Judgment of King Sigismund II Augustus in the dispute between Maciej Kasprowicz and the authorities of Lwów

SIGISMUND AUGUSTUS by the grace of God, King of Poland, Grand Duke of Lithuania, Ruthenia, Prussia, Masovia, Samogitia, etc., Lord and Heir. We hereby announce by this our letter to all and each individually whom it concerns and who shall receive knowledge of this. That whereas on today's date, by our general adjournment in Vilnius, in the presence of the honorable Maciej Kasprowicz, councilor of Lublin, [acting] through the noble Andrzej Golaski, his proxy, in accordance with our summons letter by which he summoned the honorable mayor and jurors of our city of Lwów before our court with a peremptory 'one edict for three' summons, the same complained against them in the presence of their proxies, the honorable Jodok Glacz, juror, and Jan Zadlicz, citizens of Lwów. Namely, because they refused to administer justice to the opposing party, who until now refuses to pay him the debt incurred on the basis of those chirographs, and allowed Erazm Hass, councilor of Lwów, to use less just and legal means contrary to the content of that chirograph, and at the same time did not want to issue to him our mandate and two chirographs submitted before their court, as well as other evidence necessary for the case, litigating for all this according to the disposition of the lawsuit for the sum of one thousand two hundred florins of money; he also submitted a protestation of the bailiff and the nobility, by which he proves that to him and to them our mandate and chirographs were not issued, and also that Erazm Hass was allowed an adjournment and an appeal. In turn, the proxies of the defendants argued that they are not obliged to respond to the content of that lawsuit, as it is unusual and contrary to the Magdeburg law, by which they were peremptorily summoned before our court with one edict for three, for the reason that they were summoned outside the borders of the Kingdom to Vilnius contrary to the provisions of the privileges and decree granted to the city of Lwów by us, since those councilors [?], councilors, mayor, and jurors of this city enjoy the privilege that, when summoned by letters before our tribunal, they should be judged nowhere else but within the Kingdom by us. And although by virtue of their privileges they were not obliged to appear before us in Vilnius, yet, so that nothing contrary to the privileges of the city would be judged by us on the date of that unusual 'one edict for three' summons, they appeared before us in Vilnius and solemnly protested regarding their rights and privileges, as well as regarding the damages and costs that the presiding officers of the court of this city were forced to incur because of that unusual summons, which damages they estimated at one thousand and two hundred florins. Now, however, since the term cannot be considered peremptory for the reason that by the rule of Magdeburg and municipal law, a triple summons or three edicts are required in the delivery of a lawsuit, nor according to Magdeburg law is the first summons, even if the clause 'by one edict for three' is added, peremptory – therefore they expected that the privileges and our decree and their being judged by us according to the law of the Kingdom would be preserved in due force, their principals would be recognized as free from this lawsuit and term, and the plaintiff party would be sentenced to compensation and costs of the process. The plaintiff's proxy argued that before us as the supreme judge, it is legally appropriate to set such a peremptory term by a 'one edict for three' summons, and therefore, regardless of the defendants' objection, they are obliged to answer the plaintiff on the content of the lawsuit. To this, the defendants' proxies maintained that summonses 'by one edict for three' belong to ecclesiastical jurisdiction and have not been applied in Magdeburg law nor in the practice of municipal laws in our Kingdom until now. We, together with the advisors and experts in the law of our court, having diligently considered the dispute of the parties and reviewed our privileges and decree granted to the city of Lwów regarding the judging of cases of the mayor, councilors, and jurors of Lwów by reason of their office in our Kingdom, when they are summoned by our letters, while preserving that privilege and decree in due force, we rule by this our judgment that the 'one edict for three' summons does not apply to cases of Magdeburg law and henceforth should not be considered a peremptory term, but a first ordinary summons, and this is in accordance with the disposition and rule of Magdeburg law. In witness whereof our seal has been affixed to these presents. GIVEN in Łomża, on Wednesday, on the eve of the feast of the Circumcision of the Lord, in the Year of our Lord one thousand five hundred and sixty-first, in the thirty-second year of our reign. [Chancery note on the left:] Jan Ocieski / Chancellor of His Royal Majesty [?] [Signature on the right:] Report of the most illustrious Jan of Ociesz, Chancellor of the Kingdom of Poland, General of Kraków, Starosta of Oświęcim, Zator, Sambor, and Olsztyn. [Verso:] [Archival and chancery annotations:] Chest of Laws No. 10 Decree [...] 1561 Debt decree / peremptory [?] Maciej Kasprowicz summoned the Lwów court before the Royal Tribunal with one edict for three and they won [the case] 1561 Lawsuit [...] by one edict for three [...] of the city of Lwów [...] Year 1561 No. 519 [Seal:] [On a parchment strip hangs a seal in a wax bowl with a red wax royal seal of Sigismund Augustus with the coats of arms of the Crown and Lithuania and the lands].

