Search

The author reviews mental disorder as a ground for divorce in the Czechoslovak Act No. 320 of 1919 Coll. This Act was called the Marriage Amendment and was in effect for the Czech countries until 1950. The author considers the wording of the Act itself, the explanatory report, jurisprudence, and the court practice. The author compares it to the Hungarian marriage law that continued to be effective in Slovakia until 1950. It was Act No. XXXI of 1894 (the so-called Marriage Act), which regulated divorces in Slovakia, despite adopting the Czechoslovak Marriage Amendment. The Hungarian Marriage Act did not recognise mental illness as a ground for divorce. However, it was a controversial topic in both legal environments, the Hungarian and Czechoslovak. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article describes the regulation of liability for non-pecuniary damage on the example of 19th century Hungarian law, which is based on a long, unbroken tradition, individual legal acts and customary law. Furthermore, the classification of torts and remedies in contemporary Hungarian law is analysed, highlighting their similarities and differences to those used in the present civil law. Particular emphasis is placed on the examination and presentation of the institution of homagium, which had a medieval origin and constituted a specific instrument for obtaining compensation for non-pecuniary damage. It is compared with Polish (Code of Obligations of 1933) and Austrian (ABGB of 1811) regulations. The situation allows the author to show the variety of ways in which contract law has developed, especially concerning the pecuniary compensation of harm and pain. Employing comparative and historical methods makes it possible to highlight the timelessness of particular obligation law issues, showing its evolution in Central Europe in the last two centuries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Cracow Studies of Constitutional & Legal History / Krakowskie Studia z Historii Państwa i Prawa is the property of Jagiellonian University Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The paper explains the methodology applied in the edition of historical legal sources of major importance for the 19th and 20th centuries Slovakia -- the edition of the Provisional Judicial Rules ("PJR") of the Judex-Curial Conference of 1861. At the Conference, legal scholars and politicians adopted a decision to abandon the previous twelve years of neoabsolutism and centralism introduced by the Austrian law, and opted for a renewal of the traditional Hungarian legal system with some changes introduced by the laws of March 1848 (the March Constitution of 1848). At the same time they retained some rules of Austrian origin and created some rules that were entirely new, particularly in the field of civil procedural law and inheritance law. While evaluating the legal nature of the PJR, the literature used to claim that they never became law because Parliament of 1861 was not created legally (representatives were not elected under the electoral law enacted as part of the March Constitution of 1848) and because the monarch, Francis Joseph I, had not yet been crowned (his coronation took place in 1867). Therefore the legislative process could not be successfully completed. The only solution that was reported to was the recognition of the exceptional situation which dominated in Hungary between 1861-1867 -- It was the period between neoabsolutism and another provisorium, a period of "limited constitutionalism". Under such conditions it was not possible to meet the formalities of official legislation process. Thus PJR could become binding only de facto -- through the power of persuasion. However, after a corpus of case law began to consolidate during several years, it could be argued that the PJR was transformed from the actual source of judicial decision-making into customary law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents the issue of judicial decisions and court practices concerning criminal cases in Hungary in the years between 1879 and 1918. The first part contains a brief overview of Hungarian criminal law's evolution in the 19th century with a strong emphasis on the milestone being the implementation of Csemegi's Criminal Code of 1880. For example, whereas in the period before the codification court rulings often included penalties or repressive measures of Catholic origins, the new code modified the Hungarian criminal law to a great extent. The studies of the records of the Royal County Court of Kaposvar have enabled the author to present a reader with the picture of a woman -- offender, and a woman -- vitim characteristic of Hungary at the end of the century. The article presents, inter alia, statistics related to the sex of an offender, and particularly problematic questions concerning cases of abortion, infanticide, rape or adultery. The analyzed judicial decisions show particular court practices characteristic of some cases, for example those of adulteresses, that lead to significant deviation from the normative content of Csemegi's criminal code. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]