Fangens forklaring fra Botsfenglet

[Joanne Lillevold]

My great-great grandfather Ole Nielsen Huskelien was sentenced to a year at hard labor 29 Dec 1854 in Sør-Fron, Oppland. On a different page of this forum, a helpful person gave me a link to this document showing he served his time in the Botsfengselet in Oslo. Here is the link:

https://media.digitalarkivet.no/view/73615/18

As my Norwegian is poor, I wish for any help I can get reading this.  By the 1865 census, Ole Nielsen lived on Lillevolden (now called Veslevollen) in Espedalen in Sør-Fron or Nord-Fron. I see Espedalen mentioned.  His crime was impregnating his step-daughter Anne Jacobsdatter, who I see mentioned.

Mange takk for any help in reading this.

 

[Roy-Petter Askim]

Even Stormoen have transcribed the text under the first thread, and will continue with a translation.

[Even Stormoen]

To my dismay, I finsihed the following hours ago – but never posted it!!  I was sure I did. I'm awfully sorry.

 

Anyhow, I'll continue here, not to ‹contaminate› the other thread any further.

 

Oookeey, here we go, a brief summary of sorts:

 

Ole was born on a homestead called «Søndenfor» ( to-the-south-of – litterally) under the farm Teige in Kvam.

Confirmation in Fron 16 y. old. Never before convicted. He is now convicted for begetting a child (born sep. 9 1854) with his stepdaughter Anne Jacobsdatter. And for cutting amounts of timber on ‹Public ground› (no idea how to translate this, «Almennning»). Partly building houses on his leased property, partly over some years using timber and fallen twigs to build several ‹Miler› – (no idea again, what do you call furnaces for burning/making coal in english?) of different sizes («favner»= fathoms but not ‹maritime› ones. Same word used today for measuring amounts of firewood e. g.). On one occation he sold the coal to Espedalens Værk. The old copper/nickel mines there.

He consider it his right to use the timber for his houses, being a ‹tenant› on his ‹homestead› Lien or Huskelien under the farm Nordre (northern) Sylte. The court does not agree . . .

In addition to his one and a half year, he was convicted 2 extra months for his illegal ‹lumberjacking› to use in these furnaces.

 

Reg.

 

 

Endret September 25, 2022 av Even Stormoen

[Even Stormoen]

I’ll go on –

 

The margin written lengthwise, left page:

 

Løslades den 8de Novbr. 1857 med

Milepenge til Qvikne Annex til Nordre

Fron for 26 Miil a 6s . . . Spd 1. 36s

Extrapenge                            1. 60s

hvoraf 60s sendt Lensmd. og 60s til Præsten i Fron.

 

≈ [=roughly translated:]

 

Released nov. 8 1857 with

‹travelling money› to Kvikne . . .

. . . 26 miles –

Extra money –

thereof 60s sendt the ‹sheriff› and 60s to the Vicar in Fron.

 

1 Frak, 1 Kjole, 2 Veste, 2 Par Buxer, 2 Skjorter, 1 Underbukse

af Skind, 2 par Strømper, 1 Par Støvler, 1 Par Strømpefødder,

3 Tørklæder, 1 Par Vanter, 2 Huer, 1 Par Buxesæler, 2 Par

2 Par Strømpebånd, 1 Kam, 1 Speil og 1 Toldekniv.

 

≈

 

1 coat, 1 jacket, 2 vests, 2 pairs of trousers, 2 shirts, 1 underpant

made of leather[!], 2 pairs of stockings, 1 pair of boots, 1 pair of ‹Stockingfeet› [(litt.) Could it be what we today would consider normal stockings for gents? While the first two pairs might be long ones to be worn with knee-long pants? Or is it some kind of slippers? Dunno.]

3 neckerchiefs, 1 pair of gloves [wool/cotton, not leather], 2 caps, 1 pair of suspenders/braces, 2 pairs

[repeated] of garters, 1 comb, 1 mirror and 1 knife.

 

Page 2 (right) Not including his grades in the left margin (behavior and industriousness) which are all good btw 😉 Ranging from satisfactory (tg) through good (g) to very good at the end (mg)

 

Headline:

Bemærkninger fra Tid til anden om hans

Charakter og Opførsel

 

≈

 

Comments from time to time about his character and behavior.

 

 

01 Upaaklageligt udvortes Forhold i Fængslet.

02 Neppe godmodig af Gemyt men ikke uden

03 Støhed i Characteren. Løsladt under

04 mit (Norums) Fravær forhaabent-

05 lig med redeligt Forsæt. –

06 [another much more difficult handwriting:] Acterne har (??) sendt Fogden i Gudbrandsdalen 12/9 60. 12/2 78 spørges der atter(?)

07 om dem i en anden Sag. Oplysning meddelt om, at de ere sendte herfra.

08 [double line]

09 3/4 60 meddeler Præsten Christie at Angj. antages at føre et stille

10 og arbeidsomt Liv. Han bor i en Sæter i Espedalen

 

≈

 

01 Impeccable external [«Forhold» can be ‹relations›, but here it is used in a broader sense – his overall conduct.] in Jail.

