the svea court of appeal in the early modern period 74 Then, still in respectful language, the judges made a thinly veiled threat to resign if the King refused to uphold and confirm its decisions. “If our decisions are no longer respected and their authority maintained as hereby seems to happen, then we all will reconsider being further used in such judicial matters, but rather request humbly and submissively that we thereby may be spared from them.” If they were to continue to administer law and judge all cases as justice demanded, the court requested – again humbly and submissively – that the judgements given in the King’s name and on his behalf be confirmed and executed, not revoked and annulled through some individual’s persuasion. The letter ended with long, thoroughly respectful and meek wishes honouring the King’s Majesty.187 The message was clear. Although the young King was the ruler and monarch and his judges-assignees obeyed him, he was doing himself and the whole Realm a great disfavour if he allowed his Court to be treated contemptuously by litigants, abetted by the King himself. Moreover, as some of the leading senior aristocrats and members of the Council of the Realm were members of the Court, they were hardly willing to waste their time in the capital in order to be ridiculed by disappointed social inferiors. According to Swedish law, one was not allowed to wager against the judgement of the king’s delegated judges, and this was repeated in the Ordinance of 1614 which decreed a hundred-daler fine for breaking (qwälia) the King’s judgement (Konungz Dombruk[!]).188 Indeed, on many occasions, E. K. M:t icke tilstäder, att dett som i så måtto Lagligit giort är, skulle blifue rÿggiat och till inthet igen, huilket wille lända E. K. M:t sielf till ringa beröm; helst efter denne loflige Rätten är allredhe vthi sådant högt beröm kommen, så wäll i främmande land, som här i Rijket, bådhe hoos höghe och låge, fattige och Rijke, som rättwijsan kär hafua, Att E. K. M:tz Kongelige Nampn der vttöfuer högdt beprijsat werdher.” 187 Ibid., fol. 37r: “Menn huer och sådanna wåre domar icke mehre skulle achtede och i dess rätte Myndighet holdne werda, än som hermedh synes wele tilgå: då hafue wij samptligen i betänkiande oss yttermeere vthi någre sådanna Rättegångs saker att bruke lathe, Vthan bedie heller ödmiukeligen och Vnderdånligen, att wij dermedh måtte skonede blifue. Hwar wij och skole medh Rätten fortt fara, och alle saker så förrätta, slijta och dömma, som dett rättwijsligen tilgå bör, då bedie wij ödmiukeligen och Vnderdånligen, att E. K. M:tt wille nådigest holle handh Vttöffuer, dett för:te Wåre Doomer som i E. K. M:tz nampn och på des wegne skee, måtte holdne och effterkompne werdha, och icke egenom någers bewekelsse tilbaka och om inthett blifua.” 188 Art. 8, Rättegångs-Ordinantie (1614), in Kongl. stadgar, ed. Schmedeman, p. 136. In the summer of 1615, King Gustav II Adolf explained that a person breaking the judgement of the Court of Appeal did not properly petition for a beneficium juris and pursue a revision, but complained privately or publicly, disrespecting the Court, over injustice, see Royal resolution on the questions raised by the Court of Appeal, 23 June 1615, RA, SHA, E I:1b, fol. 94v, printed inKongl. stadgar, ed. Schmedeman, p. 146.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=