Case Mozharovsky

In 1774, the Sejm Constitution, the Vilna Chapter, was allowed to sell its fundus property, Kamenschiznu, and instead of it, to buy another estate nearby the monastery for 800 thousand zlotys. On this basis, Masons was sold to Bishop Massalsky , and from him this estate passed to his niece, Countess de Lin, and then, to Count Potocki, after marriage with her.

The Mozharovskys , starting their lawsuit back in 1753, argued that the Vilna Chapter had seized the estate of Kamenszichna incorrectly, and that, according to the available documents, should belong to them, and the following explanations were given from these documents:

“ Mozharovskys come from Ivan Volodimirovich; he was granted the land of Smolnyana, in which is now the estate of Kmenschizna. He had three sons: Alexander the Great, Martyn and Semen. Upon his death, this land remained in the possession of his wife, and the Polish king, Casimir, with a letter of 7004, approved it for their son Semyon. The latter, having taken possession of that land, settled on it the villages of Mozharychi, Kamenets and New Palace, and from the word Lithuanian "Moyzh" , which meant "the yard" , he began to be called Mozhaisky . After that, the name changed to the name Mozharovsky, from the village of Mozhar. Simon died without incident; after his death, the land with the villages was inherited by his nephew, who was descended from his brother Alexander-Gavrila, Andrei, and after him was approved by a copy of King Vladislav III in 1436 . When Andrew died without incident, then his wife, Princess Avdotya Mozhaisk, owned the said estate. At this time, her husband's brother, Semyon Alexandrovich, begged the aforementioned letter of 7004 to Grand Duke Alexander, because of which Princess Avdotya Mozhaiskaya sold the third part of the estate to Governor Gashtold. But this sale was not valid, as the princess had only a lifelong right to an estate. After her death, the estate was inherited by the son of Semyon Alexandrovich, Gavril Mozharovich, who married Anna Andrew Soltanovna, and four sons lived with her: Andrew, Stepan, Ivan and Athanasius, and before his death, he entrusted them and his wife to his bishop Zhmuidsky, and he, dying, transferred this tutelage to the Bishop of Kiev, Soltan. At this time, the Vilensk chapter, taking advantage of the minority of the heirs of Gavrila Mozharovich and the carelessness of the guardians, appropriated a part of Kamenshchinsky of their estate, attaching it to Ubortskaya volost and invented ways to appropriate the rest. However, the heirs of Gavrila Mozharovich, on the basis of the aforementioned documents, owned the village of Mozharay until 1659 and further, and about the forcible appropriation of the Kammenshchina estate by the Vilna Chapter, and after that year, many complaints were filed from them, but in 1684 the Ovruch acts were burned, and it is impossible to have them. After that, the Vilna Chapter added the village of Mozhary to Kamenshizn and sent armed men to their homes and caused them various offenses. ”

On protest from Mozharovsky and on the objection of the Vilna Chapter, this was done initially in the Ovruch City Court and other courts and tribunals, and then by the Constitution on November 12, 1773, was ordered by the Sejm to consider it and explain it to the Seim appointed in Warsaw commissions

Upon receipt of the case to the commission and after its consideration, it concluded by its definition dated July 7, 1774 : “According to the Vilnius Chapter of the Letters, he had undisputed possession until the union of Lithuania with the crown, and after him, then according to those letters, and according to the Lithuanian Statute 3 sections, articles 2 and 43, which provide such possession even without any fortresses, the estate of Kamenszicznu, with all the villages belonging to it, shall be left to the permanent possession of the Vilnius Chapter, and Mozharovsky be ordered nobles, recognized as belonging to the estate of the peasants, because all the documents on which they base their gentry origin and ownership of their possessions Kamenschizny, were, or employees of other names, or poddelanymi and no likelihood of not deserving. "

In 1780 and 1784, the Kiev nobility , in the instructions to the deputies sent to the Seimas, instructed to try to make the decision on this case to be destroyed and the village of Mozhary given to Mozharovsky. These decisions were in fact two extracts from the books of Zhytomyr and Lutsk, submitted by Mozharovsky.

In 1797, Fedor Mozharovsky’s all-pending petition for sending people to Count Pototsky and causing offenses and violence to his residence was sent, by the highest order, to the former Lithuanian governor-general, Prince Repnin , and from Volyn to the civil governor. Consequently, the delivery of legal satisfaction to Mozharovsky was given a proposal to the Volynsky main court, which Mozharovsky provided, in a claim to the estate of Kamenshizne, to be dealt with by Count Potocki, a court in form.

From Mozharovsky and from Count Pototsky, besides the former, other documents and mutual objections were presented to the main court, which served to reinforce their rights. On consideration of this business, the Volynsky main court made definition in 1805 .

