sören koch known as Overlagting.76 These court-like panels were first formed in Oslo and Bergen during king Hans’ reign (1482-1493). The difference between these high courts (overdomstoler)77 and ordinary district courts (lagmannsdomstoler) was that in the case of the former the matters which were dealt with could also come from places outside the court-district (lagsogn) in which the institution was located. In addition the decision was reached by consent or by the majority of lawmen.78 After the reformation the court in Oslo usually gathered twice a year. In Bergen the gatherings were more sporadic.79 After 1580 the position of the lawmen in these institutions became stronger. In a royal letter it was commanded that the lawmen alone, and nobody else, should give rulings in cases of murder.80 Also some other decrees indicate that the lawmen’s influence had gradually been strengthened. TheOverlagtingthus developed from a mere political to a juridical institution dominated by a corpus of lawmen. A participation of lay judges was never intended. This organ was the first to serve as a court of appeal in amore temporary sense. If a party was not satisfied with the lawman’s ruling, his case could be remitted to theOverlagting without first redirecting the claim against the lawman and his co-judges.81 The advantage that came with the introduction of theOverlagting was that the final judgment would be regarded as more authoritative, both because of the reputation of the court, and also due to the combined professional expertise of its members. The disadvantage with these institutions was that they often remanded the case back to the district or even local courts because the facts had not been adequately investigated at 76 On this institution in more detail, see Seip, Jens Arup 1934 p. 96 ff., 104 ff. and 111 ff.; Bloch, Kristian 1981 p. 45 and 52. 77 Seip, Jens Arup 1934 p. 98. 78 E.g. in 1485 a case from the district of Trondheim was brought before the archbishop, the mayor and the two lagmenn; the same happened in 1490, see for more detail Seip, Jens Arup 1934 p. 97 note 3. 79 See royal decree of 1541, in: NRR I p. 115 and 207; see in additionNRR I p. 402 f. (1564); p. 597 (1568); II p. 11 (1575), p. 233 (1577), p. 578 (1584); III p. 236 (1592), p. 311 (1593) and p. 341 (1594). 80 NRR II p. 897. 81 Cases where that happened can be e.g. found in a so calleddomsregister; the court records of the Agder-court, cf. rulings of 1527 VII 636 and 1542XVI 607. 299
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=