prolonged noble property disputes – anu lahtinen 153 holtz and Per Banér “on behalf of his wife and her sister” had become current; and it was Hieronymus Birckholtz Jr., later an official of the Turku and Tartu Court of Appeal, who now tried to defend his property rights and those of his sister Hebla Birkcholtz. In the Court of Appeal, Per Banér (and, in the written documents, Erik Bielke as well) express their surprise at being summoned, as they had believed that everything had been settled in 1614, when Hieronymus and the then unmarried Hebla Birckholtz, Katarina and Hebla Fleming had met in Turku to make a final settlement on the property. The main point in the settlement, included in the documents copied in the archives of the Svea Court of Appeal, had been that the manor of Kuitia (Qvidja) had been returned to Hebla (and Katarina), while Birckholtz had received the manor of Yläne. This had been further confirmed in a document dating back to 1617. Now, however, Hieronymus Birckholtz made it known that it was especially his newly wed (in 1620) brother-in-law Johan Månsson (Ållongren), husband of his sister Hebla Birckholtz, who was unhappy with the settlement made by his wife. More precisely, the discontent arose because some rental income had not been as much as they had been expecting. Moreover, they had learned about movables that Claes Fleming had appropriated after the death of his mother, Hebla Sparre (i.e., around 1572), and that of his sister, Filippa Fleming. Johan Månsson came to the Court himself only a couple of times, in October 1620, and the case was filed in the name of Birckholtz.428 In a letter, however, Johan Månsson claimed that he had the right to contest the previous agreement since, as has been mentioned earlier in this article, it was prescribed inJordabalkenthat a maid could, after her marriage, annul this kind of agreement (again, as in previous cases, being presented by her husband).429 To this argument, Per Banér and Erik Bielke responded that Hieronymus could have been considered the rightful guardian and representative of his unmarried sister at the time the agreement was made, and that there would be no end of disputes if every single similar agreement were questioned. They also found it baffling that Johan Månsson did not come to the court himself but sent Hieronymus on this errand. Hierony428 RA, SHA, E VI a 2aa, Liber causarum 27. 429 KrL, Jordabalken, section 18.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=