77 It was not until the Lawof 1734 that the legal rules of proof became part of statutory, written law.''> Before the Law of 1734, the statutory rules, applied with varying consistency and depth, formed part of legal practice only. As I have shown above, the legal theory of proof in its Swedish version was less scientific and less theoretically sophisticated than was generally the case in the countries where the legal theory of proof had been adopted as part of the learned ius commune. In this chapter, we shall in what ways the seventeenthcentury legal practice differed fromthe legal rules of proof in the Lawof 1734. We shall see that the court practice as such was not written down in the Law: some elements of it were accepted and others rejected. In a way, the Law of 1734 marks a culminating point in the power struggle that had continued between the courts, both high and low, and the Crown for about 150 years. This is not to say that the Lawended that conflict: not until the emergence of legal modernity in the late 1800s were all dissenting levels of law and court practice brought under the control of a common notion of law. The lawof evidence is given in Chapter 17 of the Procedural Section of the Lawof 1734. The two basic rules were expressed as follows: “Two witnesses equal full proof whenever they coincide. One witness of the case itself does not amount to more than a half proof; and then he who is accused must give an oath to defend himself. If this cannot be granted to him because of his reputation, then he cannot be convicted.” (PS 17:29)*'2 “A case confessed is as good as a witnessed one when the accused, of lawful age, is not insane and confesses voluntarily in front of the Court, and is not tortured, scared, or betrayed into making it. But when it comes to capital crimes, one cannot be convicted on a confession only, unless there are circumstances that support the confession.” (PS 17:36) 113 Other central provisions worth citing read: “When notoriety, based on obvious reasons, or other binding circumstances, is against the accused, then the Judge must set [him] a purgatory oath. This shall not be done except in emergency when the truth cannot be discovered any other way. As for the capital crimes, a purgatory oath cannot be granted.” (PS 17:30)"'* Except for the the War and the Sea Articles of 1683 and 1686, respective!)’; despite their great practical influence on the lawof proof in general, the Articles were not directly applicable to crimes committed by civilians. “Tu viine .äro fullt bevis, ther i the sammanstemma. Ett vitne omsielfva målet gälle ej mer än för hälft bevis; och tå bör then som käres til, med ed sig värja. Är han ej af then frägd, at thet honomtillåtas kan; tå må han ej til saken fällas.” “Känd sak är sä god vanvettig är, vidgår frivilligt saken för Rätta, och ej ther til pint, skrämd, eller svikeliga förledd är. Men ej bör nägor i brott, som ä lif gä, fällas pä egen bekännelse, utan the omständigheter finnas, sombekännelsen styreka.” 114 “Ther uppenbart, och på sannelika skiäl grundadt rvchte, eller andra bindande omständigheter och liknelser äro mot then, som tiltales; mä ock Domaren värjemålsed ålägga. Men ej må thet ske, utan i nödfall, och ther sanning ej annars utletas kan. Går saken ä lif; tå bör ej til värjemålsed dömas.” 112 vittnad när then som tilkäres, och til laga ålder kommen, och ej som
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=