The Werynski Files – Folio 1
Rubin Kurz vs Kazimierz Kazimierski (1934 to 1936) – Case #252/36
Overview
Rubin Kurz (born May 24, 1900) was a grocery store owner on ul. Sandomierska in Mielec before the war. In November 1934 there was a dispute over a lack of payment for 50 zloty to Rubin Kurz from a Polish farmer named Kazimierz Kazimierski in Gliny Małe (19km NNW of Mielec).
In 1936, Rubin hired local Jewish lawyer Dr. Oskar Isenberg to represent him to force receipt of funds, and won both the initial judgment by local Polish judge Dr. Wójtowicz, and again on appeal by local Jewish judge Dr. Baruch Pohoryles. The defendant, Kazimierz Kazimierski, was represented by Dr. Werynski.
It is unclear what happens concerning the 50 zloty after the ruling by Judge Pohoryles. However we do know that Rubin was in Mielec at the start of the war. He, along with his wife Feiga, daughters Malka, Blima, and Esther, and parents Schaja and Esther, were all killed during the war.
May 16, 1933 – Werynski’s cover page and notes
June 30, 1936 – Ruling by Judge Wójtowicz – Rubin Kurz vs Kazimierz Kazimierski. Link to image.
Town Court in Mielec Division II June 30, 1936 Case #252/36 The Municipal Court in Mielec in the case of plaintiff Rubin Kurz the younger from Mielec against Kazimierz Kazimierski, a farmer in Gliny Małe, issues the following: - Bill of exchange payment order: Based on a bill of exchange from Mielec on November 28, 1934, the defendant Kazimierz Kazimierski, a farmer in Gliny Małe, is to pay plaintiff Rubin Kurz a younger merchant in Mielec, a bill of exchange in the amount of 50 zloty. together with 8% from January 6, 1935 and costs of 19.50 zl. within three days of delivery of the order for payment or within that period an objection against the order for payment. - For compliance Town Judge Wójtowicz
August 5, 1936 – Letter from Dr. Oskar Isenberg, attorney for plaintiff Rubin Kurz, to the Mielec Town Court. Front image and back image.
Transcription & Translation:
From the lawyer's office
Dr. OSKAR ISENBERG
in MIELEC.
Entered August 5, 1936
Taken on ______ 193_
L. _______
Great Town Court
in Mielec
Plaintiff: Rubin Kurz, younger son of Schaji
merchant in Mielec
Defendant: Kazimierz Kazimieski, son of Mateusz
farmer in Gliny Małe
Bills of exchange claim for issuing a bill of exchange payment order for 50 zloty.
May It Please the Court!
On the basis of a bill of exchange from Mielec on November 28, 1934, the defendant is to pay the claimant 50 zloty. -
The defendant has not paid this amount to the plaintiff so far and the plaintiff claims that the following should be issued: -
Bill of exchange payment order:
Based on a bill of exchange from Mielec on November 28, 1934, the defendant Kazimierz Kazimierski is to pay plaintiff Rubin Kurz a bill amount of 50 zl. together with 8% from January 6, 1935, the cost of the payment order in the amount of zl. gr. within three days of service of the order for payment, or within that period, an objection against the order for payment: -
Copy of the bill of exchange: Mielec on November 28, 1934 for 50 zl. on January 5, 1935 you will pay the sum of fifty zloty for this first promissory note at the request of Tadeusz Wanatowicz. The value was received by Kazimierz Kazimierski. - Paid in Mielec. - Kazimierski Kazimierz wr. / indorso (?) Tadeusz Wanatowicz wr. Rubin Kurz the younger
Costs according to the tariff. . . . . .
[signed]
August 11, 1936 – Brief – Rubin Kurz vs Kazimierz Kazimierski from Dr. Werynski: Page 1, Page 2 top, Page 2 bottom.
Transcription & Translation:
Lawyer
Dr. Wojciech Weryński
in MIELEC.
Town Court
in
Mielec
Case #252/36.
Plaintiff: Rubin Kurz, younger / son of Schaji /, merchant in Mielec.
Defendant: Kazimierz Kazimierski, a farmer in Gliny Małe.
Amount concerned: 50 zl.
OBJECTIONS
Bills of exchange of the defendant from ts. bill of exchange payment order of June 30, 1936
Case #252/36, served on August 5, 1936
With the application
for suspension of immediate enforcement of the order for payment.
2-fold
1 annex full
May It Please the Court!
The defendant Kazimierz Kazimierski requests the annulment of the bill order for payment of the Town Court in Mielec of June 30, 1936. Case #252/36 and to dismiss the plaintiff with a claim, especially as premature, and to justify the plaintiff to pay the defendant the costs of the dispute according to the norms prescribed with a 100% increase in addition to reimbursement of cash expenses and for suspension or to suspend the immediate enforceability of the above order for payment, otherwise the defendant would be exposed to irreparable loss.