02 Hardly good natured, but not without

03 firmness in his character. Released during

04 my (Norum’s) absence hopeful-

05 ly with an honest intention. –

06 The Documents (??) sent to the bailiff of G.dalen [date]. [date] they are again(?)

07 requested for another ‹case› [trial?]. Information communicated, that they have been sendt herefrom [is this a valid word in english?]

08

09 [date] The vicar Christie reports that the one concerned [«Angj.»= abbr. for «Angjeldende» i.e. Ole] is assumed to live a quiet

10 and industrious life. He lives on a «Sæter» [again, no immediate translation, but a Seter (modern spelling) was where the livestock was brought and stayed during the ‹summer season› to benefit from the fresh vegetation (usually at an altitude, in the mountains). With relatively frugal buildings ;-)] in Espedalen.

 

And that’s it. :-)

I really hope I haven’t confused you too much with my endless […]-s

Feel free to ask me for clarifications. Hoping I will be able to give them . . .

 

All the best

Endret September 25, 2022 av Even Stormoen

[Roy-Petter Askim]

Evens transcription shows that he served in two prisons:

 

42 Angldn. indkom i Tugthuset den 16de Juni 1856 og derfra

43 i Bodsf. den 27de April 1857 paa 6 Maaneder 12 dage.

 

He served the first part in Christiania Tukthus.  (Demolished in 1936-38. In Census 1865 there was 344 people there including familys of employees.)

https://lokalhistoriewiki.no/wiki/Christiania_tukthus 

 

Botsfengselet from April 27 to release November 8 1857. Prison 1851-2017.

https://lokalhistoriewiki.no/wiki/Botsfengselet

 

[Joanne Lillevold]

Wow, I am amazed at the prompt and thorough replies, Roy-Petter and Even.  Sorry for my slow reply, but I am in a different time zone (seven hours different, I think).  I will need some time to study this before I know if I have questions.

The only places I know Ole Nielsen to have lived in Norway after his marriage are Lien under Huskelien (on the valley floor, south side of the Vinstra River, not far from the Kvikne church in Nord-Fron) and Lillevolden (now Veslevollen), where the Espa flows out of Breidsjøen, in Espedalen.  Can Lillevolden be referred to as a seter?  (The driveway to Lillevolden/Veslevollen goes down from Dalseter Høysfjellshotell parking lot, in Espedalen, Highway 255, if you want to see it.)

I have the document where Ole Nielsen was convicted, and he was charged with illegal logging on public land, in addition to the incest, but I thought they concluded he had the right to the logs., so he was only convicted of incest.

I will try to attach that document, and paste in the transcription (which I struggle to translate).

Even, you ask if “herefrom” is a valid word in English.  Microsoft Word doesn’t think so, but I do.  I think you can add any preposition to the end of here, there, or where, but most are more common in legal writing than ordinary English.

Tusen takk!

 

[Joanne Lillevold]

Here is the court document from 29 Dec 1854, where Ole Nielsen Huskelien was convicted and sentenced, 1st half:

 

[Joanne Lillevold]

• Author

Posted just now

Here is the court document from 29 Dec 1854, where Ole Nielsen Huskelien was convicted and sentenced, 2nd half:

[Joanne Lillevold]

Here is the transcription of the court document from 29 Dec 1854, where Ole Nielsen Huskelien was convicted and sentenced:

Aar 1854 den 29de December blev en Extraret sat paa Gaarden Hundorp paa Froen til Paadømmelse af Justitssagen mod Ole Nielsen Huskelien og Anne Jacobsdatter Huskelien og betjent af Sorenskriveren i Overværelse af underskrevne Retsvidner. –

Hvorda! I denne Sag blev afsagt saadan

Dom:

