — 146.
To whom the suspension is required to run. Constitution 1659. — 158.
On those same suspensions. Constitution 1661. — 159.
On the same. Constitution 1667. — Ibid.
Security of the Right Honourable Senators and Deputies. Constitution 1678. — 160.

W

Provision for boundary commissions. Constitution 1598. — 129.
Provision for boundary commissions. Constitution 1651. — 133.
Constitution 1768: Union of the Crown Tribunal in Boundary Cases. — 169.

TRANSLATION GLOSSARY

Fixed-term renderings used throughout this translation. Latin and Polish originals are given with their English equivalents and contextual definitions.