Two deputies, Prushinsky and Grodetsky, recognizing all the certificates presented by the Vilna Chapter of the diploma are not existing and forged, and the rights of the Mozharovskys of the gentry to the estate of Kmenschiznu are valid and not subject to doubt; the current plaintiffs of Mozharovsky, heirs of Prince Gavrila Mozhaisky, believed: 1 deputy, their pedigree and origin, from Alexander Mozhaysky, to approve, and noble dignity, common with the princely title, to return: 2 deputies, the estate of Kamenshiznu, with all villages and accessories , to give possession of their Mozharovsky, with a report, for control from 1754 (from the day the case was initiated), and for the violence caused, to provide them with a lawsuit in the Vilna Chapter.

The adviser of that court, Chervinsky, considered Mozharovsky to be recognized as gentry , and the estate of Kamenszichna, for omitting them, to find him many prescription, was left in the possession of Count Potocki, and deputy Dombrowski, that the main court did not have the right to enter the decision of the Sejm Commission, but This case should be submitted to the decision of the Governing Senate .

The attorney of Count Potocki complained about the above definition, made by two deputies and announced to both parties, on appeal to the third department of the Governing Senate, and according to his complaint, the case was requested in this department by appeal.

On November 11, 1808, the Highest Command was followed to consider this matter in all parts and decide immediately in the General Assembly of the first three departments of the Governing Senate .

In pursuance of this, the General Assembly of the Senate, proceeding to the consideration of this case, found that it comprises the following main circumstances:

1. Count Pototsky argues that the estate of Kamenszichna was granted to the Vilna Chapter, on the foundation of the Catholic Church of St. Stanislav, from the Princes of Lithuania, according to letters of 1415 , 1430 and 1500 . These letters to the case are presented; the first in the original, consisting in a small passage that does not mean which estate it was given, and the last two in the extracts taken from the books of the Grodsky Vilna and from the crown metric, according to the original in these books in 1773 , from which it is clear that the first It is given by the King of Poland and Grand Duke of Lithuania, Wladyslaw , Troki in place, in the presence of the magistrates Gedygovoda Vilna, for approval by the Chapter possessions Vilna, it was from the Grand Duke of Lithuania, Alexander Witold Welcome, and replacing them with inherited kapi ulu estates Kubertsa, Kiumeni and Kamenetz; and the second from Alexander, the Grand Duke of Lithuania, in Vilna, in the presence of Vilna governor Nikolai Radzivilovich and Marshal Grigory Oscekovich, for approval of ownership of the chapter, among other estates, estates, or Kamenetz patrimony in Kiev land consisting of villages: Bigumiya, Litvin, Tsulikovich , Torina, Kozarovich, Zaleski, Tinny, Laity, Voykovich, Vyazovlyan and Pleschenich. These certificates Mozharovsky , calling fake, prove the Polish history that in 1430 the Vilna governor was not Gedygovod, but Daguert, and that voivode Radzivilovich and Marshal Oscekovich, from 1499 to 1502, were in Moscow, in captivity, therefore, when they were issued letters could not be. From the documents submitted by him, Count Pototsky, in evidence of possession of the Vilna Chapter by the estate of Kamenszchiznoy, according to the aforementioned letters, from 1779 it is clear that the decree of the Polish King Sigismund III , given in 1592 , on the release of the estate of Kamenshchizna from taxes, shows this estate consisting in the possession of Vilna the chapter on the right of purchase, and in determining the Lublin tribunal that followed on May 22 1595 the year for the royal decree of dismissal from the chapter Vilna payment from the estate Kamenschizny ChOPov tribute, named ka itul this is only a temporary owner. In the former demarcation of the Kiev province with the Lithuanian principality, on the border of which the estate of Kmenschyn was located, in 1598 and 1613 the Vilnius Chapter asked to separate it from the Duchy of Lithuania to the designated estate in the former commission for such delimitation, letters of salary 1387, 1412 and 1430 . With the approval made by this commission between the Kiev Voivodeship and the Lithuanian Principality of Interi, a Sejm decision of 1625 and the Constitution of 1631 and 1641 was held, which stated the following: we assert between the Kiev Voivodship and the Lithuanian Principality between the Land Survey Commission, so that the estate of Vilna Chapter, Kamenschizna and Ubort, like in ancient times, belonged to the Principality of Lithuania, the same Duchy of Lithuania was under the jurisdiction of the Mazyr povet. After all that, when Mozharovskys began the process of belonging to this estate and demanded that the Chapter of lawsuit filed rights to it, he, silently, didn’t file the letters issued by him to the former divisions of Kyiv voivodship with the Lithuanian principality in 1774, the letters presented now by Count Potocki, in the originals, of which in the letter of 1500 , among the others mentioned above, in the settlement of this letter of letters, the village of Mozhary was shown.

