the svea court of appeal in the early modern period 118 market outside Stockholm or on some other business trip. When Hendersson had returned home and the case was continued, he explained that the woman in question had fallen ill and in that condition she had managed to find two burghers who had promised to guarantee that she would not escape. But that was exactly what she had then done. Because the prosecutor insisted on justice, the TownCourt was obliged to sentence the two guarantors to recompense the price of the sweet-dish she had stolen.321 In this case, we see the Svea Court of Appeal as an instrument of the Crown promoting its interests. By contrast, it seems that the Town Court had not been interested in promoting the case against the two goodhearted and betrayed burghers. In agreement with this view, Bergius wanted guarantors to take their responsibility in another case as well. The defensive mentality of the Town Court is apparent in its answer to him, since he was asked firstly to sue the men in question.322 The Town Court also made it possible for parties who had lost their case to achieve a modification to the sentence issued by the Court of Appeal, if the Town Court considered this reasonable. This is why it accepted a certain Morten Pedersson’s request that the value of the property of his escaped son should assessed once again so that he would not be obliged to pay too much.323 It cannot be known for sure whether the representatives of the Court of Appeal came to the Town Hall unexpectedly or if the Town Court had been informed in advance. If the visitors came unannounced, such visits and demands from the Court of Appeal must have forced the Town Court to make changes in their planned programme. This may have happened in November 1622, for example, when Israel Olai, the actuary (actuarius) of the Court of Appeal delivered a letter to the Town Court which urged the burgomasters and the councillors to resolve a dispute concerning the ownership of a certain house in the town. According to the formulation in the records of the Town Court, “[t]his matter was treated by the court benevolently and obediently” (Dätta ärende bleef af rätten wällwilligen och hörsambligen företaget). Because there was not enough written evidence for the court to resolve the case, the Town Court heard three oral testimonies delivered by one of the councillors, a royal commissary (kommissarie) and 321 Stb 1624–1625, pp. 128-129 (14 Aug. 1624), pp. 136-137 (28 Aug. 1624). 322 Stb 1624–1625, p. 129 (14 Aug. 1624). 323 Stb 1616–1617, p. 211 (17 March 1617).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=