anja amend-traut The dispute between Ernst Count of Holstein, Schauenburg and Sternberg and the Council of the City of Hamburg provides explanations on the right of participation in the cancellation of summary proceedings.82 From 1609 until 1611, the parties were in dispute about the right of imposing customs duties. The applicant claimed to be exclusively entitled to this right for particular goods also for the Hamburg territory. In fact, however, the City requested its “citizens who bought ox-skins, to pay customs duties of twelve shilling Lubish for each skin, as the also imposed customs duties for cheese, butter, wood, [...] cork, wheat, spices and Lübeck beer.” (Underthanen so in der selben Statt Ogßenheütt kaufft von jeder haut zwölff schilling Lübisch, wie dan auch von Käeß, Butter Holtz, […] Korken Weitzen, Gewürtz und Lübeckisch Bier, einen vermeinten Zoll.)83 To obtain justice, the Count of Holstein finally applied for amandatum poenale sine clausula, aimed at forbearing the collection of duties. After a number of pleadings, the applicant’s representative Reinhardt notified in August 1611 that he had been informed by the Schauenburg council members that the customs duties imposed in Hamburg had been abolished so that he waived further proceedings on behalf of his client.84 Gödelman, the respondent’s legal counsel, argued that he had no knowledge of any such information – the proceeding did not end. About two weeks later, Reinhardt repeated his intention to waive, whereupon Gödelman stated for the records that despite still missing information on the matter he would also “this time leave it at that” (dismahls darbey).85 Acompletum-notice of 30 September 1611 closes the files. Even though no further formalities have been handed down, it becomes clear that the approval of the adverse party was obtained also when summary proceedings ended prematurely. This judicial practice could be connected with the already mentioned Common Orders from 1593, according to which “no variation [...] be permitted” (hernach keine Variation[…] gestattet werden) after receipt of a motion for granting an injunction due to the urgency of the 82 StA HH, no. S12. 83 StA HH, no. S12, [Q] 1. 84 StA HH, no. S12, Special Record, entry of 21 August 1611. 85 Ibid., entry of 16 September 1611. 97
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=