Verdict of King Sigismund Augustus in the dispute between the successors of Marcin Hanel and the city of Lwów

SIGISMUND AUGUST by the grace of God, King of Poland, Grand Duke of Lithuania, Ruthenia, Prussia, Masovia, Samogitia, etc., lord and heir. We hereby announce to all and each person concerned, who shall receive knowledge of this, by this our letter. Whereas, on the date hitherto adjourned, by virtue of our summons, the honorable Michał Hanel, on his own behalf and on behalf of the honorable: Anna, widow of the late Marcin Hanel, Marcin, Michał, Szymon, Stanisław, Jadwiga, wife of Tybald Eichmingier, and Tybald Eichmingier for his own interest, and the maiden Anna, legitimate sons and daughters, successors of the late Marcin Hanel, complained against the honorable mayor, councilors, reeve, and jurors, and the entire community of our city of Lwów, in the presence of the honorable Marcin Wielicki, Maciej Hidericz, and Józef Marcialis, councilors and proxies of the defendants. And this is because they, disregarding the fact that the engagement in the dispute and the entire proceedings in the whole matter between them and the successors of the late Hanel were conducted before our appointed commissioners, and finally the case was brought before our tribunal, not in the matter of the ownership of the aforementioned estates of both Hołosko, greater and lesser, and Brzuchowice, but only as to whether the estates of Hołosko greater and lesser and Brzuchowice should be subject to municipal or land jurisdiction, and not as to the free use of the said estates, of which the late Hanel was always in peaceful possession and free use, and his successors are to this day, as the dispute more broadly states, and that our verdict was passed furthermore only as to jurisdiction, and not as to ownership and the deprivation of the successors of Hanel himself of the possession and free use of the estates of Hołosko and Brzuchowice: despite this, however, acting against this our verdict, they proceeded against the plaintiffs and violently encroached upon the ownership of the estates of Hołosko and Brzuchowice, deprived them of peaceful possession and free use, and tore away and removed the obedience of the peasants of the plaintiffs as the true heirs of these estates, and tore away and removed from the peasants of the said Hołosko estates the right to collect income and perform the labor due to them from the peasants of the said Hołosko estates by the power of the plaintiffs as the true heirs of these estates, and forbade the collection of income from the settlers of the said Hołosko estates and the performance of the labor due to them, moreover, they violently took away the thickets and land belonging to the said estates, and not only restrained them from the peaceful use of the estates of Hołosko and Brzuchowice by their orders and force, but also threw them into prison, nor did they conduct the raised dispute over the recovery of these estates with them. For these altogether unjust imprisonments, they reserved for themselves a separate legal action against them in the proper court. Since the defendants, only in subordination, cannot extend their jurisdiction earlier or further, according to the aforementioned verdict, unless justice was denied to those complaining against the subjects from Hołosko, and this was applied according to municipal law and the custom long observed among the townspeople, and not so that the use, benefits, and ownership of the estates and the obedience of the peasants were to be forbidden and hindered; and in all the above they added [a demand for] two thousand florins and as much in damages, as was more broadly contained in the remaining part of the summons. And they showed a letter of privilege of the most serene King Władysław dated in Kraków, on Thursday after St. Emeric in the year of our Lord 1424, containing the confirmation of the donation and resignation before the Lwów juror court dated on Wednesday, the court day of the holy martyrs Felix and Adauctus in the year of our Lord 1413, made by the honest Katarzyna, wife of the translator Jamisk, of the Hołosko grange, to the person of her husband Jamisk, along with the grant by the same King Władysław of the Brzuchowice estates with their appurtenances; the confirmation of which letter of privilege, granted by our parent of holy memory to the late Marcin Hanel, father of the plaintiffs, [Michał Hanel] showed, claiming that his father and they themselves as successors were and still are in possession of these estates of Hołosko and Brzuchowice, demanding that we adjudicate the ownership of these estates to the plaintiffs. Conversely, the above-mentioned proxies of the defendants, having presented two of our verdicts, one dated in Vilnius, on Wednesday before the feast of St. Thomas the Apostle in the year 1555, and the other dated in the same year, also in Vilnius, on Wednesday before the feast of St. Thomas the Apostle, argued as part of their objection that the matter of all disputes, in the name of which their principals were summoned, had already been settled and silenced by these our verdicts. For as regards the first part of the summons, in which the plaintiffs argue that our earlier Vilnius verdict concerned jurisdiction and not ownership, that same verdict contains in clear words that Hołosko Greater and Lesser and Brzuchowice lie on the land of the city of Lwów and are to be subject to no other jurisdiction but municipal for all time. Which [jurisdiction] the mayor and councilors of the city of Lwów themselves shall have and exercise in the same way as they have and exercise it in other granges located on municipal land. And from these words of our verdict, they claimed that it clearly follows that all jurisdiction over the inhabitants of the villages of Brzuchowice and Hołosko belongs to the mayor and councilors, and not to the plaintiffs, and that the mayor and councilors