179 rained, supernumerary witnesses were often heard.Even witnesses that a priori cannot have been thought to be eyewitnesses were often heard extensively and in detail; in this respect, no difference can be observed between witnesses heard under oath or without it. Obviously, the purpose was to clear up all the circumstances relevant to the case. In this respect, the shift toward the free evaluation of evidence brought no change in the practice. The fact that all the possible witnesses were usually heard is well understood by the fact that there were several decisional categories. Even though the evidence was not adequate for full proof and a conviction, it could serve as adequate proof for confessional imprisonment, absolutio ab instantia or conditional acquittal. It made sense, therefore, for the prosecutor to acquire all the possible evidence, and it made sense for the court to receive it. Other Crimes Handled by Lower Courts For this work, no comprehensive study of lower court practice has been possible. I have chosen two periods, of what on the basis of homicidal material appears as the era of legal proof, as sources of comparative material. The records of the Pyhäjoki and Saloinen Hundred Courts winter sessions (vinterting) of 1820 and of the Pyhäjoki fall session (höstting) of 1850 have been researched. Since Pyhäjoki and Saloinen are small country villages, another sample from the Tampere City Court has also been taken; this includes cases from the first half of 1850. For each session at Pyhäjoki and Saloinen almost 400 cases correspond; only a minor part of them are criminal cases, however, and of them only a very small portion contains any information useful fromthe point of view of the law of proof. As to the Tampere sample, about 70 criminal cases have been registered. Because most of the crimes are relatively insignificant at both Tampere, Pyhäjoki, and Saloinen, the case descriptions tend to be blunt and brief. Only seldomare any decision grounds, besides the numbers of statute paragraphs, given nor is there normally any discussion on the evidence presented. Besides, a large part of the cases are, as far as proof is concerned, selfevident; in them, a conviction would have resulted by any theory of proof. The court records permit certain conclusions. First of all, no significant differences arise between the countryside and the town; although the structure of criminality is in fact quite different, the evidence evaluation seems to have followed similar lines. By and large, it appears clear that the legal theory of proof was followed in the Finnish lower courts during the first half of the nineteenth century. At least three characteristics of the court records suggest this. First, the wording See e.g. Sunblom, pag. 271/1824 (over 70 witnesses); Isomettä, pag. 183/1840 (almost 100 witnesses); and Erämä.ä/Wikman, pag. 379/1850 (142 witnesses).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=