the svea court of appeal in the early modern period 242 High Court’s permission; thus torture was suspended until the Dorpat Court of Appeal could give its approval.660 The Court of Appeal took seven months to issue its torture permission, and the case was taken up again at the Pernau Court in February 1641. The old Saikat woman did not confess under torture, but continued accusing Maye alone, saying that in fact she had given birth to twins. Maye denied this, claiming that her child had been born dead. The court transcripts stress that the accused was then asked “many times, before, during and after torture” how she had disposed of the body. The torture was continued the following day. She maintained that she had only given birth to one child, but now confessed that she had killed the child with “her own hands” (mit Ihren händen gethötet) and given it to the Saikat woman, so that, with the help of her son, she could hide the body. According to the judicial doctrine, in order to be valid, the confession had to be repeated after the torture. Maye, who repeated her confession word by word (wörttlichen), was condemned to death.661 The old lady, while no full proof could apparently be produced against her, was sentenced to whipping only. And a final observation of interest: the sentence was to be carried out at once, “because the facts were evident and undeniable.”662 Here as well, the legal practice follows the ius commune rule, which prohibited appeals in serious criminal cases with incontrovertible evidence.663 I will take another example to show how torture worked in the Livonian legal practice. In 1668, the Pernau Town Court decided to torture Karro Hans to find out whether Parrihild Herman had really acted as an accessory to him in horse theft.664 The torture took place “around 3 o’clock” in the morning of 8 April1668. The questions were recorded, as well as the 660 “Vnd wirdt die Tortura suspendiret, bieß diese Sententia vom Königl. Hoffgericht declassiret,” EAA, 915/1/3 Pernauer Landgericht 1640, fol. 46. 661 “Peinlich Beklagtin Maye, deß vmbgebrachten Kindeß Mutter ist ante torturam ernstlich ermahnet worden, dieWahrheit auß zu sagen, woh sie das Kindt gelassen nach dem eß an dieWelt ankommen, vnd ob eß lebendig gewest. Beklagtin hatt nicht bekennen wollen, besonder ist dabey verbleiben, daß die Saickatsche daß Kindt in der Kammer hie der der thuer, von ihr genommen, woh sie ex gelassen möchte sie wiessen. Die Saikatsche mit der Tortur angegrieffen worden, aber keineß wegeß bekennen wollen, daß sie daß kindt, von demWeibeMaye ampfangen;” “Diese ihr in Tortura gethaen außsaeg, ist Ihr à Tortura wörttlichen vorgehalten, da sie dan alleß repetiret, vnd bestendig bey ihr auß saeg verblieben,” EAA, 915/1/4 Pernauer Landgericht 1641, fols. 14 a-15. 662 EAA, 915/1/4 Pernauer Landgericht 1641, fols. 14 a-15. 663 Szidzek, Christian 2002; Pihlajamäki, Heikki 2004. 664 EAA, 1001/1/723, Pernauer Rat 1668, fol. 61.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=