sören koch Bergen. However, in contrast to the Overlagting, access to the Herredag was not limited to specific types of cases or legal matters. It rather had to deal also with matters of, e.g., damage to cattle or payment of a handmaid.87 Finally theHerredaghad wider competences and enjoyed a stronger reputation, and also possessed administrative functions alongside its judicial role.88 After the establishment of absolutism (1660) the NorwegianHerredag was replaced by an institution called Overhofrett in 1667. Unlike the Herredag, the Overhofrett had annual sessions that could Unlike the Herredag, theOverhofretthad annual sessions that were supposed to take place in January. However, due to the fast growing workload, the session started lasting several months. This led eventually to a restructuring of the court’s personal constitution. At first established as a highest court for all of Norway, with representatives coming from all areas of the realm, it turned to a court manned by officials recruited from the area around Oslo, meeting several times a year for sessions lasting several weeks. This institution became the final court of appeal in Norway until 1797.89 Until then decisions of theOverhofrett could be further appealed to the Supreme Court (Høiesterett) which had been established in Copenhagen in 1661. Such an appeal was nevertheless only permitted within certain clearly defined limits.90 Accordingly, the Norwegian court system consisted of a hierarchy with four levels. However, regarding its importance as a court of appeal we have to distinguish between criminal and civil matters. In criminal matters, the Norwegian Code from 1687 had established a rule on mandatory appeal concerning capital crimes, originally limited to cases concerning witchcraft and manslaughter, but in the early 18th cen87 Nissen, Gunnar 1966 p. 42; Seip, Jens Arup 1934 p. 105. 88 It was, e.g., the court of first instance in all cases concerning noblemen. 89 A list of the law subjects where appeal to theOverhofrett was possible can be found in Fogtman, Laurids 1781 p. 1614. Cf. also Norwegian Code 1-6-8. 90 See Norwegian Code 1-6-8. For a list of other matters that could be appealed to the Supreme Court and the legal bases for the competences of the court, see Fogtman, Laurids 1781 p. 611 ff. In addition, the case had to be of sufficient economic importance, which was the case if the value of the dispute was higher than 500 Riksdaler, an exception maintained in cases of life and honor, cf. Nissen, Gunnar 1966 p. 44. 301
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=