danish courts of appeal competition, which the Royal Court could have offered local or provincial courts, but because of considerations of procedural economics it eventually became a demand shared by the central administration, which otherwise risked drowning in cases that had not yet reached a decision at lower courts. From the second part of the sixteenth century, the number of rejections of such cases rose significantly.44 The fact that the Royal Court conducted its business orally and was not interested in arguing the finer points of principles of law made it very efficient, passing quick sentences and producing written documents swiftly.45 Post-Reformation it seems that the king acquired a role as the embodiment of the power of sentencing because, even though he may not have been present, he decided a case personally when it was presented to him.46 Thus the king did not limit himself to being the deciding vote in cases of parity between councillors (and we can see this from the records of the votes)47 because in some cases his vote counteracted the majority. It is also clear from the records of votes that voting started with the most eminent of the members of the council, descending through the hierarchy so that the younger members voted after the older members. Progressing in this manner usually secured consensus about cases, but in a few cases dissent was voiced so that the decision made was that of the majority.48 The background to the decisions was often the provincial laws, primarily the Law of Jutland, various statutes and (in particular) the recess of 1558 supplemented by letters patent and previous sentences, so that it was not necessary for the members of the court to possess a comprehensive legal knowledge.49 However, it must be admitted that it was rare that the legal foundation for decisions was made clear. This trend was clearly also underpinned by the oral procedure, which was similar to that found in other courts in medieval Denmark – thus it is quite clear that 44 Andersen, Per 2011 pp. 409-414. 45 Tamm, Ditlev 2003 pp. 10-11; Tamm, Ditlev – Johansen, Jens Chr. V. 1992 p. 79. 46 Iuul, Stig 1961 p. 15. 47 Knudsen, Pernille Ulla 2003 pp. 25-31. 48 Tamm, Ditlev – Johansen, Jens Chr. V. 1992 p. 75. 49 Tamm, Ditlev 2003 pp. 9-10. 266
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=