the svea court of appeal in the early modern period 212 the law’s protection – for example, the legal regulations themselves. Becchius lists a number of cases in which criticism of royal ordinances was viewed as very closely related – or even identical – to slander of the Royal Majesty itself. In 1616, the cavalryman Håkan Påfwelsson had criticized a royal ordinance “and thereby His Majesty himself, who had issued the ordinance.” The Court of Appeal referred the case to the King, who pardoned Påfwelsson from the punishment prescribed in the Book on the King; instead Påfwelsson was sentenced to a 60-daler fine.589 In 1697, the burgher and town judge of first instance in Uppsala Lars Hargman had – very drunkenly – said some probably ironical but quite certainly not very appreciative things about a royal regulation concerning the punishment of premarital fornication590 to the prosecutor Thunwall. As a consequence of the intoxication, Hargman could not remember what he had said and the case was referred to the King by the Court of Appeal, recommending fourteen days in prison. The King agreed, but also instructed the court to investigate how Thunwall managed his office.591 Some years before, in 1683, the criminalization of premarital sex had been made victim to another illicit expression. The unmarried policeman (gevaldiger) Johan Siggesson had – also when drunk – answered the question of whether he intended to marry the woman he had lain with by stating that he had money enough to pay His Majesty this year’s “cunt-tax,” thereby referring to the fine which was prescribed for fornication (lönskaläge). Johan Siggesson was denounced by one Johan Jerpe; according to Siggesson because he once had been called to witness against Jerpe. The Court established that Johan Siggesson did not intend to slander His Majesty’s person: a witness affirmed that he had spoken under the influence of intoxication, Jerpe was Siggesson’s enemy, he had interpreted the words 589 RA, RA:s ämnessamlingar, Juridica I: Becchius-Palmcrantz’ samlingar, Vol. 4, Cap. 2, causa 3. 590 On 5 February 1697, the King addressed the Consistory in Åbo/Turku and the Svea Court of Appeal in letters concerning the punishment of extramarital fornication. If a person had committed such a crime a third time, the sanction should be prison if the delinquent was unable to pay the prescribed fines. In the letter to the Court of Appeal, the monarch specifically instructed the appellate court to communicate the letter to all subordinate courts, Kongl. stadgar, ed. Schmedeman, pp. 1483–1484. As mentioned, Hargman was a first instance town judge. 591 RA, RA:s ämnessamlingar, Juridica I: Becchius-Palmcrantz’ samlingar, Vol. 4, Cap. 2, causa 3.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=