2. Shlyakhtichy Mozharovsky at the beginning of this case, on September 1, 1753, filed a protest in Ovruch Grodsky court, complained to the Vilna Chapter that in 1739 he sent Mozharas to the estate and forced them to renounce the estate and the nobility title. In 1754, the Mozharovskys called for a chapter in the Lublin Tribunal and in the crown assessor court, demanding the presentation of his rights to the village of Mozhary, his return to them with the report of pro-enforcement, and accepting from them baggage if he follows it. Subsequently, seeing from the documents submitted by the head of the crown assessor court, that he honored the village of Mozhary belonging to the estate of Kmenschizhn, and for approval after him he was represented only by a letter of the 1500, which they prove falsified, they began to sue his claim on all the estate of Kmenschiznu, and based on the letters of 6900, 7004 and 1525, given from the kings of Polish and grand dukes of Lithuania, to Semyon Ivanovich Volodymyrovich, Semyon Alexandrovich and voivode Gashtold, for the approval of various estates behind them, and on the other they imposed a considerable number of documents proving the origin of written literacy in 1525 died childless Prince Andrew Mozhaiskii from those shown in the charter of 6900, the Ivan and Semyon Volodimirovich. The prince Andrei Mozhaisky was considered to be his brother, written in a letter of 7004, Semyon Alexandrovich, and from him the ancestor of them, Prince Gavrila Mozharovich, and the estate of Kamenschiznu, transferred to this Gavril Mozharovich, from Prince Andrei Mozhaysky, inherited right; but the Vilna capitol took possession of him, according to the custody of Gavrilo Mozharovich assigned to him over the children since 1533. When the Sejm's Commission found written in the charter of 6900, the Ivan and Semyon Volodimirovich princes of Ostrog , as shown in the charter of 7004, the prince Semyon Alexandrovich Prince Czartoryski , other same documents to the name Mozharovsky poddelanymi and vladeemoe Prince Andrew Mozhaiskoye estate passed to Prince Solomeretskomu, they , Mozharovskys, agreeing that the letters of 6900 and 7004 did not serve their names, and without presenting all forged documents recognized by the commission, but declaring only an oath that they did not forge them, they are now quite different, against the former, genealogy, starting already the family of the princes Mozhaisk, not from Ivan, as it was shown before, but from Alexander Gavrilovich Volodimirovich, prove the estate owned by Prince Andrei Mozhaisky, who reached their ancestor, Gavrilo Mozharovich, according to the bill of sale from the prince Solomeretsky. Of the deed of the one given in 1529, an extract from the books of the town of Ovruchskies, which burnt down in 1684 , is submitted. Count Pototsky proves that it is fake and does not deserve any likelihood, because it is revealed in those books, in 1564 , too 30 years later, and at that time all such transactions, together legalized now in the Polish gubernias, are personal recognition before the court, they were approved by royal letters.

3. The existence of Prince Andrew Mozhaisky and his possession of various villages of such a name, which are now in the estate owned by Count Pototsky estate, is proved by the record of Prince Solomeretsky, which is shared with the nieces of the wife of the remembered Prince Andrew Mozhaisky, Gnevoshovichyo’s whiters, and the nursery’s children, and Gnevoshovychow’s whiters and children, are indisputable on both sides. villages, but whether he had brothers, or any other relatives, from this record is not visible. All the other documents, by which the Mozharovskys prove Gavrila Mozharovich’s nephew Andrei Mozhaisky and their origin from him, along with the fact that they belong to the estate of Kamenschizna, are in the inscriptions from such books that are not available; and Count Pototsky proves counterfeiting by their own Mozharovsky complaints of 1773 and 1780, against the gentry Yegor Mocharsky , that he, taking documents from the Mozhara estate, to deal with the Vilnius chapter, many of them false, to put himself in their lineage and above In addition, various fortresses had been remembered, and from them excerpts from such books, of which there was not, and that they should appear old, smear lard and straw.

4. The Vilna Chapter, at the beginning of the Mozharovskys in 1753 of this case, in the crown offices, demanding them to answer to the Lithuanian Tribunal , called them rebellious peasants of the village of Mozhar , but in their data from the late King of Poland Stanislav-August, for signing his hand , protective letters of 1754 August 21, 1758 August 15, 1768 March 7, 1771 August 9; in the instructions given to the envoys elected by the Seimas from the nobles of Volynsk and Kiev Voivodeship in 1756 August 23, 1780 August 21 and 1784 August 16; in the definition of the crown assessor court, having the force of law, 1757 December 1; they were written by gentlemen and the owners of the village of Mozharovka.

