Judicial complaints about the activities of magistrates of the Yakut region in the late XIX — early XX centuries

Savvinov Pavel Olegovich ORCID: 0000-0002-4260-6225 Junior research associate, Institute for Humanitarian Research and North Indigenous Peoples Problems of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences 677027, Russia, Republic of Yakutia, Yakutsk, Petrovsky str., 1 pavel_savvinov@mail.ru Other publications by this author

The Institute of Complaints is a traditional channel of communication between the government and society. The legislative basis of the institute of complaints has been constantly improved, the procedure for their passage has been rationalized. This led to the transformation of the petition into an administrative complaint, which resulted in the inclusion of the institute of complaints at all levels of the hierarchy in order to correct the decisions taken. The relevance of the topic is due to the fact that the study of judicial complaints against the activities of magistrates in the communicative space of the Yakutsk District Court is specially carried out. Filling this gap will help determine the place of the region in the legal field of pre-revolutionary Russia, will make it possible to trace the process of general modernization of the region. The purpose of this work is to analyze complaints about the activities of magistrates of the Yakut region and their consideration in the district court in the communicative space of the Yakut District Court in the late XIX – early XX centuries.

The scientific novelty of the work lies in the fact that for the first time a special study was undertaken of judicial complaints against the activities of magistrates in the communicative space of the Yakut District Court, which is understood as a system of diverse communicative connections arising between various communication participants. The professional community created its own social communication space, the agents of which were individuals, groups of people and district and magistrate courts ^{[3, p.16]}. The subject of the study is Judicial complaints against the activities of magistrates of the Yakut region in the communicative space of the Yakut District Court in the late XIX ? early XX century . The object of the study is the communicative practice associated with the development of legal proceedings in the Yakut region above the specified period.

Since 1897, the territory of Siberia has been divided into two judicial chambers: Omsk and Irkutsk. The newly formed Irkutsk Judicial Chamber consisted of seven district courts in the territories of the Yenisei and Irkutsk provinces, the Trans-Baikal, Amur and Primorsky provinces with Kamchatka, Sakhalin Island and the Yakut Region, as well as the KVZhD (Chinese-Eastern Railway) line ^{[4, p.91]}. The Yakut District Court covered five districts of the region (Yakut, Vilyuysky, Verkhoyansky, Kolyma and Olekminsky), with the exception of the Olekminsky and Vitim gold mining systems. In 1904, the gold mines located along the upper course of the Aldan River in the Yakut region were attached to the Blagoveshchensk District Court ^{[4, p.91]}. Judicial districts were divided into world plots according to such characteristics as the area of the territory, population density, number of cases, the coincidence of the boundaries of world plots with the corresponding administrative districts ^{[1, pp.112–117]}. In total, seven judicial and peace precincts were formed in the Yakutsk region: Yakutsk, the 1st and 2nd precincts of the Yakut district, Vilyuysky, Olekminsky, Verkhoyansky, Kolyma districts ^{[10, l.17]}. The duties of the Congress of magistrates of the Yakut region were performed by the general meeting of the Yakut District Court ^{[1, pp.112–117]}.

In the second half of the XIX century. in the imperial legal system, the normative grounds for filing and considering judicial complaints were the Judicial Statutes of 1864. According to the Judicial Statute of 1864, private complaints could be filed in three cases: 1) the slowness of the proceedings; 2) the non–acceptance of the recall; 3) the taking of the accused into custody ^{[6, pp.20-21]}. Private complaints, both for non–acceptance of the recall and for taking the accused into custody, were filed within seven days from the time of execution of the appealed orders only together with the appeal ^{[6, p. 20] [7, p.21-22]}. Complaints were filed to the justice of the peace, who considered the case, in turn, the judge gave the motion to the complaint along with his explanation within seven days from the time it was submitted to the congress of magistrates ^{[7, p.22]}. According to the judicial reform of 1897, in Siberia, instead of the congress of magistrates, a general meeting of the district court was held, that is, the district courts had direct supervision of magistrates in the region ^{[2, p.63]}.