Ved Ordre fra Amtmanden over Christians Amt af 21de October dette Aar er Angjædende Ole Nielsen Huskelien sat under Tiltale for Tyveforbrydelse, og ifølge samme Amtmands Ordre af 1 November næstefter tiltales bemeldte Ole Nielsen Huskelien tillige for Blodskam og Anne Jacobsdatter Huskelien for Blodskam samt for urigtig Udlæggelse af Barnefader. – Hvad den Tiltalte Ole Nielsen Huskelien angaaer imputerede Tyveforbrydelse angaaer, da bestaar samme i at han har aavirket endel Tømmer i Espedalens Statsalminding hvoraf han har opført sig Huse i Espedalen. – Angaaende Blodskamsforbrydelsen har bemeldte Tiltalte aabenhjertig tilstaaet, at han i det sidste Aar af og til har faaet legemlig Omgang med sin Steddatter, den medtiltalte Anne Jacobsdatter Huskelien, og at han saaledes maa ansee sig som Fader til et af den Sidstnævnte fødte Barn. – Tiltalte Anne Jacobsdatter Huskelien har ligeledes bekjendt, at hun af og til har havt legemlig Omgang med sin Stedfader Ole Huskelien og at samme er Fader til det af hende fødte Barn, samt at hun urigtigen for Præsten ved Barnets Daab har opgivet Hans Engebretsen Steendalen som Fader til Barnet. – Referenten har antaget det utvivlsomt, at Tiltalte Ole Nielsen maa blive at fælde for det under Sagen omhandlede Aavirke og har undergivet Sagen Dom med Indstilling: at Tiltalte Ole Nielsen Huskelien for Blodskam og Tyveri ansees med 1 ½ Aars Strafarbeide og at Tiltalte Anne Jacobsdatter for Blodskam og urigtig Udlæggelse af Barnefader ansees med 25 Dages Fængsel paa Vand og Brød, samt at de Tiltalte derhos tilpligtes in solidum at udrede Sagens Omkostninger. – At Tiltalte Ole Nielsen Huskelien ved det af ham i Espedalens Statsalminding aavirkede Tømmer, hvoraf han har opført sig Huse, skulde have begaaet Tyverier kan formentlig dog ikke antages; thi som Huusmand under Gaarden Sylte i Qvikne maa han være berettiget til fornødent Brug i bemeldte Statsalminding, og om han ved den paatalte Aavirkning af Tømmer har overskredet sin Brugsret saa hører denne hans Forbrydelse under Straffelovens 22-5, og da Overtrædelse af det Lovbrud efter samme Lovs 27-2 ikke hører under Paatale af det Offentlige, saa maa Sagen forsaavidt blive at afvise, som ikke egnende sig til Paatale af Justitien. – Derimod har denne Tiltalte ligefrem forbrudt sig mod Straffelovens 18-13 ved den af ham pleiede utugtige Omgang med hans Steddatter og da ingen saaledes skjærpende Omstændigheder i saa Henseende ere tilstæde saa antages det at Tiltalte derfor maa blive at ansee med den af de i dette Lovsted først nævnte Straferet, nemlig Strafarbeide i femte Grad og Straffetiden kan formentlig passende blive at bestemme til 1 Aar. – Tiltalte Anne Jacobsdatter Huskelien har ved at bedrive Utugt med sin Stedfader ligeledes forbrudt sig mod Straffelovens 18-13, og ved løgnagtigen at udlægge Hans Engebretsen Steendalen for Barnefader har hun forbrudt sig mod samme Lovs 21-20, men da heller ingen særdeles graverende Omstændigheder for hendes Vedkommende ere forhaanden, saa maa den for hendes Forbrydelse i begge de anførte Lovsteder først nævnte Straferet nemlig Fængelse paa hende blive at anvende og Straffetiden antages passende at kunde ansættes til 20 Dages Fængelse paa Vand og Brød. – Hvad Sagens Omkostninger angaar vedkommer Forhøret af 11te og 21de September dette Aar alene den Tiltalte Ole Huskelien imputerede Tyveriforbrydelse, og ihvorvel han er antaget derved ikke at have gjort sig skyldig i egentlig Tyverie bør han dog tilpligtes at betale Forhørets Omkostninger da han ved det af ham forøvede Arbeide har givet det Offentlige tilstrekkelig Grund til at lade hans Forhold i saa Henseende undersøge, men Sagens øvrige Omkostninger maa de Tiltalte blive at tilpligte in solidum at udrede efterdi Sagen angaaer en af dem begge i Fællesskab forøvet Forbrydelse, og forsaavidt Ole Nielsen under Sagen tillige har været aktioneret for Tyveriforbrydelse ere ingen særskildte eller forøgede Omkostninger derved forvoldte. – Sagførelsen har fra Referentens Side været forsvarlig. –

Thi kjendes for Ret:

Forsaavidt Tiltalte Ole Nielsen Huskelien aktioneres for Tyveriforbrydelse afvises Sagen som Justitssag, hvorimod han for Forbrydelse mod Straffelovens 18-13 bør hensættes i Strafarbeide i 1 Aar, og Tiltalte Anne Jacobsdatter Huskelien bør for Forbrydelse mod Straffelovens 18-13 og 21-20 hensættes i Fængsel paa Vand og Brød i 20 – tyve – Dage. Derhos tilpligtes Ole Nielsen Huskelien at betale Omkostningerne for det optagne og under Sagen fremlagte Forhør af 11te og 21 September D.A., og begge de Tiltalte til in solidum at betale Sagens samtlige øvrige Omkostninger, alt efter af Overøvrigheder approberede Regninger. – Straffen at fuldbyrdes efter Øvrighedens Foranstaltning og det Idømte at udredes inden 15 – femten – Dage efter denne Doms lovlige Forkyndelse under Ædsord efter Loven. –

Randklev.                                                               Osw. Stensrud (?)                                       P L Jarman

[Joanne Lillevold]

Maybe you would like to start with my poor-quality English translation, and fix things? Here is what I have:

 

In 1854, on the 29th of December, an extra court was sat on the farm Hundorp in Fron for adjudication of the court case against Ole Nielsen Huskelien and Anne Jacobsdatter Huskelien and attended by the magistrate in the presence of the undersigned witnesses.

… In this case was pronounced thus:

Judgment:

By order from the County Governor of Christians County of 21st of October this year, the accused Ole Nielsen Huskelien is placed under indictment for the crime of theft and, according to the same county governor’s order of November 1 next, the accused Ole Nielsen Huskelien is also charged with incest and Anne Jacobsdatter Huskelien for incest, as well as for false identification of the father.

What the defendant Ole Nielsen Huskelien … the crime of theft concerns, … that he has logged some timber in Espedalen’s common land, of which he has built for himself buildings in Espedalen.

Concerning the crime of incest, the defendant has confessed that in the last year he has from time to time had physical contact with his stepdaughter, the co-defendant Anne Jacobsdatter Huskelien, and that he must thus regard himself as the father of one of the latter’s born children.

