In the 1875 Kharkiv calendar, we find a most intriguing story…
The deceased landowner of the Kharkiv Governorate, Zmiiv District, Donets-Zakharzhevsky, in the 17th clause of his will, bequeathed the entire remainder of his estate to some charitable cause (the case file regarding the recovery of this capital in favor of the zemstvo shows that this balance consisted of 232,473 rubles) and requested that his heir carry out the will, while one of his relatives was to oversee its execution. The District Court approved this will on January 27, 1872. The Provincial Administration, however, despite the fact that the prosecutor’s office, based on the appendix to the continuation of Case No. X, Article 31, was required to notify it, learned of this through private channels in May 1873—that is, one year and four months later. By that time, the heir, Nikolai Pokhvisnev, had not only squandered the entire fortune bequeathed to him but had also squandered all the capital and valuables designated for various institutions. And after Nikolai Pokhvisnev’s death, as early as 1874, there remained 83,000 rubles in liquid capital and more than 1.5 million in debt; furthermore, there are many promissory notes, totaling a fabulous sum, which are in private hands and which, for some unknown reason, have not been submitted for collection.
However, alas, nothing charitable happened… Instead, there was a scandal...
The editorial commission, which had been tasked with preparing a report on the Donets-Zakharzhevsky inheritance case, categorically expressed its opinion to the Assembly on February 18, 1874.
She stated, first, that it is impossible to recover the sum of 232,473 rubles from the estate of the deceased heir, Donets-Zakharzhevsky, Nikolai Pokhvisnev, is impossible, since it has been squandered, and those responsible for the embezzlement are insolvent. Second, it is impossible to collect 300,000 rubles from Dmitry Pokhvisnev, who took possession of a forest cottage near the village of Konstantinovka, since the transaction transferring ownership of the said cottage was definitively confirmed by a decision of the justice of the peace of the 2nd district of Kharkiv, issued on the basis of Article 30 of the Code of Civil Procedure; moreover, entering into any agreements with Dmitry Pokhvisnev would constitute an unjustified moral concession. For these reasons, the editorial commission recommended that the Provincial Assembly propose to the Provincial Administration that all proceedings in this case be discontinued, and, in the event that new assets are discovered, to reserve the right to file a new lawsuit and to report the Assembly’s decision to the Minister of the Interior. The Assembly, by a majority of 21 to 14, rejected the commission’s proposal to discontinue the lawsuits and endorsed the decision to reject Dmitry Pokhvisnev’s offer to accept 25,000 rubles from him and withdraw his claim to the forest.
In addition to the case against Nikolai Pokhvisnev, the Provincial Administration filed a lawsuit seeking 300,000 rubles from his brother, Dmitry Pokhvisnev, for the latter’s unlawful seizure of 1,350 des. of timber near the village of Konstantinovka, which had belonged to the late Donets-Zakharzhevsky. Dmitry Pokhvisnev is offering the Zemstvo 25,000 rubles in exchange for the Zemstvo dropping all claims regarding his rights to the aforementioned forest estate.
The Assembly then resolved to include 7,823 rubles in the supplementary budget This was to cover the fee for attorney S. F. Moroshkin, who had taken on the case, should it be won, as well as 2,500 rubles already paid to him for court costs, for a total of 10,323 rubles.