On June 15, 1906, the Yakutsk District Court considered the complaint of P.V. Olenin, V.P. Priyutov and M.V. Sabunaev, accused of organizing a popular demonstration on January 9, 1906, on the anniversary of Bloody Sunday in Yakutsk, which was attended by more than 200 people. Then, after the rally, the demonstrators went to the City Duma building singing "La Marseillaise" and burst into the hall with shouts: "Down with the Duma" ^{[9, L.10] [17, pp.41–42]}. The magistrate of Yakutsk, A.E. Sokolov, sent to the Yakutsk District Court the complaints of the accused M.V. Sabunaev, V.P. Priyutov and P.V. Olenin, to whom a preventive measure was taken by taking them into custody. Together with the complaint, the Justice of the Peace sent the resolutions of April 13 and 18, 1906 on the election of preventive measures for these accused, as well as copies of these resolutions. Also, Judge A.E. Sokolov provided his explanation on this case, in which he reported that the preventive measure taken against the accused was explained by evidence against the accused ^{[16, L.1]}. The Yakut District Court, having considered the complaints of M.V. Sabunaev, P.V. Olenin and V.P. Priyutov and having familiarized with the case material, concluded that the adopted the preventive measure against them was quite sufficient, since: 1) the accused were threatened with punishment, combined with the opinion of all the rights of the state; 2) there are firm proofs of their guilt; 3) there is a possibility of their influence on the course of the investigation due to the fact that they have influence in society and they had a leading role in the actions of the demonstrators on January 9, 1906. Therefore, the district court considered the decision taken against P.V. Olenin, M.V. Sabunaeva and V.P. Priyutova leave the measure of restraint unchanged ^{[9, L.10]}.

According to the Judicial Statutes of 1864, complaints about the delay of proceedings by magistrates were submitted to the World Congress ^{[7, pp. 21-22]}. In Siberia, under the reform of 1897, complaints were also filed and considered in district courts. The Yakutsk District Court considered a complaint dated July 2, 1910 from a non-native N.V. Vinokurov of Bayagantaysky ulus for delaying the trial by the magistrate of the 2nd precinct, since the application for compensation from a non-native A.E. Kulakovsky 647 rubles 46 kopecks was left pending by the magistrate. Therefore, N.V. Vinokurov, referring to Article 168 of the Charter of Civil Proceedings, namely, a complaint about the slowness of the justice of the peace ^{[7, p.22]}, asked the district court to require the justice of the peace of the 2nd precinct of the Yakut District to consider the lawsuit as soon as possible and to speed up the decision if possible. At the end of his complaint, the foreigner N.V. Vinokurov wrote that since he was illiterate, he used his seal instead of a signature ^{[14, l.1]}. According to the judicial statutes of 1864, these complaints were considered in the district court without summoning the parties, but the litigants who appeared were allowed to oral explanations ^{[7, p.21-22]}. So, on August 27, 1910, in a public court session of the Yakut District Court, the case was considered on a private complaint by a foreigner N.V. Vinokurov about the slowness of the magistrate of the 2nd precinct of the Yakut district ^{[14, L.5]}. Also, the district court considered the explanation of the magistrate of the 2nd precinct of the Yakut district, where it was reported that the petition of claim in the case of N.V. Vinokurov was filed on May 12, 1910, that the case was scheduled for July 7, 1910, and the defendant A.E. Kulakovsky was sent a summons through the Baturus foreign administration. However, on June 3, 1910, due to the defendant's non-appearance and lack of information about the delivery of the summons to him, the case was postponed to the next turn and the prosecutor of the Yakutsk District Court was informed about the failure of the Baturus foreign administration to fulfill the judicial requirements for the delivery of the summons to A.E. Kulakovsky. The Yakut District Court, having considered this case, came to the conclusion to leave N.V. Vinokurov's complaint without attention due to the fact that no fault was found in delaying the proceedings when considering the court case by the magistrate of the 2nd precinct of the Yakut district ^{[14, L. 5-5 vol.]}. Also, on June 1, 1912, the Yakutsk District Court considered a private complaint of the petty bourgeois V. Mosin about the slowness of the justice of the Peace of Yakutsk in the case of a claim for non-payment by N. Klimovsky of money for the construction of a house ^{[15, L.2]}. On May 19, 1912, the petty bourgeois V. Mosin wrote a complaint to the Yakutsk District Court, where he reported that in In October 1911, V. Mosin filed a petition to the justice of the peace of Yakutsk on the claim from the official N. Klimovsky of unpaid money for the construction of the house, but the case was postponed until the spring of 1912 for the inspection of the building by experts. In the spring of 1912, the magistrate of Yakutsk promised V. Mosin to consider the case in the first days of May, however, until May 19, 1912, the case was still being considered, and V. Mosin had delayed settlements with employees. At the end of the petition, V. Mosin reported that due to the fact that he was illiterate, at his personal request, the philistine N. Sudakov signed for him ^{[15, L.1]}. The Yakutsk District Court decided to propose to the justice of the peace of Yakutsk to speed up the decision on the case and inform the court about the reasons for the delay ^{[15, L.2]}. On June 8, 1912, the justice of the Peace of Yakutsk informed the Yakutsk District Court that, in pursuance of the district Court's order of June 4, 1912, the decision of the case on the claim of V. Mosin and N. Klimovsky and the case on the first claim was postponed until the examination by experts scheduled for June 8, 1912 ^{[15, l.3]}. However, there are no materials for a further decision in this case. So, the townsfolk had the opportunity to file a complaint about the delay in the proceedings by the magistrates.

