slandering the king and his councillors – per nilsén 213 in the the worst way, and more, Jerpe had waited to denounce him. The Court pardoned Johan Siggesson’s life but sentenced him – since he had involved His Royal Majesty’s person in such an abusive discussion – to run the gauntlet five times.592 In the Johan Siggesson case, the Court was apparently doubtful both on matters of intent and of evidence. At least formally, the demands of evidence were quite high since both the Town Law and the Law of the Country required six good men who had heard the illicit expression as witnesses. This played a decisive role for the outcome of a case from 1663. The bailiff Bastian Geger accused one Jahan Jahansson Dalius of disrespectful talk of himself and of the Crown. Despite his denial, the mining district court of Linde sentenced Dalius to death according to the regulations in the Book on the King. The case was sent to the Svea Court of Appeal, which pointed out that the law required the evidence of six good men and that Dalius had been sentenced on the questionable evidence of three witnesses. Dalius was acquitted.593 It seems, nevertheless, that the practice of the Svea Court of Appeal changed and that later it did not interpret the regulation in the medieval law concerning the six witnesses strictly. At least, that is a conclusion which might be drawn from a royal letter to the Göta Court of Appeal 1685 in which the King complained about the local practice in a case related to the ninth section of the Chapter on the King. The clearly irritated monarch wanted to know if the practice in Jönköping “always” had been to demand six witnesses in matters concerning “our Royal highness and security.” It was pointed out that his Majesty had not seen that any other of “our appellate courts had understood it that way, but in all cases between private persons, the truth is – according to the clear word of God – provided by the mouths of two or three unchallenged witnesses.” The reverse, if six witnesses were always required in order to “convict savage and treacherous plots,” would not only mean insecurity and possibly injury for the King but that the monarch’s rights would actually be weaker than those of a private person.594 The let592 RA, RA:s ämnessamlingar, Juridica I: Becchius-Palmcrantz’ samlingar, Vol. 4, Cap. 2, causa 20. 593 RA, RA:s ämnessamlingar. Juridica I: Becchius-Palmcrantz’ samlingar. Vol. 4. Cap. 2, causa 21. 594 RA, RA:s ämnessamlingar, Juridica I: Becchius-Palmcrantz’ samlingar, Vol. 4, Cap. 2, causa 26.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=