Defendant Anne Jacobsdatter Huskelien has likewise admitted that she has from time to time had physical contact with her stepfather Ole Huskelien and that the same is the father of that of her born children, and that she has falsely declared to the minister at the child’s baptism Hans Engebretsen Steendalen as father of the child.

The reporter has assumed it without doubt that Defendant Ole Nielsen … under the case concerning logging and has submitted the case judgment with the recommendation: that Defendant Ole Nielsen Huskelien for incest and theft be sentenced to 1½ year of imprisonment at hard labor and that Defendant Anne Jacobsdatter for incest and false identification of the child’s father be sentenced to 25 days’ imprisonment on water and bread, and that the defendants are jointly ordered to pay the case’s costs.

That Defendant Ole Nielsen Huskelien knowingly in Espedalen’s common land logged timber, of which he has built for himself buildings, should have committed thefts can … nevertheless not be assumed; therefore, as a husmann under the farm Sylte in Kvikne, he must be entitled to the necessary use in alleged common land, and if he in the prosecuted logging of timber has exceeded his right of use, then comes this his crime under Criminal Code 22-5, and when violation of the law according to the same Code 27-2 comes not under prosecution by the government, so must the case as far as it goes be to refuse as not appropriate for prosecution of justice.

However, this defendant has directly violated the Criminal Code 18-13 by him being in the habit of immoral contact with his stepdaughter, and when no such aggravating circumstances in this regard … first-mentioned punishment, namely imprisonment at hard labor in the fifth degree and the length of punishment can be presumed appropriate to set as 1 year.

Defendant Anne Jacobsdatter Huskelien has, by committing fornication with her stepfather, likewise violated Criminal Code 18-13, and, by lying to identify Hans Engebretsen Steendalen as the child’s father, she has violated the same Code 21-20, but, when neither any special aggravating circumstances for her part … for her crime in both the alleged …, the first-named punishment, namely imprisonment on her be that ...., and the punishment time presumed appropriate … 20 days imprisonment on water and bread.

As for the costs of the case, the hearing of 11th and 21st of September this year alone concerns the Defendant Ole Huskelien of imputed theft, and whether he is assumed thereby not to have been guilty of actual theft, however, he must be ordered to pay the cost of the hearing as he knows it. He … has given the public sufficient reason to investigate his relationship …, but the other costs of the case must be borne by the defendants in solidarity with the fact that the case involves one of them both in the crime committed … and provided Ole Nielsen with the case also has been the crime of theft, no separate or increased cost thereby caused.

The pleading of the case has, from the reporter’s side, been sound.

Therefore, the court decrees:

For that matter, Defendant Ole Nielsen Huskelien … for the crime of theft, the case is rejected as a court case, whereas he for crime against Criminal Code 18-13 should be placed in imprisonment at hard labor for one year, and Defendant Anne Jacobsdatter Huskelien should for crime against Criminal Code 18-13 and 21-20 be placed in prison on water and bread for 20 (twenty) days. Thereat, Ole Nielsen Huskelien is required to pay the costs of the … submitted case of 11th and 21 September in the said year, and both of the defendants jointly … to pay all the other costs of the case, depending on the prevailing bills.

The punishment to be carried out according to the authorities’ arrangement and the fine to be paid within 15 (fifteen) days after this judgment’s lawful service under oath according to the law.

 

Randklev                                                              Osw. Stensrud (?)                                      P L Jarman

[Even Stormoen]

Not a slow reply at all. No worries 🙂

 

18 timer siden, Joanne Lillevold skrev:

Can Lillevolden be referred to as a seter? 

 

Whether or not Veslevollen could be regarded a «seter» in those days is hard to tell. I guess the writer was never there . . .

But at an altitude of approx. 700 meters I would say it’s possible. One of the ‹neighbours› is «Bokkholtsætra» btw. Clearly once a seter.

 

18 timer siden, Joanne Lillevold skrev:

I have the document where Ole Nielsen was convicted, and he was charged with illegal logging on public land, in addition to the incest, but I thought they concluded he had the right to the logs., so he was only convicted of incest.

 

Appearently, he who wrote the «Fangeprotokoll» did some ‹sloppy research›. The sentence was one year, and he was aquitted for the timber he used for building. Yes. But – the Fangeprotokoll is also referring to a verdict in the supreme court (dec. 5. 1856) where six months are added for the wood used in the furnaces. So there seems to have been a second trial.

 

18 timer siden, Joanne Lillevold skrev:

I think you can add any preposition to the end of here, there, or where, but most are more common in legal writing than ordinary English.

 

Thank you!

 

18 timer siden, Joanne Lillevold skrev:

Maybe you would like to start with my poor-quality English translation, and fix things?

 

Concerning your translation: Much better than I could have done, legal terms and all. I can’t see how I could possibly improve it.

Really impressive. 🙂

 

 

Just a couple of minor ‹pickings›, though: «Legemlig Omgang» is more than just «physical contact». Arcaic and ‹legal› language, but the meaning is intercourse. And, in this context pleiede (in «pleiede utugtig omgang») is not used to have or in the habit of (even if the same word also has that meaning, and he undoubtedly had that habit 😉 – here it’s more like nurturing. And «utugtig» is an adjective made of utukt – fornication. Impossible (for me) to translate. Maybe «lewd intercourse»?