Substantiation:
The defendant alleges the inauthenticity of his signature, i.e. he denies signing the promissory note being the basis of the lawsuit.
In addition, the defendant alleges that the plaintiff is not the legal owner of the bill of exchange in question, because he has not legally acquired it from Tadeusz Wanatowicz or from other legal predecessors, as well as from the content of the bill of exchange, it can be seen that the plaintiff, through his giro, transferred the rights from the bill of exchange to some other third person, and therefore, only this third person could file a lawsuit / see. Case #557/32 Przegląd Sąd / 32 and td /.
Indeed, the defendant alleges that the plaintiff's lawsuit is premature, because the promissory note was handed by the defendant to the plaintiff's legal predecessor Tadeusz Wanatowicz to secure the agricultural debt arising somewhere in 1930 in connection with the running and acquisition of a farm by the defendant or by his legal predecessor Józef Gawron, and therefore this debt cannot currently be collected, especially according to art. 41 Prev R. P. from October 24, 1934 No. 5 item 59 Journal U.R.P. ex / 36, his payment under the Act itself is fixed at 28 semi-annual installments payable on April 1 and October 1 of each year, of which the first installment falls only on October 1, 1938 / see also a ruling of the District Court in Tarnów from July 6, 1935 I. Cz. 318/35 Motyl vs. Czepiel /.
In particular, this debt arose in such a way that the above Józef Gawron made a purchase contract somewhere in 1930 to buy the sale of his land with cash. Kosiński, who owed 60 zl. due to this title or disputed 50 zloty. A claim for this amount was given to notary Kosiński Wanatowicz and the latter at the occasion when the defendant was paying his contract with cash. Dr. Śpiewaka with whom he bought land from the same Józef Gawron managed to obtain from the defendant a promissory note in bianco or disputed promissory note to secure the above debt, apparently this promissory note was also transferred by Wanatowicz to the plaintiff for fear of the defendant's current allegations and in agreement with the plaintiff.
Proof: Witnesses Józef Gawron and Jan Gawron, both in Gliny Małe and interrogation of the parties and St. Tadeusz Wanatowicz in Mielec.
Agent for the defendant Kazimierz Kazimierski
Lawyer
Dr. Wojciech Weryński
August 11, 1936 – note for Rubin Kurz to appear in Mielec District Court on September 7, 1936.
August 11, 1936 – Preliminary ruling from Judge Pohoryles. Link to image.
Transcription & Translation:
Town Court of Mielec November 11, 1936 Case #252/36 In the case of Rubin Kurz's younger son Schaji in Mielec, against the defendant Kazimierz Kazimierski in Gliny Małe works through full moon. Concerning 50 zloty payment, Mielec Attorney Dr. Werynski's request to suspend the immediate enforceability of an order for payment is refused Substantiation: The defendant has not shown that by conducting the execution by the plaintiff he was exposed to irreparable damage / art. 463 of the Code of Civil Procedure. / For the court Pohoryles
August 25, 1936 – note from Dr. Werynski to Kazimiera Kazimierski in Gliny Małych near Borowa: Front image and back image.
Transcription & Translation:
Kazimierz Kazimierski
in Gliny Mały
in Borowa
Mielec, August 25, 1936
Sir!
I would like to inform you that as a result of allegations against a bill of exchange order for payment to Case #252/36, I appointed a hearing for September 7, 1936 at 9 am.
Before the deadline, please report to my office with adequate cash for the hearing.
Sincerely
September 21, 1936 – note from Werynski to the Mielec Arbitration Office re: Case #190/36/7 – creditor Rubin Kurz vs debtor Kazimierz Kasimierski. Werynski is representing the debtor in this letter. Front image and back image.
Transcription & Translation:
To the District Arbitration Office in Mielec
Creditor: Rubin Kurz, younger son of Schai, merchant in Mielec.
Debtor: Kazimierz Kazimierski, a farmer in Gliny Małe.
Amount concerned: 50 zloty
Proposal
--------
for a decision, in the sense of art. 8 regulations. R. P. from October 24, 1934 No. 5 item 59 Journal U. R. P. ex 1936, that the debtor's debt to the creditor is an agricultural debt within the meaning of Art. 1 of that Regulation and
With the application
--------------------
for securing this application by suspending legal proceedings before the Municipal Court in Mielec, Csae #252/36 in time until the final settlement of the present case.
Great Office!
The creditor Rubin Kurz sued the debtor Kazimierz Kazimierski before the Town Court in Mielec to the court Case #252/36 from a promissory note for payment 50 zl.