are obliged to administer justice to all who complain against them in any matters, in the manner of other granges located in the city suburbs. As for ownership, regarding which the right to a complaint was reserved intact by a later verdict, they presented the privilege of the most serene King Władysław, our predecessor, dated on Ember Days, the Wednesday nearest after the feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross in the year of our Lord 1415, from which they argued that all fringes or remnants, otherwise called areas, of all fields long measured and designated for the said city, beyond their measurement in length and width up to the boundaries and borders of all and individual villages, both knightly, and ecclesiastical and secular, adjacent all around to the same city, as well as income, excesses, and remainders, and all wastelands between the boundaries of these villages, with all their appurtenances, up to the forest called Brzymi Las, were granted and incorporated to the city of Lwów forever, and on the land of these fringes and wastelands lie the Brzuchowice estates, in the use and continuous, peaceful possession of which the city of Lwów has remained from the date of that letter of privilege until this very day, and that there exists an oath regarding this possession, which the defendants took in accordance with the provision of our later verdict. A copy of which oath, drawn up in authentic form, they showed before us. Arguing furthermore that by the same oath the defendants proved not only possession but also the ownership of the estates over which the dispute was held. The privilege of King Władysław and its confirmation cannot add anything to the rights of the plaintiffs, because the plaintiffs failed to prove that they are successors of the translator Janusz, to whom this privilege was given by King Władysław, and although Katarzyna, the widowed wife of Jamisk, after the death of that husband sold the Hołosko grange to a certain Mikulka, the predecessor of the plaintiffs, as they proved with an extract from the juror acts, however, she made no mention at all of the Brzuchowice estates in this sale, nor were the late Janusz or Katarzyna herself ever in their possession, and Marcin Hanel himself made no provision regarding the condition of redemption from the Brzuchowice estates, except regarding Hołosko; in the possession of which Hołosko estates the defendants stated that they maintain the plaintiffs, and that with the preservation of the duties and labor called szarwarki, which are due to the city; and it was not through the fault of the defendants that the benefits from the Hołosko estates were not given to the plaintiffs, but because of others having an interest in these estates, who initiated a case against the plaintiffs before the juror court of this city, and at whose request the income from the Hołosko estates was sequestered by the verdict of the municipal court until the resolution of the dispute; and for this reason the plaintiffs were thrown into prison by the defendants, that they violated the sequestration against the verdict of the court, and that they refused to show the due obedience to the municipal authority and committed acts of insolence. Demanding that we maintain them in the ownership of the Brzuchowice estates and the mill built there, and adjudicate to them the jurisdiction over the Hołosko estates according to our earlier verdict. We, having examined the dispute of the parties together with our advisors and lawyers, and having diligently considered and reviewed our verdicts and privileges presented by both sides: as regards the ownership of the Brzuchowice estates and the mill built there, since it follows from our earlier Vilnius verdict that the Brzuchowice estates and the mill lie on the land of the city of Lwów, and also that the defendants confirmed with their own oaths the longest possession of the mill built in these Brzuchowice estates, in accordance with the disposition of our later verdict, therefore we decree that the ownership of the Brzuchowice estates and the mill by the city should remain for all time. As for the jurisdiction of the Hołosko estates, holding to the earlier Vilnius verdict, we decree that the Hołosko and Brzuchowice estates are subject to no other jurisdiction but municipal, which the mayor and councilors, according to the earlier Vilnius verdict, shall have and exercise in the way they have and exercise it in other granges located on municipal land, with this clarification of the same Vilnius verdict, that the mayor and councilors should not deny the plaintiffs the income and benefits from the Hołosko estates, legally and by old custom belonging to the plaintiffs themselves, and that the plaintiffs may collect and enforce these income and benefits from the Hołosko estates and other estates, which they possess by virtue of their deeds and rights, for themselves according to ancient custom, with the preservation of the common labor and burdens called szarwarki and others long belonging to the city. Regarding the imprisonment – we decree that the defendants are free from this charge of imprisonment, because the defendants showed that the plaintiffs, against the verdict of the local court in the case which they conducted with other interested parties regarding the Hołosko estates before the Lwów municipal court, opposed the sequestration and refused to be subject to municipal jurisdiction, by the act of this our verdict. In witness and testimony of which our seal has been appended to this. Given in Kraków on the Saturday before the nearest Sunday Laetare, in the year of our Lord one thousand five hundred and fifty-nine, and in the thirtieth year of our reign. [Chancellery note / signature:] By the own order of His Royal Majesty Jan Ocieski, Chancellor of the Kingdom of Poland, starosta of Kraków, [...], Olsztyn, Lubocheń, Sącz, and Olsztyn. Jan Ocieski, signed.

