72 Witnesses must, according to Kloot, witness only of “what they themselves have seen or heard.Kloot continues, referring explicitly to the legal practice, that in all criminal cases (in those punishable by fines as well as those punishable by death)®'^ statements of two or three reliable and coinciding witnesses made up full proof. One witness did not suffice, unless the other party agrees to it in a case of petty crime, or whenever circumstances support the statement of the witness.Unlike Rålamb, Kloot made no reference to the numbers of witnesses in the Lawof King Christopher.®^^ As to the theory of conflicting witnesses, Kloot was also closer to the legal theory of proof than was Rålamb. Should testimonies conflict, the judge must, according to Kloot, judge according to those that are “the most numerous and best” (“fläste och bäste”). Contrary to Rålamb, Kloot saw the prohibition by the Law of King Christopher, “oath must not go against oath,” as applicable only to the oaths taken by the parties themselves (supplementary and purgatory oaths), not those taken by witnesses.Also in this respect, Kloot was less loyal to the medieval Swedish law and more inclined to accept the modern teachings of Roman-canon law: witnesses must be allowed to take their oaths and give their statements first; only thereafter were the statements evaluated and assessed. As stated above, in ius commune the requirement of “probationes luce meridiana clariores” was reserved for serious crimes punishable by death or by blood sanctions. Kloot and Rålamb extended the principle to cover all crimes; no delicta levia existed here.^''^ It is with Kloot that the central components of the continental ius commune law of proof are, for the first time in Swedish legal literature, found crystallized; in this respect, the difference from Rålamb is apparent. In fact, as we shall see below, the Procedural Section of the Swedish Lawof 1734 did not significantly differ from Kloot as far as the lawof proof is concerned. But just as the basic elements of the Roman-canon lawof proof are found in Kloot’s texts, so - and this is perhaps more interesting - are the most important Swedish peculiarities present. Despite his incontestable familiarity with the works of the central European treatise writers, Kloot did not adopt their ideas without criticism. Instead, he acted as a filter, picking and choosing. He picked the requirement for full proof and a half-proof; he chose the confession and the two-witness rule; he substituted the more modern conception of witness statement for the medieval one. But Kloot also rejected important segments of the ius comhwad de sielfwa sedt och hördt hafwa.” Ibid. p. 357. “... sa wäl Hals- och Galdz-Saker.” Ibid. p. 359. "... sielfwa Omstandigheeterna stamma medh thet ecna Vi'itnet ofwereens.” Ibid. p. 359. The Lawof King Christopher dates to 1442. It was based on the county laws and the Lawof Magnus Eriksson (ca. 1350). The Law was valid for all Sweden. Ibid. pp. 359-360. “Ty i Criminal och Lijffssaker fordras klara Bewijs.” Ibid. p. 368. $6 88
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=