the tale of two courts in one town – marko lamberg 123 Appeal, which nevertheless held the sentence valid in October 1616.338 Apparently, Christoffer and his kin in Germany had difficulty in understanding or accepting the Swedish legislation, according to which property that was not inherited but acquired during one’s lifetime was something one could freely bequeath to anyone, the relatives having no rights to it at all.339 Christoffer raised the case again at the Town Court in November 1616, claiming that Catharina owned him one hundred dalers – this sum was probably strategically chosen because it equalled the smallest economic worth required for cases referred from the town of Stockholm to the Svea Court of Appeal.340 Christoffer also claimed that Catharina had insulted him by calling him a thief. However, the Town Court decided to favour Catharina once again. According to the written judgement, there was not enough evidence for Christoffer’s claims to have been insulted and it appeared that the aforementioned sum belonged to Catharina instead. The formulations in the protocol also stated that he had behaved in an unfaithful and traitorous way against her, causing her more harm than gain.341 Christoffer complained once again to the Court of Appeal, albeit only after having exceeded the time of appeal. This time, the Court of Appeal took his side. Although the judges acknowledged that his appeal had come late, they felt that the Town Court had used insulting formulations in its sentence, which was consequently overturned. Moreover, the members of the Town Court were obliged to pay forty marks as a fine for their “erroneous sentence” (Doomwilla). This judgement was handed down on 30 June 1617. There are no notices dealing with it in the protocols of the Town Court, but the Town Court apparently complained to their superiors immediately. On 4 July 1617 the Court of Appeal decided to uphold the validity of the judgement.342 Such a fine seems to have been rare if unexampled, and it is not mentioned in the royal edict regarding legal processes in 1614.343 The situation must not be dramatized, however. On the same day asthe Court of Appeal repeated the fine, it also answered inquiries from the Stockholm Town 338 Stb 1614–1615, p. 157 (8 Nov. 1615); Stb 1622–1623, p. 15 (2 March 1622). 339 For example, Winberg, Christer 1985. 340 Rättegångs-Process, 23 June 1615, Kongl. stadgar, ed. Schmedeman, p. 156. 341 Stb 1616–1617, pp. 178-180 (23 Nov. 1616). 342 RA, SHA, B II a 2, Dombok 1617-1624, no. 15 (30 June 1617), no. 42 (4 July 1617). 343 The edict mentions only a fine of 30 dalers for the burgomasters and councillors if they neglected a court day: Rättegångs Ordinantie, som effter thenna dagh hollas skal. Giord på
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=