 

The above is an excellent example why a translation by me would be just terrible. I would have explained it to death . . .

 

All the best

Endret September 26, 2022 av Even Stormoen

[Joanne Lillevold]

Mange takk, Even, you make good points about Lillevolden/Veslevollen and seter: the man at the prison in Oslo didn’t visit Espedalen, and a neighboring farm has seter in its name.

Thank you for pointing out about the 5 Dec 1856 trial and the supreme court.  I don’t have a document about that, so I didn’t know that part.  If he took wood from public land to sell to the nickel works, that’s less justifiable than for building on his own property.  Does it appear to you that he served 18 months, ending 8 Nov 1857?  18 months earlier would be 8 May 1856, which is still more than a year after his original sentence, 29 Dec 1854.

Thank you for your comments on my “poor-quality English translation.”  I have no legal education, but I worked for a law office for eight years, mostly preparing legal documents.  Looking closely, being picky, and correcting me was what I hoped you would do, so those corrections and comments are very welcome.

Ellipses (…) indicate holes in my translations.  The first one is that I had no translation for “Hvorda!” (“Where then”? “How then”?)  As with English, I assume Norwegian legal language is more formal and archaic than everyday Norwegian.  That clearly isn’t an important word, probably meaning: pay attention (?).

Here are those holes in my translation:

1N: Hvad den Tiltalte Ole Nielsen Huskelien angaaer imputerede Tyveforbrydelse angaaer, da bestaar samme i at han har aavirket endel Tømmer

1E: What the defendant Ole Nielsen Huskelien … the crime of theft concerns, … that he has logged some timber

2N: Referenten har antaget det utvivlsomt, at Tiltalte Ole Nielsen maa blive at fælde for det under Sagen

2E: The reporter has assumed it without doubt that Defendant Ole Nielsen … under the case

3N: skulde have begaaet Tyverier kan formentlig dog ikke antages

3E: should have committed thefts can … nevertheless not be assumed

4N: da ingen saaledes skjærpende Omstændigheder i saa Henseende ere tilstæde saa antages det at Tiltalte derfor maa blive at ansee med den af de i dette Lovsted først nævnte Straferet

4E: when no such aggravating circumstances in this regard … first-mentioned punishment

5N: men da heller ingen særdeles graverende Omstændigheder for hendes Vedkommende ere forhaanden, saa maa den for hendes Forbrydelse i begge de anførte Lovsteder først nævnte Straferet nemlig Fængelse paa hende blive at anvende og Straffetiden antages passende at kunde ansættes til

5E: but, when neither any special aggravating circumstances for her part … for her crime in both the alleged …, the first-named punishment, namely imprisonment on her be that ...., and the punishment time presumed appropriate …

6N: af ham forøvede Arbeide har givet det Offentlige tilstrekkelig Grund til at lade hans Forhold i saa Henseende undersøge

6E: He … has given the public sufficient reason to investigate his relationship …

7N: af dem begge i Fællesskab forøvet Forbrydelse

7E: of them both in the crime committed …

8N: Ole Nielsen Huskelien aktioneres for Tyveriforbrydelse

8E: Ole Nielsen Huskelien … for the crime of theft

9N: Omkostningerne for det optagne og under Sagen fremlagte Forhør

9E: costs of the … submitted case

I hope I have copied the same passages in each language.

I don’t want to sound like I am giving you an assignment you must do.  I don’t think you noticed my ellipses.  This is what is left unfinished in this translation.

Mange takk for any further help you might wish to do.

 

[Even Stormoen]

Rolling up sleeves . . .

 

 

Hvorda! – You're right about paying attention, but also ‹Then-happened-the-following:›

 

1: angaaer imputerede Tyveforbrydelse angaaer – the first angaaer (concerns) has a dotted line underneath, meaning ‹erased› – iow. a mistake. They did it this way to make it clear what was erased. Imputere is ‹unjust/unfair accused for›, ‹to blame›, ‹alleged-ish›.

da bestaaer samme i – litt. «then the same (the forementioned alleged crime) consists of . . .»

So something like – «concerning the defendandt Ole N Hs alleged crime, this consists of logging some timber . . .»

 

2: Referenten –  «the reporter» seems to me to be more than just a clerk referring the case. Probably the judge himself.

maa blive at fælde for det under Sagen omhandlede – «must be convicted of the referred (to during the case/trial) Aavirke» – «lumbering(?)»

 

3: formentlig – «probably/presumably»

 

4: ere tilstede saa antages det at Tiltalte derfor maa blive at ansee med den af de i dette Lovsted først nevnte Straferet –

Very loosely – «are present, it is assumed that the defendant therefore must be considered sentenced according to the in this paragraph first-mentioned punishment.» [Puuhh . . .]

