the svea court of appeal in the early modern period 128 ing with the inheritance of the goldsmith Bartholomeus Puttlest, especially complex inheritance disputes were allowed to be dealt with once again and the case could be again by the Court of Appeal as well. From a practical point of view, both courts were often trying to resolve the same cases simultaneously in cooperation. The creation of the Svea Court of Appeal diminished the position of the burgher elite in the local community of Stockholm: hereafter, it was easier for local burghers and even for foreigners, at least if they were adult men, to question the decisions and judgements made by the Town Court. This possibility was also utilized. Moreover, the new superior court was physically close. Certain cases which were heard at the Court of Appeal seem to hint that the burgomasters and the councillors had interpreted the laws and the privileges of the town in a way which had favoured the economic interests of the town or the local burghers. The Court of Appeal appears as a protector of the rights of the individual, which actually coincided closely with the ideas expressed in the royal edict establishing the Court of Appeal. However, despite the circumstances which made conflicts and tensions possible, no consistent and open antagonism can be perceived between the Town Court and the new, higher judicial instance. On the contrary, the burgomasters and the councillors regarded it at least occasionally as a handy means of relieving some of their work load. After all, the Town Court consisted still mostly of merchants who were dependent on their own businesses. Situations in which the two courts drew disparate and contradictory interpretations did occur nevertheless, and the tone of the Court of Appeal was sometimes demanding, but all in all the relationship between these two courts in one and same town was characterized by unbroken cooperation despite some friction. Perhaps that cooperation was mostly based on patriarchal obedience and subordination towards the party which occupied a higher hierarchical position, but it also seems to have been promoted by shared values. (31 Aug. 1618), 110 (31 Aug. 1618), 122 (8 Oct. 1618), 208 (13 June 1618), 254-255 (31 Aug. 1618). Conclusion
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=