SIGISMVNDVS AVGVSTVS Dei gratia Rex Poloniae magnus Dux Lithuaniae, Russiae, Prussiae, Masoviae, Samogitiae etc. dominus et haeres. Significamus praesentibus literis nostris, quorum interest universis et singulis, harum notitiam habituris. Posteaquam in termino hucusque continuato, vigore citationis nostrae famatus Michael Hanel suo et famatorum Anna relicta olim Martini Hanel, Martini, Michaelis, Simonis, Stanislai, Hedvigis, uxoris Tibaldi Aichmigier, et Tibaldi Aichmigier pro ipsius interesse, ac Anna virginis filiorum et filiarum legitimorum successorum olim Martini Hanel nominibus, quereretur de famatis Proconsule, Consulibus, Advocato et scabinis, totaque communitate civitatis nostrae Leopoliensis, in praesentia famatorum Martini Vyeliczi, Mathiae Hidericz et Josephi Marcialis, Consulum et plenipotentium Citatorum. Ideo quia ipsi non attento eo quod litis contestatio, atqu[e] totus processus totius causae inter eos et successores olim Hanel, non super negocio proprietatis bonorum dictorum vtriusque Holoszco maioris et minoris, et Brzuchowicze, coram certis Commissariis nostris agitatus fuisset, tandemque causa ad tribunal nostrum deducta, sed tantum super eo an bona maioris et minoris Holoszko, et Brzuchowicze jurisdictioni Civili aut terrestri subiacere debeant, non autem de vsu libero praedictorum bonorum, quorum defunctus Hanel semper in pacifica possessione et in libero vsu fuit, successoresque ipsius hactenus sunt, vti ea de re controversia latius continet, atque decretum nostrum vltra super jurisdictione tantum, et non proprietate ademptionisq[ue] successoribus ipsius Hanel possessionis, et libero vsu bonorum Holoszko et Brzuchowicze latum fuerat: nihildominus tamen contravenientes eiusmodi decreto nostro contra actores processissent, atque violenter se inserissent in proprietatem bonorum Holoszco et Brzuchowicze, pacificamque possessionem cum libero vsu eis ademissent, ac obedientiam Cmethonibus actorum, tanquam verorum haeredum eorum bonorum eripuissent ademissentque, atque a colonis bonorum eiusmodi Holoszko proventus exigere, laboresque illis debitos exercere ipsos Cmethones dictorum bonorum Holoszko de potestate actorum tanquam verorum haeredum eorum bonorum eripuissent ademissentque, atque a colonis bonorum eiusmodi Holoszko proventus exigere, laboresque illis debitos exercere denegassent, quin etiam spinas et sundum ad praedicta bona pertinen[tia] violenter ademissent, a pacificoque vsu bonorum Holoszko et Brzuchowicze, non modo mandatis suis, viqs eos prohibuissent, sed etiam e carceribus ipsos mancipassent, nec allegatam controversiam de repetendis bonis eisdem cum illis f[aci]erent. Pro quibus quidem incarcerationibus minus iustis, specialem actionem in foro competenti contra eosdem sibi reservarent. Cum citati tantum in subiectione iurisdictionem suam non prius neque vltra extendere possint, secundum decretum praedictum, praeterquam si querulantibus contra subditos de Holopzo iusticia fuerit denegata, idque iure Civili et consuetudine inter Cives diutius observata vsumum sit, et non vt vsus fructus et proprietas bonorum, atque obedientia Cmethonum prohiberi impediriq[ue] debeat, inque omnia praemissa duobus milibus florenorum et totidem damni adiectis eosdem affirmarent, quemadmodum citatione reliqua latius continebantur. Exhibuissentque literas Priuilegii Serenissimi Wladislai Regis de data Cracouia feria quinta post Emeriti Anni domini millesimi quadringentesimi vigesimi quarti, continentis confirmationem donationis et resignationis coram judicio scabineorum Leopoliensium de data feria quarta die iuridica Sanctorum Foelicis et Aucti Martyrum, Anni domini millesimi quadringentesimi tredecimi facta, per honestam Catherinam vxorem Jamiskonis