 

5: [OMG this is a squiggly, arcaic norwegian sentence . . .] – «but, when neither any special aggravating cirumstances for her part are present, then the for her crime mentioned punishment in both referred paragraphs as number one, namely imprisonment, should be applied, and the penalty period considered appropiate to be determined (as?) 20 days . . .» [no idea if this makes any sense]

 

6 and 7 – I need to adress this part in its entirety:

 

. . . og ihvorvel han er antaget derved ikke at have gjort sig skyldig i egentlig Tyverie bør han dog tilpligtes at betale Forhørets Omkostninger

«and though he is assumed thereby not to have been guilty of actual theft, however, he must be ordered to pay the cost of the hearing as he knows it.»[?? can't spot that in the N text?]

da han ved det af ham forøvede Arbeide har givet det Offentlige tilstrekkelig Grund til at lade hans Forhold i saa Henseende undersøge

 

– det af ham forøvede arbeide – «the labour committed by him has given . . .»

– Forhold is «Relationship». But here (again) in a broader sense (and in plural) – circumstances, conduct – ‹everything concerning him›.

 

men Sagens øvrige Omkostninger maa de Tiltalte blive at tilpligte in solidum at udrede efterdi Sagen angaaer en af dem begge i Fællesskab forøvet Forbrydelse, og forsaavidt Ole Nielsen under Sagen tillige har været aktioneret for Tyveriforbrydelse ere ingen særskildte eller forøgede Omkostninger derved forvoldte.

The whole sentence has been somewhat ‹deformed› in translation. 😉 :

«costs of the case must be borne by the defendants in solidarity with the fact that the case involves one of them both in the crime committed … and provided Ole Nielsen with the case also has been the crime of theft, no separate or increased cost thereby caused.»

 

– In Solidum – is that «in solidarity»? The meaning is they are ‹both responsible for paying the costs›.

 

– Fællesskab is «community», but i fellesskap (modern spelling) is «together» – ‹a crime committed by both of them›

 

So I would suggest something like:

«. . . in solidarity(?), as the case involves a crime committed by both of them together and provided Ole Nielsen during this case also has been prosecuted for the crime of theft, no separate or increased costs are thereby caused.»

 

8: aktioneres – Hmm, strange word but in this context maybe ‹will be convicted for›? [there will be taken actions against him]

 

9: «costs of the performed/recorded and during/under the case presented hearing.» (forhør = litt. – «interrogation», but . . .) »

 

Your ellipses were noted, but because the lines of the transcription as well as the translation are not corresponding to each other nor to those in the original, (not numbered) its hard to ‹navigate› between the three of them. So I took ‹the easy way out› the first time. Today however, I got more time at hand. 😉

 

Hope this helps 🙂

Endret September 27, 2022 av Even Stormoen

[Joanne Lillevold]

Even, tusen takk for all your help.  I will need some time to digest all of your comments and look at the text again.  I never compared the transcribed Norwegian to the handwritten original, because I found the original really hard to read.

 

Where you say that you can’t spot the N text that I translate as “as he knows it,” the N was “han dog tilpligtes at betale Forhørets Omkostninger da han ved det,” which I translated as “he must be ordered to pay the cost of the hearing as he knows it.”  I may get some words completely wrong.  I only studied one year of Norwegian.  Of course, that was bokmål, a dialect I never encounter in my genealogical research.

 

Where you say, “2: Referenten –  «the reporter» seems to me to be more than just a clerk referring the case. Probably the judge himself.”  I have found this:

“The court officers at this time were the county governor (amtmand), responsible for prosecutions in addition to administrative duties; bailiff (fogd); sheriff (lensmann); and a ‘reporter’ (referent), who was responsible for a detailed preparation of the trial and who served as a combination of prosecutor and defense counsel.  At this time, trials were inquisitorial rather than adversarial, and there was no jury.  Defendants who could afford defense attorneys were allowed to hire them.”  I think that was my wording, but from: History and Power in the Study of Law: New Directions in Legal Anthropology, edited by June Starr and Jane F. Collier (Cornell University Press, 1989), chapter “Law and Social Change in Nineteenth-Century Norway” by Vilhelm Aubert, page 75.

Beyond that, I need to study your comments before I comment further, but I am very grateful for your all help.  You see how much I would have gotten wrong without your help.  Mange takk!

Joanne

 

[Even Stormoen]

På 28.9.2022 den 2.03, Joanne Lillevold skrev:

the N was “han dog tilpligtes at betale Forhørets Omkostninger da han ved det,” which I translated as “he must be ordered to pay the cost of the hearing as he knows it.”

 

Oh, I see! Funny mistake (funny for a norwegian) – da han ved det. «as he knows it.» Isolated the sentence is correct. Ved is  «knows» (vet, modern spelling). Ved can also mean «firewood». But here it is «by»!

In the sentence: . . . bør han dog tilpligtes å betale Forhørets Omkostninger da han ved det af ham forøvede Arbeide har givet det offentlige tilstrækkelig Grund . . . – there ought to EDIT: from two to one «o's»! have been a comma after Omkostninger – apprx. « . . .should he [Another edit: he should] however be ordered to pay the costs of the hearing, because he by the work comitted by him has given the public sufficient reason . . .»

(Maybe some more commas should be inserted in the english text?)

 

Thanks for the info on Referent. As I thought (and partly knew 😉

 

Reg.

Endret September 29, 2022 av Even Stormoen

[Joanne Lillevold]

Thanks again, Even. I suppose every language has words with multiple different meanings. I will work toward putting this all together, and see if I have any lingering questions.  You have been a huge help.  Tusen takk.  Joanne

[Even Stormoen]

På 28.9.2022 den 2.03, Joanne Lillevold skrev:

I will need some time to digest all of your comments and look at the text again. 

