the svea court of appeal in the early modern period 124 Court,344 which demonstrates how the dialogue and the cooperation continued despite differing opinions. The judgement against the Town Court was not registered in its protocols until December, when a determination from the King was presented. Curiously, the judgement is said to have been presented by Christoffer Putlest – it seems thus have been him instead of the Town Court who had brought the matter to the King. If this was the case, then the TownCourt had not dared to appeal against their superiors. But the sentence is described as a “revision between the Court of Appeal and the burgomasters and the councillors regarding the said Putlest.”345 The Town Court nevertheless had probably also appealed to the King. The King’s determination stated that both the Court of Appeal and the Town Court had acted wrongfully while treating Christoffer Putlest’s case. Firstly, he had not appealed within the legal respite, so the Court of Appeal had no right to issue a judgement in this matter – thus the fine against the burgomasters and councillors was repealed. The sentence of the Town Court was also illegal according to the king, so that the claimant’s honour was to be regarded as intact. The King wanted the Town Court to hear the case again regarding both the alleged debt and the alleged verbal abuse. Moreover, themembers of the Town Court were urged to settle the case.346 The King’s determination was apparently meant to be a compromise and an attempt to obviate the tensions between the two courts – formally, he did not take either party’s side but remained a neutral overlord instead. The idea of achieving an agreement was apparently meant to prevent the case being heard at the Court of Appeal for the fourth time. In February 1618, the Town Court chose six men who were supposed to make an agreement between Christoffer and Catharina.347 By the beginning of March, however, it was evident that the conflict between the disputing parties would continue. Now it also involved the honour of the whole goldsmiths’ craft because Christoffer claimed that fakes had been made in his brother’s workshop and that the goldsmiths’ guild had tried to prevent him from revealing this. The dispute between him and the goldsmiths continued for several months, but the Town Court had already Rijkzdaghen i Örebroo, åhrM. DC. XIV, paragraphII. Online version accessible at http:// libris.kb.se/bib/10631403 (last accessed on4 July 2014). 344 RA, SHA, B II a 2, Dombok 1617 – 1624, no. 17 (30 June 1617). 345 Stb 1616–1617, p. 316 (10 Dec. 1617). 346 Stb 1616–1617, pp. 316-317 (10 Dec. 1617). 347 Stb 1618, p. 3 (11 Feb- 1618).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=