per andersen The Abel-Christopher Decree mentions the possibility that the winning party in a case could call upon the king to execute a sentence passed by a local court or, through the use of so-called “king’s letters”, force the losing party to conform to the decision of the court within three letters and thus 15, ten or five days. These provisions were extended in the coronation charter of King Eric V Klipping dating from 1282, which formed the basis for the procedure of “king’s letters” until the beginning of the sixteenth century when a new procedure on royal confirmation on a won land dispute was taking over. In the “king’s letter” procedure, the successful party seized the estates after having received a letter of confirmation from the king for his ownership, but this letter, however, contained the proviso that the case might be re-initiated if new evidence was to appear and that, as a consequence, the judgement could be overturned. The procedure of the “king’s letters” was thus intended to settle the dispute and to allow the successful party to seize the estate, but they only provided a conditional right of possession of the property.15 This was the background for the development of a procedure that was known as “pursuit to the lock”, which received its final form in 1621, elements of the procedure appearing already around 1302. In contrast to the 1282 charter, this procedure was intended to secure for the successful plaintiff full rights of possession by means of a royal prohibition against the obstruction of his claim and thus became more popular than the former.16 By claiming such powers to decide a legal contest, the king identified himself as being in direct competition with the established administration of justice based around the district and provincial courts, and it is very likely that this was one of the reasons that the Abel-Christopher Decree never achieved the status of valid law: The increase in royal power could not be accepted by the magnates.17 In spite of this, many Danish kings took advantage of the practice of king’s letters, as is clear from a rule in Eric Klipping’s coronation charter of 1282, which decided that king’s letters were not to be issued until the culprit had been legally sum15 Lerdam, Henrik 2001 pp. 39-40. 16 Lerdam, Henrik 2001 p. 41. 17 Andersen, Per 2005 pp. 111-117; Riis, Carsten 1977 pp. 55-59. 253
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=