 

Well, I told you: Don’t get me started –  I’ll kill everything and everybody with my convoluted explanations. But – be my guest 😉

 

Reg.

[Joanne Lillevold]

Hi, Even, I like long, detailed explanations.  I’m kind of known for that also.

While I’m trying to incorporate the new translations into the full translation, let me ask you this question.  I have been translating Strafarbeide (“punishment work”?) as “imprisonment at hard labor.”  Is that right?  My 4^th cousin in Norway who sent me the court document guessed Ole would have served his sentence at the Slaveriet at Akershus.  I think I read that people could rent out the services of the prisoners for work, which (I think I read this somewhere) would mean they worked on a chain gang.  Now, that’s all wrong (for Ole N), but what was Ole’s labor like in the Tukthus and the Botsfengselet?  I haven’t thoroughly read the descriptions of those places, but I got the impression that the Tukthus might have started as a workhouse, and the Botsfengselet as a place for solitary repentance.  Do you have any guesses what Ole’s life was like in these two places?

Joanne

 

[Roy-Petter Askim]

Sent a PM with some information regarding later owners of Lillevolden, and also included information about work and living in Akershus, Tukthuset and Botsen. PM since it contains names of living people.

 

Endret September 30, 2022 av Roy-Petter Askim

[Roy-Petter Askim]

By the way, Ole borrowed money on the stepdaughters' part of Huskelien, mortification in 1880 see below. Øvre Lien separated from 240/1 on 17 Dec. 1991, number 240/8 named Øverlia, Huskelivegen 369.

 

Endret Oktober 1, 2022 av Roy-Petter Askim

[Joanne Lillevold]

Roy-Petter, thanks for the explanation of lille and vesle, and thanks for the 1880 document, but it leaves me confused.

I do sometimes find that I have things wrong, but Ole Nielsen went to America in 1870, along with the rest of their family still living in Norway.

Ole Nielsen’s wife, Ingri Torgersdatter Haugen, had six children by three different men: daughters Rønnaug (b. 1822) and Anne (b. 1824), with her first husband, Jacob Poulsen Huskelien, son of the family that owned Huskelien; after Ingri was widowed, a daughter Anne Hansdatter (b. 1829) with a man she didn’t marry; and then three children with her second husband, Ole Nielsen: Jacob (b. 1832), Marit (b. 1835), and Kari (b. 1841).  We can understand why Rønnaug and Anne Jacobsdatter would have an interest in Huskelien, through their father.

What happened to Anne Jacobsdatter, involved in incest with her stepfather, was a mystery until I solved it—unless I am wrong.  On 9 Jul 1856, a 72-year-old Anne Jacobsdatter who was a pauper died on Holten under Suleng in Sør-Fron, Oppland. 

https://media.digitalarkivet.no/en/view/8919/43460/29

If Anne Jacobsdatter were 32, this would make perfect sense, since the people living on Holten under Suleng were her half-sister Anne Hansdatter and her husband, Engebret Olsen Kjorstadeie (later known as Holten) and their three young children.  No Anne Jacobsdatter born around 1784 can be found in Fron on the 1801 census or early Fron confirmation records.  Those of us who studied this are about 90% certain that it was Anne Jacobsdatter Huskelien who died 9 Jul 1856.  Tell me if I have this wrong.

In 1870, 15 of my relatives came to America on the same voyage of the Kong Carl: seven from Lillevolden: Ole Nielsen, Ingri Torgersdatter, Marit Olsdatter and her three children, and Ole Nielsen’s illegitimate son; and eight from Smikop under Sylte: Rønnaug Jacobsdatter and her seven youngest children.

On the 1880 US census, I find Ole Nielsen living with his daughter Marit and her second husband.  Ingri died the same place in August 1879.

So either I have something wrong or they are still involved in legal matters in Norway 10 years after going to America.

I had thought, because Ole Nielsen was a husmann, that he wouldn’t have anything to do with property transactions or mortgages, but I admit not knowing much about these things.

Thank you much for this document, as it is very interesting.  I will make further attempts to read it.

Joanne

 

[Roy-Petter Askim]

They are to my knowledge not involved in legal matters when they left, only formal stuff to sort out. I have tried to find out when Anders Hansen Huskelien or his father got the ownership of Øvre Lien back, but not been able to do so. But when they got it back Lien had 2 loans with 1. priority security still registered on the deed, and that remained until 1880/1 when A. Huskelien got permission from the King to start a mortify process, therefore the advertisement and a few months later they were removed from the deed since no one came forward and demanded payment. They might have been repaid long before this and should normally then have been removed from the deed. Why he needed money is difficult to say; livestock/purchase of other property, refinancing? I cannot find anything on Anne Jacobsen. The age is often a bit off in the protocols, but this seems a bit extreme here. She could have moved outside Fron but living with her sister seems a convincing argument. These are some of the mortgage/deeds I found:                                                           

Just read in today’s paper that they have opened “Little Scandinavia” in a prison outside Philadelphia introducing our principles. Nice we can help them to improve the one we got from them. 😉https://www.vg.no/nyheter/utenriks/i/JQJB3R/lille-skandinavia-et-lite-stykke-norge-i-amerikansk-fengsel      

Just a few links to the Mortgages and Mortgage books summing up. I don’t think you need to translate, but I think it can be nice as a reference.                    