interpretis, praedii Holoszko, in personam eiusdem mariti sui Jamiskonis praeposita, cum donatione eiusdem Wladislai Regis bonorum Brzuchowicze, cum eorum pertinentiis, quarum etiam literarum Priuilegii confirmationem per diuum parentem nostrum olim Martinio Hanel patri actorum concessam commonstrauit, in eorumque bonorum Holoszko et Brzuchowicze patrem suum, ac ipsos successores possessione semper fuisse, hactenusque esse affirmabat, expetens proprietatem eorundem bonorum actoribus a nobis adiudicari. In contrarium plenipotentes Citatorum papyruis nominati productis binis decretis nostris, altero de data Vilna, feria quarta ante festum sancti Thomae Apostoli, Anno millesimo quingentesimo quinquagesimo quinto, altero vero de data anni eiusdem, itidem Vilna feria quarta ante festum sancti Thomae Apostoli, in vim exceptionis suae allegabant, causam de vniuersis controversiis, quorum nomine principales eorum citati sunt, eisdem decretis nostris decisam, sopitamqs iam antea esse. Nam quod ad primam citationis partem attinet qua actores referunt de iurisdictione et non de proprietate decretum prius nostrum Vilnense intercessisse, illis disertisq[ue] verbis decretum hoc ipsum continere, quod maius et minus Holoszko et Brzuchowicze in fundo Ciuitatis Leopolien[sis] consistunt, neq[ue] ulli alteri iurisdictioni, quam Ciuili subiacere debent perpetuis temporibus. Quam quidem ipsi Proconsul et Consules Civitatis Leopolien[sis] eodem modo habebunt et exercebunt qua eam habent et exercent in aliis praediis in fundo Ciuili consistentibus. Ex nsq[ue] verbis decreti nostri manifeste constare afferebant, iurisdictionem omnimodam in incolas villae Brzuchowicze et Holeszko Proconsuli et Consulibus competere, et non actoribus, ac omnibus de eis quibuscunque in causis querentibus, Proconsulem et consules more aliorum praediorum in suburbio Civili consistentium iusticiam ministrare teneri. Quantum vero attinet ad proprietatem, de qua salua actio posteriori decreto reservata est, exhibuerunt Priuilegium serenissimi Wladislai Regis Praececessoris nostri, de data in octobriam quatuor temporum, feria quarta proxima post festum exaltationis sanctae Crucis Anni domini millesimi quadringentesimi quinti decimi, quo deducebant, omnes extremitates siue residuitates alias obszari dictas, omnium laneorum pro Ciuitate praedicta ab antiquo dimensorum, et deputatorum, vltra dimensationem ipsorum in longum et latum vsq[ue] ad terminos et metas omnium et singularum villarum tam marium, quam spiritualium, ac etiam secularium, eidem Ciuitati circumferentialiter adiacen[tium], prouentusq[ue] et excrescentes, ac restantes, omnesque vastitates inter granicies earundem villarum, cum omnibus earum circumstantiis, ad syluam vsque dictam Brzimi liass Ciuitati Leopoliensi perpetuo datas, incorporatasqs esse, in earumque extremitatum et vastitatum fundo bona Brzuchowicze consistere, in quorum vsu et possessione continua pacifica, Ciuitatem Leopoliensem a data earundem literarum Priuilegii in hunc vsq[ue] diem fuisse, extareque super eo eadem possessione iuramentum secundum praescriptum decreti nostri posterioris citatos praestitisse, affirmabant. Cuius quidem iuramenti notam in forma autentica descriptam coram nobis commonstrauerunt. Allegantes insuper, eoipso iuramento citatos non solum possessionem, sed etiam proprietatem bonorum, de quibus controversia intercessit comprobasse. Priuilegium vero Wladislai Regis, confirmationemq[ue] illius nihil actoribus iuris addere posse, propterea quod actores probare non poterint se esse successores Janusselk Interpretis. Cui priuilegium hoc a Wladislao Rege datum fuerat, ac vendidisse quidem relictam vxorem Jamiskonis Catherinam, post decessum eiusdem mariti cuidam Mikulke antecessori