the tale of two courts in one town – marko lamberg 115 ted the burgomasters and the councillors to do so, he should acquire a “note” (een zedell) from it so that they could know what exactly the Court of Appeal was seeking and how they should express themselves in the matter in question.311 Indeed, a communication based on written words was not only regarded as more trustworthy – it was also a strategy of influence as it gave the burgomasters and the councillors more time to think about the case in question and ponder options and solutions. Nicolaus Sabancorus appeared regularly at the Town Court. He was a learned man, one of the first professional lawyers in Stockholm and in the whole of Sweden. He often appeared before the Town Court as a representative for private persons in various matters, usually disputes; sometimes he acted merely on his own behalf. He was temporarily affiliated with the Svea Court of Appeal because he was characterised twice as “the lawyer of the Royal Court of Appeal” (dän konungzlige hoffretts advocate; dän konungzlige håfrätz advocat) in the protocols of the Town Court in 1617 and 1618.312 As an advocate, Sabancorus initiated several cases before the Town Court and as a representative of unsatisfied clients, he brought certain cases to the Court of Appeal, thus questioning verdicts and decisions issued by the burgomasters and the councillors. But despite contrary interpretations there is no evidence that the relationship between the burgher elite and Sabancorus was hostile. Indeed, the Town Court decided some of the cases in his favour, and he in turn addressed himself to the Town Court in humble and polite terms.313 However, it seems to have been difficult for him to control his emotions and this cost him his career. Because he was displeased with how the Town Court handled a long-running inheritance dispute in which he acted as a representative of one party, he sued the burgomasters and the councillors before the Court of Appeal in 1619. The first decision of the Court of Appeal resulted in a neutral formulation, stating that if the burgomasters and the councillors had issued an incorrect decision, they should answer for it. But by 4 November 1620 Sabancorus’s career in Stockholm was over: the Court of Appeal suspended him from all legal activities for the time being as having “wrongfully attacked” (otilbörligen angripit) the burgomasters and the councillors and 311 Stb 1616–1617, pp. 302-303 (22 Nov. 1617). 312 Stb 1616–1617, p. 288 (23 Aug. 1617); Stb 1618, p. 9 (16 Feb. 1618); Korpiola, Mia 2009. 313 For example Stb 1616–1617, pp. 439-441: Sabancorus’s supplication to the Town Court (6 Nov. 1616).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=