the svea court of appeal in the early modern period 146 obliged to find a total of 24 men to take oath on her innocence in a couple of months’ time. The plaintiffs, on the other hand, were scolded for trying to get a verdict in the absence of the suspected party, and a special point was made in the High Council’s records to stress the importance of not trying to get convictions for capital crimes delivered solely on the basis of written testimonies.408 Agneta had obtained at least thirteen testimonies; we know this because Planting gave the Court of Appeal a bundle of original documents from the year 1563, including testimonies of innocence given by thirteen respectable men.409 Each and every one of them solemnly declared that Agneta had never by word or deed contributed to the death of bailiff Magnus Ivarsson. While thirteen letters of testimony may look good at first sight, they actually seem to show that Agneta had not been able to rid herself of the charges, since she should have found 24 oath-helpers.410 (It is possible, however, that some testimonies had been given viva voce before the court.) That Agneta had failed is also indirectly demonstrated by the fact that in the contemporary records of forfeited landed property there is a list of estates that had been given to the Crown on behalf of Agneta by her mother, Birgitta Johansdotter.411 In addition to these accusations, several minor and major complaints were written down on both sides. Planting accused Claes Claesson of tax evasion. Embarrassingly enough, Claes Claesson managed to prove his innocence, while Joen had to admit that he had himself violated the Konungsbalken in this sense.412 Be that it as it may, not even a murder was something that automatically deprived a person of her or his inherited property. Thus, in the modern understanding of the law, the accusations 408 Konung Erik XIV:s nämnds dombok, ed. Silfverstolpe, pp. 78-79, 98-99, 791-792. The references to the verdict given in 1552 are mentioned in this judgment book, but it is not clear what kind of court had taken on the task of considering the matter, nor what kind of court was to handle the case in Turku in 1563. 409 Appendices in Liber causarum 26, RA, SHA, E VI a 2aa. 410 Konung Erik XIV:s nämnds dombok, ed. Silfverstolpe, pp. 98-99. 411 King GustavI Vasa to Simon Tomasson (Tavast), Stockholm 17 February 1554, Konung Gustaf den förstes registratur, vol. 24, ed. Almquist, p. 227; Bailiff ’s Records (voudintilit) 42, fol. 4r, 14r–v; “Hustru Brita till Torlax […] eller des dotters Agneta Torstensdotters Saakfals Godz,” Kansallisarkisto (hereafter KA, National Archives of Finland), National Archives of Sweden’s Förbrutna gods-akter (Fleming, Birgitta) vol. 31, in Foreign microfilm collections, film number FR319. 412 Court session on 5 July 1621, RA, SHA, E VI a 2aa, Liber causarum 26. For tax evasion, see KrL, Konungsbalken, section 30.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=