RS 26

the svea court of appeal in the early modern period 78 would follow it obediently and with pleasure immediately it had been “completely approved of ” by the king.200 The Court’s memorandum to Chancellor Oxenstierna reiterated this, observing that the statute would be very useful for both the Court itself and those who did business there (sÿnes sÿnnerligen behöfues och wara af nödhen, både den loflige rätten, så wäll som för dem som den besökie, till godh rättilsse). The Court referred to its comments on the draft sent to them as “some simple opinions” that the king could include “as a favour and out of his grace”. They humbly beseeched the King to “give an explanation of the statute as soon as possible so that it could be followed.”201 In his answer to the Court of Appeal from the Estonian border city of Narva one month later, the monarch explained that as he was daily so burdened with every other possible kind of matter of state that he had not had the opportunity to oversee, sign and confirm the statute. He postponed the ratification to a more convenient future moment when he returned – God willing – to Sweden. Meanwhile, and in anticipation of this, he ordered that the Court follow the statute in the form in which it had been “corrected and supervised.”202 Thus, the 1615 statute in some form was largely observed from August 1614 on. Moreover, the Court of Appeal itself immediately regarded it (theRättegångz Process), as binding and authoritative. Prior to the autumn session, the Court of Appeal referred directly to its authority as approved by the king in making a resolution on its court fees on 1 September 1614.203 Another example of the Court of Appeal referring to the statute comes from an emotional encounter at court between its President, Count Magnus 200 RA, SHA, B I a 1, Letter from the Court of Appeal to King Gustav II Adolf, 28 June 1614, fol. 16r. 201 RA, SHA, B I a 1, Memorandum of the Court of Appeal to Chancellor Axel Oxenstierna, 30 June 1614, fol. 18r: “Och hafuer därvti någre wåre enfaldige meninger på högstb:te K. M:tz nådige behagh tilsatt, huilke H. K. M:t vthi gunst och nådhe vptage wille, och medh förste sigh om för:te Process nådigest förklare der efter huar i sin stadh sigh kunne wätta att rätta.” 202 RA, SHA, E I:1a 1b, Letter from Gustav II Adolf to the Court of Appeal, 25 July 1614, fols. 69r-69v: “Så ehuruwäl wij för mongehanda andre Rijksens saker, somWij här ähre, och dageligen warde beswärade med, icke hafwa hafdt lägenhet bemälte Rättegongz Process at öfwerläsa Hwarföre wele Wij låta där med lägligare tijd och till dess, om Gudh hälsan förläner Wij kunna komma tillbaka bättre in i landet, då bestå, till weleWij taga oss tillfälle, till at läsa och öfwersee samma Rättegångz Process, och den sedan med Wår hand underskrifwa och bekrefta. J medlertijd och dess förinnan oss därtill gifz lägenhet, då är Wår nådige willie och (69v) befallning, at J alldeles hålle eder wijd bemälte Process effter som J den corrigeret och öfwersedt hafwe.” 203 Resolution of the Court of Appeal on its Court Fees, RA, SHA, E I:1a 1b, 1 Sept. 1614,

RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=