the svea court of appeal in the early modern period 80 into the criminal sentences referred in heinous crimes even if appeals in crime were generally prohibited.208 In fact, judging by the register of outgoing correspondence of the Svea Court of Appeal, it attempted to bring lawsuits that had been pending for years to a conclusion and closure. Indeed, the relatively archaic, accusatory and oath-based Swedish law of procedure was badly equipped for handling hard cases – both civil and criminal – with confused evidence and no confession. As the statutory theory of proof had not been accepted in Swedish law and torture was not normally used for cases in which there was considerable suspicion, political crimes excepted, the local community could reach an impasse.209 The standstill could continue for years, and the turbulent political events of the time made it easier for suspects to evade trial. During its first session, the Court of Appeal wrote to the mayor and town council of Arboga about the suspicious death of the maid of Jeronimus the Barber (Jeronimus Balberere), whose body had been found in a neighbour’s well nine years previously. Her employer, Jeronimus, seems to have been suspected of the death, but he was evasive and did not wish to offer to purge himself from suspicion by the help of compurgators (gå Lagh för sigh) as the law insisted. Instead, Jeronimus had petitioned the Council of the Realm to be freed, but when the Swedish troops had suddenly to go to Livonia, the officers insisted that Jeronimus accompany them there. This probably refers to the Livonian war against Poland that was not going too successfully for the Swedish king. The Swedish army sent to take the town of Riga in the summer of 1605 was vanquished in the catastrophic battle of Kirkholm (Latv. Salaspils) in September 1605, in which King Charles IX was nearly taken prisoner. The case had never been examined and tried at the proper forum, the town court of Arboga, and the matter was too serious (grof) to be hushed up. This is why the magistrates of Arboga had to investigate it without delay and pass sentence. The case was only to be referred to the Court of Appeal after due process of law.210 208 Heikki Pihlajamäki has written (“’At synd och laster icke skall bli ostraffade’”) on the prohibition of appeals in criminal cases at the Svea Court of Appeal. However, the case of the widow of Jacob Bottneborg against the mayors and town council of Stockholm in theJanus Regius manual, for example, involved denial of justice (“Jacob Botneborghs efterleffwerskes, emoot Borgmäst. och R. ij Stochollm in puncto denegata justicia Lib. 11 n:o 11”), RA, SHA, D I:1. 209 E.g., Pihlajamäki, Heikki 2007; Rosén, Jerker 1955 pp. 43-64; Schück, Henrik 1920 pp. 199-223. 210 RA, SHA, B I a 1, 1 June 1614, fols. 8r-8v.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=