the tale of two courts in one town – marko lamberg 127 rural property – the Town Court also referred it to the Court of Appeal.357 There are indeed several examples of cases which were simply felt to be complex and difficult by the councillors, so that the Town Court eagerly consulted the “good noble men” of the Court of Appeal – sometimes even a second time in one and same case.358 However, this started to happen less often in the 1620s, which may reflect a sense of returning independence, perhaps because of the appointments of royal burgomasters. Sometimes the Court of Appeal determined cases in which the Town Court acted as a claimant and not as a court of justice.359 Slandering the burgomasters was also occasionally referred directly to the Court of Appeal.360 In 1614 and 1615, one of the burgomasters of Stockholm appeared before the Court of Appeal, but for personal reasons and not as a representative of the Town Court, since he had been involved with an inheritance dispute.361 By contrast, even the members of the Court of Appeal were dependent on the Town Court in cases where they had to carry out judicial tasks.362 If it was a matter of a personal dispute, the members of the Court of Appeal seem to have won their cases, but it cannot be concluded that the Town Court would have issued any actions or judgements against the law in order to favour their superiors. Moreover, sometimes it was as difficult in those cases as in certain others to make the summoned party appear before the court or to follow its orders.363 Complex disputes in which the Court of Appeal did issue a verdict but which continued because at least one party was unsatisfied, were normally heard again at the Town Court.364 As we have already seen in the case deal356 Stb 1614–1615, pp. 96-99 (3 July 1615). 357 Stb 1614–1615, pp. 104-105 (8 July 1615); Stb 1618, p. 263 (23 Sept. 1618). 358 For example, Stb 1616–1617, p. 280 (19 July 1617), 318 (10 Dec. 1617); Stb 1618, p. 56 (4 May 1618); Stb 1618, p. 70, 198 (8 June 1618), 80 and 214 (17 June 1618), 233 (20 July 1618), 267 (5 Oct. 1618), 270 (8 Oct. 1618), 279 (12 Oct. 1618), 284 (17 Oct. 1618); Stb 1619, p. 69 (12 June 1619), 80 (19 June 1619). 359 For example, Stb 1620–1621, pp. 90-91 (9 Oct. 1620). 360 Stb 1618, p. 172 (19 Dec. 1618). 361 RA, SHA, A I a 1:1, Renskrivna protokoll 1614, fols. 63r-63v (28 June 1614), fols. 209r209v (28 Sept. 1614); RA, SHA, A I a 2:1, Konceptprotokoll 1614–1617, (4 Nov. 1615). 362 For example, Stb 1616–1617, p. 306 (24 Nov. 1617); Stb 1618, p. 71 (8 June 1618), 206 (10 June 1618), 260 (23 Sept. 1618); Stb 1619, pp. 147-148 (8 Nov. 1619). 363 For example, Stb 1614–1615, pp. 106–7 (10 July 1615), 114 (24 July 1615); Stb 1618, p. 235 (22 July 1618); Stb 1620–1621, p. 181 (8 Oct. 1621), p. 196 (13 Dec.1621), Stb 1622–1623, p. 133 (1 March 1623; this case is discussed on several pages of the record). 364 For example, Stb 1616–1617, p. 304 (22 Nov. 1617); Stb 1618, p. 45 (27 April 1618), 108
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=