the svea court of appeal in the early modern period 120 After hearing such a clear message the burgomasters and the councillors changed their tune, explaining that they had merely acted as the Court of Appeal had obliged them to. The steward delivered this message to Queen Katarina during the session of the council, but returned and repeated to the Town Court that she would allow only the Court of Appeal to hand down a judgement in this case.327 The role of the Court of Appeal was complex in this dispute, since the elderly queen apparently felt that her status was at stake, but she was unwilling to let burghers sue her servant and was certainly going to let them punish him. As to social prestige, the Court of Appeal was of course closer to the royal establishment and was also spoken of as a royal court in the edict regarding legal processes in 1614 as well as in the protocols of the Stockholm Town Court. After all, the members of the Court of Appeal were King’s men, all appointed by him.328 That is why Katarina, as the Queen Dowager, could regard the Court of Appeal as “her” court but simultaneously as an impartial court and, for both reasons, a court where servants of the royal household would be allowed to be sued. She was also probably referring to her status as the equal the dukes who had the right to hold judicial courts of their own.329 The Town Court, on the other hand, clearly utilized the Court of Appeal as a pretext in order to justify their attempt to carry out actions that the dowager disliked. In 1614, as already mentioned, the Town Court had deliberately abandoned its right to issue any sentence in acase dealing with a slain guardsman (drabant) of the King, but since the burgomasters and the councillors apparently now felt that their honour was at stake, they dared to present an open ultimatum to theQueenDowager. However, they backed off immediately once she changed from a defensive to a more offensive position. If they had handled it otherwise, the Town Court would have acted against the authority of both the QueenDowager and the Court of Appeal. Thanks to protection from above, Lasse Matsson seems to have continued acting nonchalantly towards the rules of the burgher community 326 Stb 1616–1617, p. 172 (18 Nov. 1616), 176 (20 Nov. 1616). 327 Stb 1616–1617, p. 234 (3 May 1617), 237 (3 May 1617). According to the records of the Court of Appeal, the Town Court received permission to sue Lasse Matsson, but this permission is dated on 30 June 1617; RA, SHA, B II a 2, Dombok 1617 – 1624, n. 17. 328 Thunander, Rudolf 1995 p. 22. 329 See the chapter written by Mia Korpiola in this volume.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=