the svea court of appeal in the early modern period 228 The Dorpat Court of Appeal was predominantly a first-instance court. In 1634, only three appeals cases came before it, in 1640 ten (out of 32) and in 1650 ten (out of 42). The approximate proportion of appeals did not drastically change in the later part of the seventeenth century. In 1670, only 33 out of 98, in 1682 twelve out 86 incoming cases were still appeals cases, and in 1690 18 out of 63 cases were. In 1697, the number of appeals was slightly higher (28/58), but this was still under half of all the new cases brought to the court.616 Korpiola’s article in this volume suggests that the Svea Court was already much more clearly a court of appeal in its early years. The Dorpat Court of Appeal thus received fewer appeals in relation to first instance cases than the other such courts in the Swedish realm. Why was the Dorpat Court of Appeal so different when it came to the proportion of appeals cases? Firstly, the nobility in Livonia was larger in proportion to the population than elsewhere in the Swedish realm, which can be presumed to have contributed to the significance of the Dorpat Court of Appeal as a court of first instance. Secondly, not only were there more noblemen in Livonia than elsewhere in the realm, but in Livonia, peasants – the bulk of the population – were practically barred from appealing their cases to the Court. Peasants did not figure with their civil cases even in the lower courts, because they had their cases heard in the manorial courts, from which no regular appeal was possible. As explained above, peasants could approach the Court of Appeal only if their lords treated them with undue harshness, but these cases were rare. The caseload of the Dorpat Court of Appeal concentrated on particular kinds of cases. Land disputes of various kinds figured among the most numerous in the three years that we have under scrutiny (1640, 1650 and 1686). This was especially so in the early period, which is understandable given the somewhat chaotic situation after the wars preceding the Swedish conquest. Thus, out of the 32 cases in 1640, 14 had to do with land ownership. In 1650 the corresponding figures were 19/42, as against 13/86 in 1682. Injuria, both verbal and corporal, were also frequent: 7/32, 3/42, and 14/86. The third group standing out was payment demands: 5/32, 3/42, 616 Latvijas vẽstures arhĩvs (hereafter LVA, Latvian Historical Archives), Akten des Livländischen Hofgerichts 1630 –1709, 109/1/31, Civilurteile 1697-1704.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=