a safe haven in the shadow of war? – mia korpiola 75 the Court was very protective of its status and honour. Tegel, who had complained to the King of the injustice of the Court’s decision, was fined a hundred dalers.189 Another nobleman, Erik Tönnesson (Tott of Skedebo, d. 1629), was accused of non-compliance with the Court’s verdict and thus of disrespecting both the King and the Ordinance of 1614. The sentence was to be immediately executed and, at the same time, property to the value of hundred dalers was to be seized for breaking the King’s judgement.190 The German nobleman Henrik Stöör, who was dissatisfied with the decision of the Court in a case in which he had lost, was so incensed that he put his hat on, in disrespect to the court, and stormed out of the court room. Similarly, Jören von Wulffsdorff acted with hauteur at the Court reminding the judges that he was noble and insisting that he be allowed to keep his sword on. However, both men were severely reproached by the Court’s President, drots Count Magnus Brahe.191 As has been observed, litigants wishing to petition for a revision learned to be careful not to insult or criticise the Court of Appeal after receiving an unfavourable judgement.192 But the main problem in the summer of 1614 arose because the 1614 Ordinance of Trials did not regulate the nexus between the King and his Court. Nor did it specify the procedure and daily business at the new Court of Appeal except in very general terms: it referred to the procedure in the Chapters on Procedure in the mid-fourteenth-century Town Law of King Magnus Eriksson and the 1442 Law of the Countryside of King Christopher of Bavaria.193 In addition to this, the Ordinance of 1614 only defined the two eight-week law terms of the new court. Otherwise, all practical details on summoning, proof, arguing of cases, and so on, were left unregulated. In the literature, many scholars have written about the tensions between Gustav II Adolf and his new Court of Appeal. Much has been made 189 RA, SHA, D VIII a:1: fined on 12 Nov. 1614: “Erick Jörensson för Koningz doom brått – 100 dal:.” 190 RA, SHA, B I a 1, Court of Appeal to Christoffer von Wernstedt, 3 Nov. 1614, 60v-61r: “Konungz doombrott, efter han wår doom, emot K. M:tz Rättegongz ordinantie qwaltt hafuer.” For other instances, see Afzelius, Ivar 1914 p. 182. 191 RA, SHA, A I a 1:1, fol. 65r, 163r. 192 See, e.g., Anu Lahtinen’s article in this volume. 193 Rättegångs-Ordinantie (1614), inKongl. stadgar, ed. Schmedeman, p. 140: “Til thet Adertonde, Processen belangande, som i Rättegångerne brukelige wara skal, ther medh skal hållas, effter som them i Tingmåla och Rådhstugu Balken beskrifwin finnes.”
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=