According to the Judicial Statutes of 1864, complaints about the refusal of the justices of the peace to accept the claim were filed in Siberia to the District Court ^{[7, pp.21-22]}. On June 25, at a public meeting of the Yakut District Court, the case was heard on the complaint of a trusted alien of the Chalginsky nasleg of the Meginsky ulus of the alien I.I. Sergeev against the refusal of the magistrate of the 2nd precinct of the Yakut district to bring to criminal responsibility E.N. Scriabin for seizing public hay and for the recovery of 545 rubles. In January 1914, a proxy on behalf of the foreigners of the Chalginsky nasleg, I.I. Sergeev, filed a petition addressed to the magistrate of the 2nd precinct of the Yakut district, in which he reported that the foreigner E.N. Scriabin in 1906 pledged to the inhabitants of the Chalginsky Nasleg to lower Lake Nokhoy, but did not fulfill his obligations and used hay from this area all the time, having mowed down approximately 109 carts in the amount of 545 rubles . Therefore, I.I. Sergeev asked to bring E.N. Scriabin to criminal responsibility for the fraudulent theft of public property — hay in the amount of 545 rubles. ^{[8, L.9]}. The magistrate of the 2nd precinct of the Yakut district, having considered this petition and bearing in mind that there is no composition of any crime in the action of E.N. Scriabin and that he can only be sued for non-performance of the contract, decided to return the petition to the trusted alien of Chalginsky nasleg I.I. Sergeev. On this decision of the justice of the peace, the alien I.I. Sergeev brought a complaint to the district court, asking to suggest to the justice of the peace to reconsider the decision. The Yakut District Court, having collected all the circumstances of the case, determined to leave the complaint of the alien I.I. Sergeev, a proxy from the foreigners of the Chalginsky nasleg of the Megien ulus, without consideration ^{[8, L.9]}.

According to the Judicial Statute of 1864, persons who did not agree with the court's decision could file a complaint to change or cancel the decision. The appeal was submitted in two copies to the world court that considered the case. The justice of the peace sent one copy of the appeal, with all appendices and acts of production, no later than three days from the time of its receipt, to the district court, and sent the other copy to the opposing party in the presence of a summons ^{[7, pp.21-22]}. On April 17, 1900, the Yakutsk District Court heard the case on the appeal of titular adviser I.Ya. Kuznetsov, accused under Article 136 of the Statute on Punishments. So, on April 24, 1898, the adviser of the Yakutsk regional Board, A.I. Vinogradov, filed a complaint to the magistrate of Yakutsk, accusing I.Ya. Kuznetsov of having accused A.I. Vinogradov of bribery in a conversation with an official of the Regional Board, I.M. Germanov. On May 22, 1898, the magistrate of Yakutsk, having examined this case and based on the confession of the accused I.Ya. Kuznetsov and on the testimony of witnesses I.M. Germanov and V.A. Vongrodsky, sentenced him to arrest for a period of eight days ^{[11, l.10–10 vol.]}.

The appeal indicated the reasons why the complainant considered the decision incorrect. The presentation of new claims in the appeal was not allowed ^{[7, p.21-22]}. On the above-mentioned verdict of the justice of the peace I.Ya. Kuznetsov filed an appeal, in which he asked to cancel the verdict of the court and release from custody, since, in his opinion, there is no corpus delicti in his actions provided for in Article 1360 of the Statute on Punishments ^{[11, l.10 vol.]}.

During the trial of the case in the district court, witnesses I.M. Germanov and V.A. Vongrodsky were interrogated, where they denied the fact of a conversation with I.Ya. Kuznetsov on the topic of slanderous accusations against the victim. However, during repeated interrogation, I.M. Germanov confirmed the fact of a conversation with I.Ya. Kuznetsov about A.I. Vinogradov. Witness I.M. Germanov described A.I. Vinogradov as a harmful person who had previously taken bribes and made denunciations to the governor ^{[11, l.11-11 vol.]}.

The District Court, having collected all the circumstances of the case and taking into account the testimony of witnesses V.A. Vongrodsky and I.M. Germanov, found no reason not to trust the statement of the petitioner I.Ya. Kuznetsov. Thus, it became clear from the testimony of V.A. Vongrodsky that there was an unflattering conversation about A.I. Vinogradov between the witness and the petitioner. Also, from the testimony of witness I.M. Germanov, the district court found out that V.A. Vongrodsky and I.Ya. Kuznetsov lived in the same dacha, and the oral information reported by I.Ya. Kuznetsov to I.M. Germanov was not for the purpose of insulting the honor and good name of A.I. Vinogradov, but with the intention of warning I.M. Germanov from dangerous, in his opinion I.M. Germanov informed the court that he believed I.Ya. Kuznetsov only because the information was received from a respected medical inspector V.A. Vongrodsky. The District Court concluded that the actions of I.Ya. Kuznetsov do not qualify as slander ^{[11, l.11 vol.]}.

