the svea court of appeal in the early modern period 90 swords and were all equally guilty were to be executed in accordance with the “rightfully declared verdict” (doom rättwijsligen Sententieret) of the lower court. The fourth lackey, who had not carried a sword but who had been in league with the others, was to be sent to the Court of Appeal. There the fine roll records that this lackey was either to free himself from the accusation of breach of the peace (Eedzöres brått) or to pay the king and injured party sixty marks each.252 In another case registered in the fine rolls, Lasse Johansson of Gilberga was to pay a fine of 50 dalers for fighting and killing (Slagzmåhl […] ihielslaget) a man as he had not acted “out of arrogance but out of self-defence” (icke i öfuerdådigheet vthan i nödhtuångh).253 Indeed, the general understanding was that certain notorious crimes were too heinous to be pardoned without seriously offending God and causing opprobrium in simple people. Such grave crimes (including murder, homicide breaching the peace of the home, highway robbery, incest between close relatives, bestiality and rape) were to receive the punishment they deserved without delay as an example to others if the crime had been confessed and lawfully adjudicated in court.254 Gustav Eriksson Stenbock (1575 – 1629), governor of Skaraborg (1613 – 1615), as well as the governor of Kalmar and the bailiff of Hälsingland received instructions from the Court of Appeal in response to Stenbock’s letter. The Court of Appeal observed that as authorized by the king, they were allowed to execute criminals who had been sentenced for heinous crimes after a “legal, careful and thorough investigation.” Moreover, it presupposed that governors and bailiffs would not in the future refer (opskiute) to it such “manifest crimes” (så oppenbara missgerninger) as they had “full permission” (fullkomligit tilstånd) to execute such criminals so that “all sin, shame and moral uproar may be suppressed” and so that, as a warning to others, punishments would not be postponed.255 However, the Court carefully considered the circumstances of the killing of a peasant by a cavalry soldier who had been sentenced at Uppsala. As the cavalryman was found to have slain the peasant of his free will, intentionally and without provocation (medh frij willie och berådt mod vthan 252 25 May 1614, RA, SHA, B I a:1, fols. 2v-3r; 1 July 1614, RA, SHA, D VIII a:1. 253 1 July 1614, RA, SHA, D VIII a:1. 254 Rättegångs-Ordinantie (1614), in Kongl. stadgar, ed. Schmedeman, p. 140. 255 RA, SHA, B I a:1, 5 July 1614, fols. 22v-23r: “lathe rätten öfuer dem gå, på dedh sÿnd skam och all/ förargelsse måtte underdämpas […] så långsambligen medh straffet fördröijes, androm till warnagell och Exempel.”m
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=