319 eintzlge Uhrsach ist, warumb keine weitere Sorgfalt die Justic mit einem Collegio von nöhten ist.” Nonetheless, one should recall that which has been said about the Svea Court of Appeals earlier in this study. It was a collegial court and as such it was equated with the other colleges. The Svea Court of Appeals represented a separate sphere of responsibility in the state administration, namely the administration of justice, and its president, as were the presidents of the other colleges, was a member of the State Council. In connection with the preparations for the local administrative reform, the Senate proclaimed on November 3, 1718, that it would “look to the president of the iustits-kollegiia for guidance concerning the positions of provincial judges, where and how many they should be.” Matveev and his colleagues in the college had been charged with this task earlier, and on October 15 Matveev had informed the Senate that, “at present, it is not possible to do any organizing in the college of justice in accordance with the content of the Swedish regulation” (“po sostoianiiu shvedskogo ustava”), since insufficient information had been received about conditions in the gubernii.^’'^ The situation changed a great deal over the next month, however, for on November 15 Matveev presented the Senate with a preliminary plan for the number, composition, and internal hierarchical relationships of the lower courts. According to this plan there should be one “chief court” {nachal’nyi sud) in each guherniia or province with an oherlantrikhter as chairman, and under these courts “lesser provincial courts” {men’shie sudy zemskie) were to be established with jurisdictions covering two towns and their surrounding districts. The judges in these lesser courts were given the title lantrikhter. The lower courts in the districts were to maintain contact with the central provincial court, and the iustits-kollegiia proposed that “when they are unable to decide a case they are to summon the oherlantrikhtery, and in the most serious and difficult cases which the oberlantrikhtery themselves are shall informthe highest court, the college of justice, about it. It is clear from this document that the staff of the iustits-kollegiia had studied the materials concerning the Swedish local administration which Heinrich Pick had put together. In his comparison between the Swedish and Russian local administrative systems, which was discussed in an earlier chapter. Pick had written about the Swedish lower courts that “in each province there is an oberlantrikhter who is called a lagman, and in addition there are four, five, or six lantrikhtery (i.e., häradshövdingar, 57 TsGADA, f. 248 delo 1078 11. 11—llv. 5« ZA (no. 52), 61. 5” TsGADA, f. 248 dclo 42 1. 190. *" TsGADA, f. 248 delo 58 1. 314; ZA (no. 379), 369—370. unable to adjudicate they ” GO
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=