the svea court of appeal in the early modern period 36 As has been observed, the late medieval royal judicial powers developed in two main directions. The king adjudicated together with the Council of the Realm in toto or with certain councillors during the Council’s meetings or at meetings of the noble estate (herredagar). Alternatively, the king used his power locally, usually such that his authority was delegated to a panel of judges from the secular and ecclesiastical elite. There were various kinds of royal “assizes” or legal assemblies: landsting, räfsteting andrättarting.71 These represented different historical layers, but their function was largely the same, to act as the highest instance in the country and adjudicate in the name of the king. Possibly as early as 1407, King Erik (VII) of Pomerania also established a special provincial court (landsrätt) in the Finnish part of the Realm, first mentioned in 1411 and sitting in Turku in the lieu of the king and in his name. Not very much is known of its activity, however, which waned with the end of the Middle Ages.72 The appeals system of medieval Sweden functioned through the archaic proceeding calledvad, or legal wager. The wager system regarded the court – i.e., the judge and/or the jury (nämnd) that had a duty to know the law and judge rightly – as a party against the person appealing against the decision. The plaintiff or defendant could wager against the judge or jury, while the district judge could also wager against the lagman. At the latter instance, the king or his representative would then hear the case. The wager had to be made immediately, either at the session where the sentence had been made or within eight days after it. The person who made the wager against a judge or a jury had to place a bet, while the judge or jury wagered against placed sum of double the amount of the bet.73 This made the judge or jury appealed against a kind of party to the litigation being appealed. The bet of the wager was then divided into two or three equal parts depending on which party won: the deciding judge, the hundred and the party who won the wager each took a third. But if a jury was wagered against, the bet was divided into two.74 The law did not give any causes for which a wager could be made. Thus, the law prescribed a hierarchy of courts from the local courts to the king himself, but there was no rigid 71 Almquist, Jan Eric 1946 p. 22. 72 Hemmer, Ragnar 1949 esp. pp. 4-11, 40. 73 KrL, R 37-39, pp. 118-119. 74 KrL, R 37-39, pp. 118-119.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=