a safe haven in the shadow of war? – mia korpiola 97 any misdeeds could be compensated financially. As Roberts has pointed out, “[t]he misdeeds of the nobility, who treated royal officials and their own officials with almost equal contempt, were a constant source of complaint, and Sweden lacked the machinery for bringing the over-mighty subject speedily to book.”279 The cases of the first law sessions of the Court of Appeal in 1614 however demonstrate that efforts were made to appease public opinion. Several of the first cases of 1614 were big, time-consuming and more or less related tomalfeasance by crown officials. Such trials involving alleged maladministration, misconduct and the venality of royal officials were either pursued ex officio by the Councillors of the Treasury (Cammerrådh) or the Crown Prosecutor or were seemingly accusatory cases. An example of the latter is the case of Hans Welleman vs. Erik Jöransson Tegel, Remer Remersson and others involving defrauding the crown by such means as smuggling, evading customs, corruption and neglect of duty in Stockholm. The accusations of Hans Welleman, a Stockholm burgher, spread in different directions leading to the sentencing of several minor officials as well. The risks of denunciation for the accuser seem to have been waived here as Welleman was commended for his loyalty to the burgher’s oath and the king. He had “informed on such things he perceived to be disloyal to the king” and therefore he could not be sentenced to any punishment – probably for disproven allegations – “but [was] acquitted of all the cases that thitherto had been examined and condemned.”280 Many cases also dealt with the dubious acquisition of real estates of Erik Jöransson Tegel, an important official in Charles IX’s administration, as mentioned above, as several people claimed ownership of the properties. Some researchers have explained the processes as a political witch-hunt orchestrated by Tegel’s opponents and personal enemies and a purge of major figures of the former regime.281 However, the many witness statements indicate that Tegel had not avoided using his position to his own advantage sometimes even by ruthless methods. There may be a political flavour to the clustering of the trials against Erik Jöransson, but he seems genuinely to have merited his comeuppance. 279 Roberts, Michael 1953 p. 113. 280 RA, SHA, A I a 1:1, passim; Summary of the cases of the second law term, fol. 222r; Ljung, Sven 1939 esp. pp. 66-81. 281 E.g., Ljung, Sven 1939 esp. pp. 81-83; Schück, Henrik 1920 pp. 171-195; Afzelius, Ivar 1914 pp. 174-175, 178-179.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=