danish courts of appeal 18 annual sentences. This difference can be explained by the fact that the Royal Court had a more orderly structure after the Reformation and that the first year after the Reformation saw a large number of cases (234) that related to the aftermath of the civil war that lead to the Reformation. Under subsequent kings, numbers rose steadily so that there were 118 cases in the year before the introduction of absolutism. The varying royal interest in presiding over the Royal Court and the increasing number of cases were almost certainly consequences of the fact that in time the Royal Court developed into an ordinary supreme court for all inhabitants of the realm and not just for the privileged nobles, as was the case until 1590.28 Approximately one-half of the cases in the period 1537-1660 dealt with debt and consequent litigation. In other words, the majority of cases were civil suits. Out of the approximately 400 cases that today would be characterised as criminal, sentence was only passed in about 150.29 The rest either resulted in acquittal or – which was more common – in a settlement between the parties. The low number of sentences was most likely caused by the fact that the Royal Court was the court to which the nobles owed suit, and for this reason, the losing party was usually able to negotiate a financial settlement or the equivalent - if indeed it even became a fully-fledged court case. The king would often appoint an ombudsman or arbiter who attempted to settle disputes before they went to court. In addition to the many sentences, the (almost) annual Herredage also composed a substantial body of legislation, particularly after 1558, which was intended to equalise law across the provinces. In addition to this, the central administration passed a number of sentences that created precedents. Indeed several of the sentences could be characterised as legislation in the form of a sentence rather than sentences proper because they formulated new principles or decided how the law should be applied in the future based on the facts of individual cases.30 We do not know of similar practice before 1558. 28 Tamm, Ditlev 2003 pp. 6-9. 29 Tamm, Ditlev – Johansen, Jens Chr. V. 1992 pp. 76-7. 260
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=