Summary 293 mission was Erik Lindschiöld, who was close tc') King Charles XI and a fervent advocate of the repossession of Crown land. An examination c^f the work done to revise Jordabalken and Byggningahalken shows that the contradictions and obscurities pointed out here were problems of which the commission was keenly aware. To eliminate them, the important passage about disputes over boundaries between hamlets and the provisions pertaining to ancient usage were greatly extended and clarified. The commission stated verv emphatically that ancient usage could only be claimed in relation to land which was not part of a hamlet’s property but had been divided off as private pre^perty. The commission also underlined the principle that Crown land could not be alienated by ancient usage. These clarifications eliminated the earlier contradictions between three crucial sections of the legal code (Jordabalken, Byggningabalken and Konungabalken). The members of the commission discussed at great length whether individuals claiming ancient usage were still to be entitled to exemption from the burden of prc')of, or whether they should henceforward be forced to prove their case in a more substantial way than by merely calling on the testimony of old members of the local community. On this point, the members had different opinions, Enk Lindschiöld advocating a stricter treatment of those who claimed rights of ancient usage. The outcome was that judges were only to presume such a claimant to be the rightful owner, but that it was no longer to be impossible to question and overturn such claims. The commission paid attention to situations in which abandoned land was reoccupied, demanefing that such reclamations of land must always be overseen by the royal bailiffs and not, as before, by members of the local community. They also discussed what acts were to be described as åverkan. Clearly, the older, neutral meaning of ‘work’ was no longer to the fore. Instead, the negative sense of damage or injury was becoming more pronounced, and some commissioners even argued that using the land of others, in disrespect of boundaries, should be classihed as a form of theft, bringing dishonour upon the perpetrator. The detailed minutes c^f the lawcommission allowus to perceive small but important changes in the legislators’ view of the law in general and of ancient usage in particular. For instance, there are indications of the reverent attitude towards the legal code being
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=