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. Quod cum in termino hodierno ex nostra limitatione generalis Vilnen[sis] praesente famosus Matthias Casprowicz Consul Lublinen[sis] per Nobilem Andream Golaski Plenipotentem suum iuxta literas Citationis n[ost]rae, qua famatos Advocatum et Scabinos Civitatis nostrae Leopolien[sis] in Judicium nostrum vocavit peremptorie uno edicto pro tribus, quereretur de eisdem in praesentia Plenipotenti[um] illorum famatorum Jodoci Glacz Scabini et Joannis Zadlicz Civium Leopolien[sium]. Ideo quia ipsi contrarium petenti, qui hactenus denegat ei solutionem praestare debiti huius Chyrographis sibi contracti, recusauerint illi Ius dicere, atq[ue] permiserint Erasmum Hass Consulem Leopolien[sem] minus iustis ac Iuridicis contra praescriptum Chyrographi illius uti, simulq[ue] extradere illi noluerint Mandatum nostrum et Chyrographa bina coram Judicio illorum exhibita tum et alia munimenta ad causam necessaria, ea universa iuxta dispositionem Citationis Mille et ducentis florenis pecuniarum sibi li[ti]gando, produxitq[ue] protestationem Ministeria[lem] his et Nobilium qua comprobat sibi a[c] eis Mandatum nostrum et Chyrographa non esse extradita, tum etiam dilationem atq[ue] appellationem Erasmo Hass admissam. In contrarium Plenipotentes Citatorum allegabant se ad contenta Citationis eius uti insolitae et Juri Maidemburgen[si] contrariae, qua vno edicto pro tribus peremptorie in Jus nostrum vocati sint, ob id respondere non teneri, quod extra Regnum Vilnam contra praescriptum Privilegiorum et decreti Civitati Leopolien[si] a nobis concessorum euocati sunt, quandoquidem Iteconsil[iarie?] Consules, Advocatus et Scabini Civitatis illius ea prerogativa gaudent, quod literis Citationis nostrae ad tribunal nostrum vocati nusquam alias nisi in Regno a nobis iudicari debent. Et qua[m]vis ex praescripto Privilegiorum suorum Vilna coram nobis comparere non fuerant astricti, tamen ne quid in contrarium Privilegiorum Civitatis in termino insolitae Citationis vno edicto pro tribus a nobis decerneretur, se comparuisse coram nobis Vilnae, atq[ue] solemniter protestatos esse de Juribus et Privilegiis suis, tum etiam de damnis et expensis quas praesidentes Judicio Civitatis illius ob inusitatam Citationem subire coacti sunt, qua quidem damna mille et ducentis florenis estimabant. Nunc vero cum terminus non posse censeri peremptorium, ideo quod ex praescripto Juris Maidemburgen[sis] atq[ue] Municipalis terna Citatio fieri aut tria edicta in positione Citationis requiruntur, neq[ue] de Jure Maidemburgen[si] primam Citationem, quamvis et adiectum fuerit vno edicto pro tribus peremptoriam esse, ob idq[ue] expectabant Privilegia et Decretum nostrum et eisdem a nobis Judicandum Regno iure in debito robore conservari, atq[ue] principales suos ab hac Citatione et a termino liberos pronunciari, et in damnis ac litis expensis partem actorem condemnari. Plenipotens vero actoris allegabat, licere coram nobis tanquam supremo Judice eiusmodi Citatione uno edicto pro tribus de Jure peremptorium terminum cnimis praefigere, atq[ue] ideo exceptione Citatorum non obstante, eosdem ad contenta Citationis actori respondere teneri. Ad ea plenipotentes Citatorum contendebant, Citationes vno edicto pro tribus ad forum spirituale pertinere, neq[ue] in Jure Maidemburgen[si] aut Municipalium usu hactenus in Regno nostro observatum esse. Nos cum Consiliariis et Jurisperitis Curiae n[ost]rae, controversia partium diligenter examinata Privilegiisq[ue] et decreto n[ost]ro Civitati Leopolien[si] concessis ac iudicandis causis Proconsulis, Consulum, Advocati et Scabinorum Leopolien[sium] ratione officii sui in Regno n[ost]ro tum literis Citationis nostrae vocati fuerint, reuisis, Privilegio eodem atq[ue] decreto in debito robore conservato, Determinamus Citationem vno edicto pro tribus non pertinere ad causas Juris Maidemburgen[sis], neq[ue] deinceps pro peremptorio termino, sed pro prima simplici Citatione censeri debere, idq[ue] iuxta dispositionem et praescriptum Juris Maidemburgen[sis] hac n[ost]ra sententia mediante. In cuius rei fidem sigillum nostrum praesentibus appensum est. DATVM Lomza feria quarta pridie festi Circumcisionis Domini Anno Domini Millesimo quingentesimo Sexagesimo primo, Regni nostri anno trigesimo secundo. [Nota kancelaryjna po lewej:] Joannes Ocyeski / R[egiae] M[aiestatis] Canc[ellarius] [?] [Podpis po prawej:] Relatio Magnifici Joannis de Ocyessino Regni Poloniae Cancellarii, Cracoviensis generalis, Oswiencimensis, Zatoriensis, Samboriensis, Olstinensisq[ue] capitanei. [Verso:] [Adnotacje archiwalne i kancelaryjne:] Arca Iura No 10 Decretum [...] 1561 Decretum Debiti / per[emptorie] Mathias Casprowicz Vno edicto / pro trib[us] Judiciu[m] Leopolien[se] / AD Tribunal Regium at/traxit, eviceruntq[ue] 1561 Citatio [...] vno edicto pro tribus [...] Civitatis Leopolien[sis] [...] Anno 1561 No 519 [Pieczęć:] [Na pasku pergaminowym zawieszona pieczęć w misie woskowej z czerwoną woskową pieczęcią koronną Zygmunta Augusta z herbami Korony i Litwy oraz ziem].