For all these reasons, the General Senate Assembly concluded:

"As the original dacha of the disputed estates, in this case, it is based on the most remote antiquity, so according to the testimony of the litigants themselves, the first to these privileges, or letters, were given as early as 1387 and subsequent years, the evidence is so mixed up, others are suspicious and contradict one another, that it is impossible to extract a clear and legal basis from them, then it would be more likely to determine from this that the estate, being the princes of Mozhaisk, after the death of its rightful owners, remains outlawed and then it was taken possession, from ancient times, of the Vilna Chapter. But for the reason, this chapter has owned the said estate for more than a century, as evidenced by the documents submitted from it, and the Mozharovo lawsuit on usurping that estate began in 1753 and 1754 , without having any legitimate, indisputable evidence; beyond this, and the genealogies filed from them, one to the former Seimas Commission, and the other to the Volynsky Main Court, among themselves in the names of the first landowners of the princes Mozhaysk from the persons who occurred, the difference is large, and both clearly reveal their groundlessness in that the time of the first acquirer of the estate being sought to present asylum seekers, for too four centuries, eight in them only signify descending generations, the Senate General Assembly unanimously believed: by holding a chapter of this name in the continuation of lkih ago, leaving signified forever in its present position, that is, the sale of the chapter, the Constitution of 1774 permitted, and is the same then in 1775 the confirmed for the current owner, Count Potocki, excluded however from Nadezhda family asylum Mozharovsky, with their courtyards and now they own the land, of which they are left in their former gentry rank. As for the fact that for recognizing them in nobility's dignity, they derive their ancestry from the princes Mozhaisk, the groundlessness of which, as stated above, expose the pedigrees presented from them, to deny them that.

The Minister of Justice (Prince Lobanov-Rostovsky), in this proposal on October 10, 1817 to the Governing Senate, explained that he agreed with the resolution of the Governing Senate of the General Assembly, except for that assumption that the designated estate was in the princes Mozhaisky, after the death of the rightful owners, remained escheated and wooed, from old times, the Vilna Chapter, of which conclusion, on all the acts of the Chapter, cannot be done, because he had letters to the right of ownership of that estate. the course of four centuries, and consequently the antiquity and the time-oldness, it is no longer possible to certify; however, it is impossible to conclude about the forcible taking of it. Behind this, according to this resolution, the estate of Kamenszichnu, with accessories, is only in ancient possession, which, by law, replaces the very evidence, to leave forever in its present position, that is, for sale from the chapter, the constitution of 1774 permitted and such then in 1775, confirmed by the current owner, Count Vincent Pototsky, took out one of the Mozharovsky and their family asylum seekers, who, with their yards, still own the land in their former gentry title; and in their claim to princely dignity, due to their failure to prove their descent from the family of princes Mozhaisk , they must refuse and submit to His Imperial Majesty all the generous report. ”

And as from among those who gave a resolution on this case, nine Senators agreed with the proposal, and from seven opinions were not taken, namely from four after death; two for dismissal from service; and for one after the dismissal on leave, the case was not submitted by a majority vote of two thirds, for final decision, the case was submitted to the State Council.

On November 13, 1818, after the Minister of Justice introduced the disagreement, from the General Assembly of the Governing Senate, the State Council began hearing the case of Count Vikentiy Pototsky with the gentry of Mozharovskiy, on the estate of “Kmenschiszna” called.

After the hearings and detailed consideration of the circumstances of the case, the State Council, in the Department of Laws, on the civil branch, found in this case the correct and consistent with the laws of the ruling Senate, adopted by a majority of votes, and therefore believed it to be approved in all its strength.

On August 18, 1819, the opinion of the Department in the General Assembly of the State Council was approved and approved by the Highest on October 23, 1819 . ^[one]

• Mozharovskie

• Volumina legum. T.7 p. 361
• Volumina legum. T.8 p. 248
• Biblioteka warszawska, Volume 2
• Zapis Konstantego Świdzińskiego
• Inwentarz rekopisow Biblioteki Jagiellonskiej: nr. 6001-6500
• Przegląd historyczny, Volume 79
• Encyklopedyja powszechna, Volume 27
• Biblioteka warszawska, Volume 2
• Żródła Dziejowe, Volume 22
• Pisma: Owruczanin, Volume 4
• The case of Mozharovsky: truth and fiction (the opinion of the historian on the IOO forum)
• Podbereski Andrzej: Sprawa urodzonych Możarowskich z Kapitułą Wileńską. — Rocznik Literacki: pismo zbiorowe. Rok trzeci, wydał Romuald Podbereski. Petersburg, 1846. S. 127-152.