prolonged noble property disputes – anu lahtinen 155 Banér’s protest may seem somehow outdated –advocates had been permitted since 1615; however, it was understandable that he used all possible arguments to undermine the credibility of his opponent. Besides, according to Elsa Trolle Önnerfors, the upper nobility showed particular dislike of advocates who were of common birth.435 No advocates seem to have been present in the court sittings on this case, although they may have been consulted outside the court.436 As has been pointed out by Marko Lamberg in another article in this volume, communicating mostly via the written word gave the opposing party time to plan agood strategy.437 Written communication was even generally preferred in the Svea Court of Appeal, although at some point during the Birckholtz vs. Banér case, Per Banér seems to have tired somewhat of reading and producing endless written documents. It seems that Hieronymus Birckholtz was the underdog. Some twenty years junior to his adversaries, and the son of a noble German newcomer, Birckholtz had difficulty in getting things on the move: as he pointed out himself, coming from Finland to Stockholm for recurrent court hearings meant investing a lot of time and money. On 1 June 1621, for example, Birckholtz arrived at the court after a troublesome journey in rough weather only to learn that Banér had left for Finland to do some errands on behalf of the King. Hieronymus Birckholtz asked Svante, of Per Banér’s brother, to act as adelegate in the court. He was told that Svante had not been authorized and was not well enough to represent his brother. A couple of days later, however, when Birckholtz was also absent, Svante Banér was perfectly capable of appearing in court to ask about the state of affairs and to collect some copies of documents related to the dispute.438 Finally, on 5 June 1622, Birckholtz was tearfully (med suckan och tårar) begging the Court of Appeal to proceed with the court case, which had been delayed for several reasons. While the court records describe Hieronymus Birckholtz as humbly petitioning and humbly grateful before the Court of Appeal, one can sense that Per Banér, with his chamberlain status and being familiar with the 435 Trolle Önnerfors, Elsa 2010 p. 131. 436 See Mia Korpiola’s and Marko Lamberg’s articles in this volume. 437 See Marko Lamberg’s article in this volume. 438 RA, SHA, E VI a 2aa, Liber causarum 27, Court session 11 June 1621.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=