the tale of two courts in one town – marko lamberg 121 later on,330 but he had finally to appear in person before the Town Court. In early 1623, he was accused of not paying a debt as well as violence against the servants of the Town Court.331 Since Katarina Stenbock had died in December 1621, her authority no longer protected him. He was nevertheless exonerated from the debt. Regarding the violent actions, he claimed he was the victim, but the case remained unresolved because he was unable to produce witnesses, and he died in September 1623.332 The idea of the Court of Appeal as a royal court is also apparent in a dispute in which the Town Court voluntarily abrogated its own judicial prerogatives, claiming that it could not issue a sentence regarding a royal donation. The Court of Appeal had in fact already started to hear the case. However, the Town Court was able to assist the claimant by giving him a brief genealogical report regarding one party to the dispute.333 But there also seem to have been opinions, even among the nobility, that it was possible to ignore the sentence issued by the Court of Appeal. In 1616, Lady Kristina Sture’s (1559–1619) bailiff presented a written claim at the Town Court regarding a house which had been granted to another person by the Court of Appeal. Here we see again how an elderly aristocrat was trying to exploit the Town Court as a tool whilst questioning the judgement of the higher court. But the assessor of the Court of Appeal explained to the burgomasters and the councillors that he was not willing to read the claim and even less to answer to it.334 The representative of the Court of Appeal was well aware of his and the institution’s position. Open conflicts in the forms of accusations and alike between the Stockholm Town Court and the Svea Court of Appeal were rare compared with cases in which unsatisfied individuals expressed their frustration and anger towards the judges. Sometimes such criticism was directed simultaneously against the Town Court as well as against the Court of Appeal and even the King himself. In such cases, the burgomasters and the councillors were, 330 Stb 1620–1621, p. 172 (13 Aug. 1621). 331 Stb 1622–1623, pp. 130-131 (1 March 1623). 332 Stb 1622–1623, pp. 138-139 (8 March 1623), p. 161 (26 March 1623), 204 (22 Sept. 1623). 333 Stb 1616–1617, pp. 244-245 (24 May 1617). 334 Stb 1616–1617, pp. 62-63 (15 May 1616). More Open Conflicts between the Two Courts
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=