the svea court of appeal in the early modern period 122 at least officially, most shocked because of blasphemies against the higher authorities.335 On some occasions, however, the potential tensions between the two courts became obvious. This happened at least once in: in November 1614, when Councillor Sven Hansson, then acting as a judge at the Lower Court, accused the Court Prosecutor (advokatsfiskal) Carl Olufsson of exceeding his authority over the rights and the privileges of the town as well as the royal edict regarding legal processes. Carl Olufsson had released a thief from the town prison without the permission of the town officials. The case was brought to the Court of Appeal by Carl Olufsson, who claimed that he had been insulted (iniurierat) by SvenHansson. However, the Court of Appeal understood the accusations against its prosecutor and decided that Carl Olufsson should return the thief within a month unless he wanted to avoid the fine prescribed by the Town Law.336 This conflict, which forms a kind of contrary to the case regarding the released and escaped female thief in 1624, took place merely between two officials and not between the two courts. In 1624, the Town Court also presented a councillor as the counterpart of the Court of Appeal. Thus, no open antagonism between the two courts was officially expressed. The way the Town Court and the Court of Appeal heard and handled the complaints raised by Christoffer Putlest337 between 1615 and 1622 shows how both courts could cooperate and maintain functional relationships in spite of the fact that they sometimes came to completely divergent interpretations. The case originated in the dissatisfaction which Christoffer and his brothers and sisters living in Dresden felt because they had not inherited anything from their deceased brother, the goldsmith Bartholomeus (Bertil) Putlest. However, the widow, Catharina Putlest, could produce her late husband’s will, which declared that Bartholomeus stated that he had been a poor man without inherited property when he had married Catharina. On the basis of such evidence, the Town Court concluded in November 1615 that all the property was to be regarded as Catharina’s personal belongings. Displeased, Christoffer turned to the Court of 335 For example Stb 1618, pp. 77-78 (17 June 1618). 336 RA, SHA, A I a 2:1 Konceptprotokoll 1614-1617, fols. 57r-57v (5 Nov. 1614); RA, SHA, A I a 1:1, Renskrivna protokoll 1614, fols. 224r-224v. 337 The family name was spelt in various ways in the documents, for example, as Puttläst or even as Putlesk and Putler.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=