In the former the procedure is simple and conciliatory, the jurisdiction is confined to cases of little importance, and the judges were at first chosen by popular election, generally from among the local inhabitants.  In the latter there is more of “the pomp and majesty of the law.”  The procedure is more strict and formal, the jurisdiction is unlimited with regard to the importance of the cases, and the judges are trained jurists nominated by the Emperor.

The Justice of Peace Courts received jurisdiction over all obligations and civil injuries in which the sum at stake was not more than 500 roubles—­about 50 pounds—­and all criminal affairs in which the legal punishment did not exceed 300 roubles—­about 30 pounds—­or one year of punishment.  When any one had a complaint to make, he might go to the Justice of the Peace (Mirovoi Sudya) and explain the affair orally, or in writing, without observing any formalities; and if the complaint seemed well founded, the Justice at once fixed a day for hearing the case, and gave the other party notice to appear at the appointed time.  When the time appointed arrived, the affair was discussed publicly and orally, either by the parties themselves, or by any representatives whom they might appoint.  If it was a civil suit, the Justice began by proposing to the parties to terminate it at once by a compromise, and indicated what he considered a fair arrangement.  Many affairs were terminated in this simple way.  If, however, either of the parties refused to consent to a compromise, the matter was fully discussed, and the Justice gave a formal written decision, containing the grounds on which it was based.  In criminal cases the amount of punishment was always determined by reference to a special Criminal Code.

If the sum at issue exceeded thirty roubles—­about 3 pounds—­or if the punishment exceeded a fine of fifteen roubles—­about 30s.—­or three days of arrest, an appeal might be made to the Assembly of Justices (Mirovoi Syezd).  This is a point in which English rather than French institutions were taken as a model.  According to the French system, all appeals from a Juge de Paix are made to the “Tribunal d’Arrondissement,” and the Justice of Peace Courts are thereby subordinated to the Regular Tribunals.  According to the English system, certain cases may be carried on appeal from the Justice of the Peace to the Quarter Sessions.  This latter principle was adopted and greatly developed by the Russian legislation.  The Monthly Sessions, composed of all the Justices of the District (uyezd), considered appeals against the decisions of the individual Justices.  The procedure was simple and informal, as in the lower court, but an assistant of the Procureur was always present.  This functionary gave his opinion in some civil and in all criminal cases immediately after the debate, and the Court took his opinion into consideration in framing its judgment.