sören koch juridical) mechanisms of conflict resolution.94 In addition the exponentially increasing costs for a civil suit provided a further incentive to solve the dispute by private settlement.95 The most common arbitrational institutions were mediation (Voldgift) – where a third party appointed by the parties acted as a mediator – and the so called commissioner-rulings (Commissarier).96 The difference between the former and the latter was that a mediation agreement could not be appealed,97 while the ruling by a commission whose members were appointed by the authorities or by the parties with the consent of the authorities could be appealed to the Supreme Court in Copenhagen.98 Where the parties nevertheless chose to go to court the whole chain of instances was rarely exploited. A quick look into the law reports of the different courts of appeal reveals that the majority of the civil pleadings were finally decided by the local or district courts. Just to name one example, of 176 private law cases recorded in the local register of lagmannPeder Jørgensøn in Oslo in the years 1614, 1615 and 1616, just five were appealed to the Herredag held in 1616.99 To counteract this tendency a number of highly specialized extraordinary courts of first instance were established. Some of those had even their own specialized courts of appeal as e.g. the courts concerned with clerical, mining and military related trials (Prosterett/Stiftsamtsmenn; Bergrett/Overbergamt andKrigsrett/Overkrigsrett orOveradmiralitetsrett100).How94 Cf. Koch, Sören 2015 with further references. 95 Compare Holberg, Ludvig 1729 p. 682: ”Adskillige compromittere paa opmænd, for at korte processer, og at spare omkostninger” [Many would choose the opman, due to shorter proceedings and to spare expences]. 96 See on this institution Koch, Sören 2015 and Anderson, Per 2010 p. 341 ff. 97 Norwegian Code. 1-6-1: “Dersom parterne voldgive deres Sag paa Dannemænd, da, hvad de sige og kiende, saa vit deres fuldmagt dem tillader at giøre, det staaer fast, og kand ey for nogen ret til underkiendelse indstævnes, dog Kongen sin sag forbeholden”; translation: ”If the parties give their case to honourable men [Dannemænd functioning as mediators], their [the mediators] verdict is to be followed and cannot be appealed to any ordinary court, as far as they do not exceed their competences. This applies not for cases involving the Kings interests”. 98 Holberg, Ludvig 1729 p. 682. Næss has proven that lawmen often were ordered to take the position of such a “commissioner”; Næss, Hans Eyvind 2014 p. 254 ff. 99 Cf. Kleivane, Kjell J. 1987 p. 345-481; Norske Herredags-Dombøger, Vol II. 1607-1623, edited by Thomle, Erik Andreas 1904 p. 15, 34, 38, 87, 96. 100 Exampler for the dobbelassignment of lawmen are the appointment of Henrik Kock (lawman in Bergen) and Lauritz Undal (lawman in Kristiansand) in 1693. 303
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=