the tale of two courts in one town – marko lamberg 119 the bailiff of the southern suburb (malmfogde).324 All the witnesses seem to have had a connection with the local administration in Stockholm; perhaps they were heard simply because they were already present at the Town Hall when the actuary brought the case up. This example shows how seamlessly the two courts could cooperate thanks to their geographical proximity, but the case simultaneously offers a telling example of the great influence of the Court of Appeal upon the Town Court. Instead of postponing the case, the Town Court sought to resolve it on the same day it received the remark regarding it. The Town Court seems to have handled it as expediently as possible because it seems to have utilized only witnesses who did not need to be summoned. In 1616 and 1617, the members of the Town Court took a different tone when they tried to sue Lasse Matsson, who had offended them verbally. He was neither a burgher nor a member of any burgher household serving “the old queen” as a bailiff. The old queen, also known as the “Dowager Queen,” was Katarina Stenbock (1535 – 1621), a living relic from the previous century as she had been the bride and the last of the three spouses of King Gustav Vasa who had passed away in 1560. In this delicate case, the Town Court claimed that Lasse Matsson was under their jurisdiction, but Katarina refused to let the Town Court judge any of her servants. The Town Court sent two councillors and a fiscal to obtain an audience with her in order to tell her that if her servant did not appear before their court, they would make an official complaint to the King, the Council of the Realm and the Estates during the next Diet.325 Several months later, Katarina sent her steward (hovmästare) to the Town Court informing it of her unchanged state of mind. She would not send her servant to the Town Hall, “where the court is both the prosecutor and the judge” as her reason was expressed in the record of the Town Court (der retten ähr bådhe anklagere och domaren). Moreover, the steward pointed out that Her Majesty was a crowned queen “who has to have a court of her own” (som bör ha sin egen rett). However, she was willing to allow Matsson appear before the Court of Appeal.326 324 Stb 1622–1623, pp. 96-97 (12 Nov. 1622). 325 Stb 1616–1617, p. 21 (8 March 1616). The Superiority of the Royal Court
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=