a safe haven in the shadow of war? – mia korpiola 73 Ordinance, the sentences of the Court were executable immediately and the victorious plaintiff had had that right ever since the resolution of the case. While the Court would obey the King and delay further execution, they had already partially been carried out.183 Second, although the letter of judgement did not contain all the circumstances of the case, the Court had examined it and all its other cases as thoroughly as any honest Christian men who had and wished to maintain a good conscience with the help of God and under the eyes of God and the King’sMajesty. They also referred to their impartiality as required by the judge’s oath they had taken. This is why they sent the King a brief account of the case, based on the documents. They also accused Tegel of making false and unjust claims in the case to the King which they wished to correct.184 The third and main concern of the Court was the status and authority of the Ordinance of 1614, the Court itself and the justice it meted out in the King’s name if the King himself started to undermine its authority by expressing doubts about many of its first decisions merely because the loser in the suit made false claims. They hoped that the King did not wish both his Royal Ordinance and “the High Court” (den höge Rätten) to be treated with disrespect and contempt at the very beginning of its activity. Indeed, this would also affect the reputation of the King, his judges warned.185 In very severe tones, the Court went on to “humbly and subserviently hope” that the King would not allow that lawful sentences be annulled and made void, which would hardly cause the King to be praised. The Court claimed that it had already been highly commended both within the Realm and abroad “both by high and low, poor and rich; all who love justice” and caused the name of the King’s Majesty to be highly praised.186 183 RA, SHA, B I a 1, Letter from the Court of Appeal to King Gustav II Adolf, 5 Sep. 1614, fols 36r-38r; Ljung, Sven 1939 pp. 76-77. 184 Ibid., fols. 36v-37r: “Wij wele näst Gudz Guhz/domelige tilhielp oss på dett högste winleggia och beflijta, att wij vthi alle Rättegångs saker, som oss förekomma så rättwijsligen ransaka, slijte och döme wele, som wij dett för Gudh Alzmechtigh, der näst E. K. M:t och sedhan hwar Ehrligh man medh trÿgdt samwett, efter wår/giorde Edz lÿdelsse, Vthan någers Weldh och ahnseende, wele och kunne till swars wara.” 185 Ibid., pp. 36v-37r: “förkränckt blifua, anseendes huadh Despect samma rätt därutaf hafua kunde huar den nu så i förstonne skulle förringet, och icke vthi des rätte wärdhe respecteret och achtedh wardha som thet sigh för. [...] Vthan E. K. M:tz Konungzlige reputation så wäll i den som andre måtto werda i acht hollen.” 186 Ibid., fol. 37r: “Szå äre wij fördenskuldh vthi den ödmiuke och Vnderdånige förhopningh, att
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=