the court of appeal as legal transfer – heikki pihlajamäki 245 lation penny” was not divided in the complicated way explained the Law of King Christopher required in Sweden. Instead, the Appellationspfennig seems to have been an administrative payment for the appeal only – thus payable to the judiciary regardless of whether the appellant won in the second instance or not. An example of a typical prosecutor-driven, accusatorial case at the Court of Appeal is Royal Prosecutor (Königl. Oberfiscalis) Christoff Wagner vs. Gustav Adolph Boldt. Wagner accused Boldt of the killing of Mat thias Lampsius in 1682. On 28 November 1682, the Court issued the citation, according to which Boldt was to appear in court on 29 January 1683. He did not, but instead sent a letter in which he claimed to be innocent and asked for permission to prove his innocence by witnesses and documents, his health not permitting him to come to court himself. The prosecutor was not convinced: Wagner begged the Court not to let Boldt proceed in writing. After all, this was a homicide case, and it was thus not “in the interest of the crown” (observierung des interesse regii) to let the accused get away with it. Instead, he should be convicted for contumacy. The Governor General Christer Klasson Horn (1622 – 1692) had decided on 15 February 1682 that the accused would not be kept in custody, granting him a safe-conduct. The procedure continued entirely in writing until the Court of Appeal’s decision on 14 February 1685, after six briefs from the accused and three from the prosecutor. The prosecutor’s evidence consisted of an investigation conducted by the army in 1681 and written statements of witnesses heard in lower courts. The final outcome of the case is unknown. At the end of the century, it also remained typical that no appeal was allowed and the punishment was administered immediately. Thus when, at Pernau Lower Court in 1696, Puju Jack confessed having assaulted and wounded Jasche Matz, and was therefore sentenced to flogging, the punishment was administered immediately.671 To sum up briefly, in some ways the Livonian criminal procedure differed decisively from the procedure at the Svea Court. The Livonian criminal procedure used judicial torture regularly as a means of eliciting confessions from the accused, whereas in Sweden it never became legalized. Leuteration was widely used in both the Dorpat Court of Appeal and the 671 EAA, 915/1/8, Pernauer Landgericht 1695 –1698, fol. 100.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=