Докази за статутом цивільного судочинства 1864 року

Abstract

Здійснено аналіз норм Статуту цивільного судочинства, що врегульовують питання використання доказів у цивільному процесі в українських губерніях, котрі входили до складу Російської імперії. Наводяться акти, що діяли протягом XVІІІ – 1-ї пол. ХІХ ст. на українських землях Наддніпрянщини, а також основні види доказів, що передбачалися в цивільному судочинстві згідно з російським законодавством та Литовським статутом 1588 р. Статутом заборонялася відмова від свідчень, окрім свідчень проти родичів, братів, сестер, а також осіб, які мали вигоду від вирішення справи на користь однієї із сторін позову. Наводиться перелік осіб, яким заборонено свідчити, а також осіб, які можуть бути за клопотанням сторони відведені від показань. The study analyzes the provisions of the Statute of Civil Procedure, which regulate the use of evidence in civil proceedings in the Ukrainian provinces, which were part of the Russian Empire. It was emphasized that natives of Ukrainian provinces and students of Kharkiv University took an active part in the development of the Statute of Civil Procedure. The acts that were in force during the XVIII – I half are given. XIX century. in the Ukrainian lands of the Dnieper region, as well as the main types of evidence provided in civil proceedings under Russian law and the Lithuanian Statute of 1588. It is noted that the drafters of the Statute did not specifically lay down a rule in this act evidence, however, provided the main types of evidence (testimony of witnesses; inquiry of certain areas by district courts; written evidence; confessions; oath; expert opinions). The statute prohibited the waiver of testimony, except for testimony against relatives, brothers, sisters, as well as persons who benefited from the decision of the case in favor of one of the parties to the claim. A list of persons who are prohibited from testifying, as well as persons who may be removed from the testimony at the request of the parties, is provided. It is noted that the statute provided for the interrogation of witnesses by a magistrate at the place of residence of the witness in case of illness, established material compensation for witnesses for transportation costs, and so on. It is stated that the oath was considered an important condition under which the person who took it would give truthful testimony, conditions under which persons could not take the oath or it could not be used. It is emphasized that written evidence cannot be denied by the testimony of a witness. The conditions and process of gathering evidence in the form of an on-site inspection and expert opinions are determined.