the svea court of appeal in the early modern period 252 However, it seems that at least in practice manorial statutes continued in use on private estates as well.697 The use of manorial discipline (hustukt) was then legalized during the governing regency council dominated by the nobility in 1671, but again abolished in 1675.698 The fact that keeping a patrimonial court amounted to little judicial independence for its lord is crucial compared to the German (and French) patrimonial courts. They often enjoyed appeals privileges and because of the multiplicity of local customary laws, in practice often had at least some legal resources of their own. In comparison to patrimonial courts elsewhere, their Swedish counterparts were ordered strictly within the same judicial hierarchy asby crown courts. Two exceptions are known: Carl Carlsson Gyllenhielm (1574 – 1650), the illegitimate son of King Charles IX, had the privilege of not having to refer even cases carrying the death penalty (livssaker) to a court of appeal, and Per Brahe had a similar absolute jurisdiction over his estates in Visingsö confirmed by a privilege in 1654.699 All courts, furthermore, judged according to the same general law of Sweden – if the occasional instances of manorial statutes (gårdsrätt) are not taken into consideration. Most importantly, the Swedish patrimonial judiciary was, at its largest, a short-lived phenomenon, lasting only some decades. The patrimonial courts of counts and barons were abolished in 1681, and the three remaining patrimonial courts with medieval origins - at Bergqvara, Torpa och Ängsö – in 1691. The Swedish manorial courts remained, after all, a relatively marginal phenomenon. The peasants were, to be sure, mainly in charge of running the local assize courts (häradsrätter). In addition to the four royal courts, there were also two private courts in Livonia within the district of the Dorpat Court of Appeal, one in Pernau and the other one in Wenden. The maintenance and income from the private courts belonged to the privileges of the landlords, Pernau to those of the counts of Thurn, and Wenden to Count Axel Oxenstierna.700 In Wenden, Oxenstierna had de facto held court in 1625, receiving the formal privilege only in 1632. The county of Pernau was enfeoffed to Count Frans Bernhard von Thurn (1592 – 1628), who in 1627 received jurisdiction over all the subjects of the crown. 697 See Jutikkala, Eino 1957 pp. 316-317. 698 Jutikkala, Eino 1942 pp. 356-357. 699 Swedlund, Robert 1936 p. 201. 700 See Meurling, Anna Christina 1967 p. 81.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=