The judicial authorities, when detecting non-fulfillment of official duties and abuses in court proceedings by judicial officials, had to take measures to bring the perpetrators to justice, and disciplinary proceedings were initiated. Disciplinary proceedings against judicial officials were initiated by judicial authorities or by the proposal of the Minister of Justice ^{[5, p.34]}. Complaints and protests of the townsfolk were submitted to the chairman of the district court for consideration at the general meeting of the district court. Disciplinary cases were heard in private, with the exception of the case when the accused asked to consider his case at a public meeting. The accused has the right to hire attorneys for the protection of people from among the jury ^{[5, pp.38-39]}.

On April 21, 1914, at the general meeting of the district court, the complaint of the veterinarian of the Kolyma district G.Ya. Kostromitinov against the justice of the Peace V.S. Lebedev was considered. Justice of the Peace V.S. Lebedev on July 20, 1913 at a court hearing during the case review expelled G.Ya. Kostromitinov from his cell shouting "Out!" G.Ya. Kostromitinov asked to bring V.S. Lebedev to legal responsibility for insulting him ^{[12, L.4]}. So, on July 20, 1913, during the trial of G.Ya. Kostromitinov on charges under Articles 121 and 128. Regulations on punishments (dog bite) the victim did not appear, despite the insistence on summoning him by G.Ya. Kostromitinov — thereby the accused was deprived of the "means of defense". The magistrate agreed to the request of G.Y. Kostromitinov to consider the case in his absence, but refused the request to enter the petition in the protocol. After a repeated request, Justice of the Peace V.S. Lebedev removed G.Ya. Kostromitinov with the words: "Out, out, Cossacks, take him out" ^{[13, l.6]}. Also in his complaint, G.Ya. Kostromitinov accused the justice of the peace V.S. Lebedev of membership in a local circle, headed by the district police officer of the Kolyma district L.R. Saburov, and of participating in gambling ^{[13, L.2]}. In an explanation dated February 17, 1911, Justice of the Peace V.S. Lebedev did not deny that he had removed G.Ya. Kostromitinov from the court session due to his "extremely defiant and incorrect behavior", but denied all the accusations of the veterinarian, calling them "bare accusations" and "unscrupulous insinuations" against him and the district police officer L.R. Saburov ^{[13, l.15–16 vol.]}. April 21, 1914 The Yakut District Court transferred the case on the complaint of G.Y. Kostromitinov's insult by a justice of the peace to the United presence of the first and Cassation departments of the Governing Senate, and the remaining charges and complaints were ignored ^{[12, l.4.]}. In December 1914. The governing Senate, having considered the case, instructed the Yakutsk District Court to conduct an investigation, sending one of its members of the court to Srednekolymsk. The Yakutsk District Court ruled that in July 1915, the members of the court will not be able to travel to Srednekolymsk due to the fact that the chairman of the district court is on vacation, two members of the district court are at a visiting session in the Vilyuysky and Olekminsky districts, and the third member of the court is in charge of the district court until the spring of 1915, when the rasputitsa comes due to melting of ice and snow before July 1 ^{[12, L.10]}. However, on November 20, 1915, due to the death of one of the members of the district court A.E. Sokolov, the departure of a member of the court D.I. Melikov was postponed until December 1915. But even then the business trip was postponed due to the daily court sessions and it was decided to leave during the first half of 1916 ^{[12, L.6]}. However, we have no further information about the progress of this case.

Thus, complaints about the activities of justices of the peace played an important role in the communicative space of the Yakut District Court during the period under review as a channel of communication between society and the judiciary, which was regulated by Judicial Statutes of 1864. Complaints about the delay in proceedings and the refusal to accept claims by justices of the Peace were sent by petitioners to the Yakut District Court. Thus, the appeals of the accused, defendants to the judiciary acted as a communication channel through which feedback was carried out, through which the Yakutsk District Court could supervise the activities of magistrates. The Yakutsk District Court considered incoming complaints against magistrates regardless of the severity of the accused's crime. When filing a complaint, illiterate philistines could put a seal instead of their signature, or they could ask another literate philistine to sign for themselves. Judicial complaints about the slowing down of legal proceedings, the refusal of the justice of the peace to accept claims and disciplinary proceedings were filed with the district Court. Appeals were filed to the justice of the peace, who considered the case, in turn, the judge gave the motion of the complaint along with his explanation within seven days from the time of its submission to the general meeting of the Yakut District Court. When considering appeals, the district court could summon and take witness statements. In the district court, cases on private and appeals complaints were considered in a public hearing, and cases of disciplinary proceedings were considered in a closed session, where the district court, having familiarized itself with the written complaints of ordinary people, with the explanations of magistrates and with the court cases in which the complaint was filed, came to one or another conclusion.