The next hearing in this case is to take place before the Town Court in Mielec on September 30, 1936 at 10 am and as a result, the debtor could be exposed to considerable and irreparable damage, and therefore, due to the following state of affairs, the debtor applies for a ruling following the resolution of the quoted inscription that his debt in the amount of 50 zl. from the bill of appeal appealed by the creditor Case #252/36 is an agricultural debt within the meaning of that Regulation as the ownership debt of Group A. farm, as arisen before July 1, 1932, and for suspension of proceedings before the Town Court in Mielec Case #252/36 until the final settlement of this application.
The creditor completely wrongly and prematurely complained about the above promissory note, because the promissory note was handed by the debtor to its predecessor, the creditor, Tadeusz Wanatowicz from Mielec, only to secure the agricultural debt arising somewhere in 1930 in connection with the running and acquisition of a farm by by the legal former owner Józef Gawron.
In particular, this debt arose in such a way that the above Józef Gawron, somewhere in 1930, was making a purchase contract for the sale of his land from Kosiński, who owed 60 zl. due to this title or disputed 50 zloty. A claim for this amount was paid in cash. Kosiński to Wanatowicz and the latter by the way, when the signed person was doing his contract with not. Dr. Śpiewak with whom he bought land from the same Józef Gawron managed to obtain from the signed disputed promissory note in bianco to secure the above debt, then apparently this promissory note was also transferred by Wanatowicz to the current creditor Rubin Kurz and apparently for fear of the present allegations of the signed and in agreement with the current creditor.
Proof: Town Court Files Case #52/36, witnesses Józef Gawron and Jan Gawron, both in Gliny Mały, St. Tadeusz Wanatowicz in Mielec and hearings of the parties.
Mielec, September 21, 1936
October 2, 1936 – note from Werynski to the Mielec District Court. Link to scanned PDF.
Transcription & Translation:
To the Town Court in Mielec
Case #252/36
Plaintiff: Rubin Kurz / younger son of Schaji / merchant in Mielec.
Defendant: Kazimierz Kazimierski, a farmer in Gliny Małe, represented by full rights by Dr. W. Weryński, Mielec attorney.
Amount concerned: 50 zl.
May It Please the Court!
The defendant Kazimierz Kazimierski hereby asks and draw up a written justification for the judgment of the Town Court in Mielec on September 30, 1936 Case #252/36 and for notification of these full terms filed by Dr. W. Weryński, Mielec lawyer.
In addition, the defendant also asks for a written justification for court resolutions of September 30, 1936 Case #252/36 announced for the record of the hearing and not including the request of the same defendant to suspend the proceedings, until the final settlement of the defendant's request addressed to the Powiat Arbitration Office in Mielec Case #190/36/7 for a ruling that his debt with Case #252/36 is an agricultural debt.
Finally, the defendant attach under 1 /. certificate of the Powiat Conciliation Office in Mielec of September 26, 1936 Case #252/36 and Case #190/36/7 and based on its content, he requests that the court proceedings be suspended before the Town Court in Mielec for Case #252/36 for the time to legally settle the proceedings before the Powiat Arbitration Office in Mielec for Case #190/36/7.
For the defendant Kazimierz Kazimierski
Mielec, October 2, 1936
October 5, 1936 – note for Kazimierz Kazimierski to appear in Mielec District Court on October 6, 1936.
October 6, 1936 – Ruling by Judge Pohoryles on case Rubin Kurz vs Kazimierz Kazimierski. Link to scanned PDF.
Transcription & Translation:
District Court District I. Mielec October 6, 1936 Case #252/36 The town court in Mielec by Judge Pohoryles in the bill of exchange case Rubin Kurz plaintiff by lawyer Dr. Isenberg against Kazimierz Kazimierski sued by lawyer Dr. Weryński for 50 zl. at a closed session on October 6, 1936. Decision He will refuse the defendant's request to stay the proceedings and the above-mentioned case in time for settling this case before the Arbitration Office in Mielec to Case #190/36/7. Substantiation The defendant's application was received by the Court after its release in this case, i.e. after September 30, 1936, but the defendant only to the application for suspension of proceedings de praes October 2, 1936 submitted the certificate of the Arbitration Office in Mielec that the defendant had applied for recognition of the debt as agricultural. After issuing the judgment, the Court may not stay the proceedings, as the proceedings have been terminated by a judgment. Pursuant to the provisions of Reg. R. P. on Arbitration Offices, a judge is entitled to suspend proceedings after an application for a decision to declare the debt agricultural as pending trial, and therefore not after a verdict, while in the course of enforcement the Arbitration Office secures the application by suspending enforcement proceedings. If in this case it is after the verdict and before the enforcement is carried out, the defendant's application is therefore unjustified. Town judge Pohoryles