the tale of two courts in one town – marko lamberg 125 decided in March that Catharina did not have to pay Christoffer the 100 dalers he was demanding from her.348 However, the confirmation in the protocols of the Court of Appeal, dated 8 October the same year, stated that she would have to pay that sum “as those who sit at the court have rightfully and reasonably found” (efter som the som i Rätten sitie billigen och skäligenn hafue funnit).349 It remains unclear which party had brought the case to the Court of Appeal and whether the formulation in the protocol was a mistake and whether the judges of the Court of Appeal had the correct understanding of the Town Court’s standpoint. It is more likely that Christoffer Putlest did not receive any compensation from his sister-in-law because he repeated his claims to his late brother’s property in October 1619.350 He also returned to the topic in March 1622, presenting the same arguments as before. Catharina, too, referred once again to the will of her late husband. Since nothing new emerged, the Town Court decided to uphold the original verdict it had handed down on 6 November 1615 and which the Court of Appeal had confirmed on 18 October 1616. The Court of Appeal confirmed this verdict in June 1622 and Christoffer apparently did not repeat his claims any more, at least not before a court.351 The dispute over the inheritance after Bartholomeus Putlest proves how it was possible to raise one and same case both at the Town Court and at the Court of Appeal, even after the Court of Appeal had issued its verdict in the case. The rare fine imposed by the Court of Appeal over the members of the Town Court regarding the “erroneous verdict” the burgomasters and the councillors had issued in 1617 can be compared with several other decisions, by means of which the Court of Appeal apparently wanted to protect the rights of the individual burghers against the collective pretensions of the Town Court. In certain cases, the Town Court was keen on proclaiming the property of a deceased person as escheat (danaarv), that is, an inheritance without heirs. The Town Court claimed that the town’s privileges gave it the right to such inheritances and to use such in348 Stb 1618, pp. 15-16 (4 March 1618), 19-20 (9 March 1618), 24-25 (21 March 1618), 8788 (13 July 1618), 205 (10 June 1618), 217 (11 July 1618), 219 (21 July 1618), 222 (13 July 1618). See alsoStb 1619, p. 164 (1 Dec. 1619). 349 RA, SHA, B II a 2, Dombok 1617-1624, no. 73 (8 Oct- 1618). 350 Stb 1619, p. 130 (11 Oct. 1619). 351 Stb 1621–1622, p. 15 (2 March 1622); RA, SHA, B II a 2, Dombok 1617-1624, no. 200 (1 June 1622).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=