actorum praedium Holoszko, vti id referipto ex actis scabinalibus emanato comprobabant. Bonorum tamen Brzuchowicze in ea venditione nullam prorsus mentionem fecisse, neq[ue] defunctum Janusonem, ipsamqs Catherinam in possessione eorum vnquam fuisse, ipsumqs Martinum Hanel, circa conditionem repamenti de bonis Brzuchowicze nullam dispositionem fecisse, praeterquam de Holoszko, in quorum etiam bonorum Holoszko possessione citati, se actores conseruare referebant, idq[ue] meribus et laboribus szarwarki dictis, quae ad Ciuitatem debentur saluis, neq[ue] per citatos stetisse, quod prouentus bonorum Holoszko actoribus extraditi non sint, sed per alios interesse ad ea bona habentes, qui causam coram iudicio scabinali Ciuitatis illius Actoribus instituerunt. Ad querum instigationem prouentus bonorum Holoszko ex sententia judicii Civilis, ad decisionem litis sequestrati sunt, ob idque etiam citatos Actores carceribus mancipasse, quod contra sententiam judicii sequestrum violauerint, quodq[ue] obedientiam debitam Magistratui Ciuili praestare recusauerint, atque insolentias fecerint. Expectentes se circa proprietatem bonorum Brzuchowicze, et molendini ibidem constructi a nobis conservari, iurisdictionemq[ue] super bona Holoszko secundum prius decretum nostrum sibi a nobis adiudicari. Nos cum Consiliariis et Jurisperitis nostris, controuersia partium examinata, decretisq[ue] nostris, atq[ue] Priuilegiis, per vtramque partium productis, diligenter perpensis et reuisis, quod ad proprietatem bonorum Brzuchowicze, molendinique ibidem extincti attinet, quandoquidem constat ex priore decreto nostro vilnensi, bona Brzuchowicze molendinumque in fundo Ciuitatis Leopolien[sis] consistere, tum etiam quod citati possessionem longissimi temporis, super molendino in eisdem bonis Brzuchowicze constructo, iuramentis propriis secundum dispositionem decreti nostri posterioris confirmarunt, ideo decernimus proprietatem bonorum Brzuchowicze et molendini circa Ciuitatem perpetuis temporibus permanere debere. Quantum vero ad iurisdictionem attinet bonorum Holoszko, decreto priori vilnensi inhaerentes, decernimus bona Holoszko et Brzuchowicze, nulli alteri iurisditioni quam Ciuili subiacere, quamquidem Proconsul et Consules secundum decretum prius vilnense eo modo habebunt, et exercebunt, quo eam habent et exercent in aliis praediis in fundo Ciuili consistentia, cum ea declaratione eiusdem decreti vilnen[sis], quod Proconsul et Consules non debent prohibere actoribus prouentus et vtilitates ex bonis Holoszko, ad ipsos Actores de iure et veteri consuetudine pertinentes, eosdemque prouentus et vtilitates ex bonis Holoszko, et aliis bonis quae rigore inscriptionum et Jurium suorum obtinent Actores, pro se secundum veterem consuetudinem exigere et reperere, saluis communibus laboribus et oneribus szarwarki dictis et aliis ad civitatem antiquitus pertinentibus. De incarceratione decernimus citatos ad hac impetitione incarcerationis liberos esse, propterea, quod citati edocuerunt, actores contra sententiam illius judicii in causa, quam cum aliis interesse habentibus de bonis Holoszko, coram iudicio Ciuili Leopolien[si] prosequebantur, seque stro contrauenisse, iurisditioniq[ue] Ciuili subesse recusasse, hac nostra sententia mediante. In cuius rei fidem, et testimonium sigillum nostrum praesentibus est appensum. Datum Cracoviae Sabbato ante Dominicam Laetare proxime, Anno domini millesimo quingentesimo quinquagesimo nono, regni vero nostri anno trigesimo. [Nota kancelaryjna / podpis:] Ad mandatum Sacrae Regiae Maiestatis proprium Joannes Ocieski regni Poloniae Cancellarius Cracovien[sis], singulis Olstineczniensis Lubotien[sis], Sandecen[sis], Olstinen[sis]q[ue] Capitaneus. Joannes Ocieski s[ub]s[crip]t[us]