Administrative-legal status of the bailiff of the era of the Lithuanian-Ruthenian state

Article is devoted to the problems of the administrative-legal status of bailiffs (called as ‘ditskyi’, ‘vyzh’, and ‘voznyi’) of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, which at that time included most of the Ukrainian lands. The article reveals that in the Lithuanian-Ruthenian state, the decisions and orders of the courts were carried out by the ‘ditskyi’ and ‘vyzh’ − servants of local governors who simultaneously acted as official witnesses of public law procedures. Whereas the ‘ditskyi’ performed such court procedures as handing claims, forced delivery of the defendant to the court, execution of court judgements, the ‘vyzh’ dealt with pre-trial actions (inspection of the scene of the offense, examination of the victim, consideration and confirmation of the validity of complaints, description of the damages caused, description of the debtor’s property). A ‘vyzh’ was a person with the rights of an official witness, which meant that he testified by his presence to the legality of the legal procedure. But in everyday life, there was no clear distribution of the ‘ditskyi’ and ‘vyzh’s’ powers, and they often merged and intersected. It can be stated that the fundamental factor of ‘vyzhivstvo’ is the official belonging to a specific master: the grand duke, his governors (‘voievodas’ and ‘starostas’), and privileged landowners (dukes, masters, boyars, nobility). Judicial immunity, expressed in the domain jurisdiction as the inviolability of the right to power, probably laid the basis for the formation of ‘vyzhivstvo’. Unlike the ‘vyzh’ as an outside witness, the ‘ditskyi’ is recognized as a bailiff of the established procedure. The executive functions of the ‘ditskyi’ are identified with judicial procedures based on court decisions of a coercive nature (execution of a court sentence, collection of a fine, recovery of property, delivery of an offender to court, search for a person, etc.). After the judicial reform of 1564–1566, the ‘vyzhyi’ and ‘ditskyi’ were gradually replaced by the ‘voznyi’ appointed by the ‘starosta’ or ‘voievoda’. The major powers of the ‘voznyi’ included handing in claims and announcing the term of the court hearing; taking witnesses to the oath; examination of offenses; putting into possession by a court verdict; inspection of the consequences of offenses, etc. The ‘voznyi’ was the lowest official of the court by his status. It was found out that the ‘vyzhyi’ and ‘ditskyi’ who acted on behalf of the government, being servants of local masters at the same time, carried out one-time errands, whereas the ‘voiznyi’ was a permanent official of the post-reform courts.