Lien:                                                                

mortgage registry                              https://media.digitalarkivet.no/view/13739/15                  Ingri and Ole on left side, loans on right side

m. book folio                432/457 1/2                 https://media.digitalarkivet.no/view/10125/18  Probably only interest and security described

=Deeds and mortgages                                      https://media.digitalarkivet.no/view/10125/44  Loan 2. Left side number 28.                                          

                                                                                                 

The Kings approval quoted                               https://media.digitalarkivet.no/view/10101/257  Mortification dated 19.10.1880 decided by King 18.01.1881 claims must be made at "Tinget" Nordre Fron in April 1881.

m. book 1881 folio 297                                     https://media.digitalarkivet.no/view/10101/297  At 03.05.1881: Judgement: Mortification of the loans. Just a conclusion to be remove from the deed.

Huskelien:                                                                    

To Anders Hansen Huskelien from his father who bought it 20 years earlier. 18.12.1858: s. 275                                                                                    

mortgage registry 1858.                                   https://media.digitalarkivet.no/view/13739/57  Left side, lower entry.

m. book folio                                                        https://media.digitalarkivet.no/view/10095/277  Øvre Huskelien Mentioned in the " Føderaadskontrakt" following the transfer to son A. Huskelien. Father moves there?

m. book 1881 folio 295                                     https://media.digitalarkivet.no/view/10101/296  A. Huskelien settles a claim from Merchant. Possibly after an execution on the farm.

Endret Oktober 2, 2022 av Roy-Petter Askim

[Joanne Lillevold]

Roy-Petter, thanks for the link to the prison article.  It’s especially funny that it’s near Philadelphia, where Norway and other places got a bad idea about prisons from.  I really like the name “Little Scandinavia.”  I hope the Norwegian idea will work better here.  I usually assume Norwegians are better at everything than Americans.

On Anne Jacobsdatter, on the 1865 census, her son lives with her mother and step-father, his father and grandmother, at Lillevolden, so it appears that Anne has died before then.  My 4^th-cousin in Nord-Fron who sent me the court document and I both guess that Anne Jacobsdatter was below normal intelligence, since she was the only one of her mother’s six children not confirmed.  That may be why she was called a pauper at age 32.

Is the Mortifikationsstevning document you sent me from a newspaper? It has that look.

I have downloaded all eight of the documents you gave me links to.  I am very impressed with your ability to find these documents.  I have not yet explored property records in the digitalarkivet.  I will try to get acquainted with these sometime, as there are other ancestral farms I might want to look for.

Tusen takk!

Joanne

 

[Roy-Petter Askim]

Sorry, the internet connection broke down yesterday. The document is a clip from a newspaper. The National Library have a huge searchable collection. I should have posted the link.  The search I made is "Ole Huskelien"~1 (includes those with one middle name). It returned 3 newspapers and one book but only one newspaper was our Ole Huskelien. The ~1 can be expanded further ~2,3,4..... Searching for "øvre huskelien" gave 1 book, one newspaper and one report. Clip below from the report, the newspaper reappeared, the book gave nothing.

https://www.nb.no/items/36cbee78f9efa87e2bdfb77eed48bbf0?page=1&searchText=%22ole%20huskelien%22~1  

https://www.nb.no/search?q="øvre huskelien"~1

 

Number one is the "buemerke" belonging to Øvre Huskelien according to 1902 report from The Past Memorial Association. "Fuglefod"-Birdfoot and second from Thune. Both found on a barn from 1847.

 

I found a 3rd book with Huskelien, and on the right side you will find Ole and Ingri. In addition to the 2 loans a "føderaadsbrev" to Paul Gulbrandsen 3. June 1834, registered 24. September 18??. Folio 561. Last column states dead 1880, folio 185?. Folio 186 says long time dead. P.G. is mentioned at Huskelien already 1816 in "Silver tax (tax to establish Norges Bank)" Brother of Jacob the owner of Huskelien Jacob G. who sells to his son Bersvend.
Maybe the conditions in "føderaadsbrevet" could reveal something. It seems to mention 50 spd. In the last line, coresponding to one of Oles loans. My understanding was that Ole's stepdaughter lived at Huskelien in 1854 and Ole probably moved around 1846 when he built at Lillevolden. Huskelien in the birth record identify where she came from. Confirmation says Hansen Espedal, bithplace Huskelien. In 1854 she is already "lægdslem" - pauper. Unfortunately, protocols on poor in Nord-Fron only cover 1832-1843. Vistad, Asmundstad (baptize witness for Jacob) is in Kvikne parish.

 

The 3td book                                  

https://media.digitalarkivet.no/view/13739/57                  Right side, low on the side, Ole's loan, "Føderaadsbrev" Mortgage with reference were to find them. 

 

Føderaadsbrev                               

https://media.digitalarkivet.no/view/10125/147                 I can't reed this writing, but seems to be a  list of conditions. I'm questioning if they remained at Huskelien between 1834-1846. 

Death of the "Føderaads people"                                      

https://media.digitalarkivet.no/view/10101/187                  Not on 185, but 186 no. 49-52 regarding føderaad declares all of them long time dead.

 

Olsenhaugen,.Huskelien 1854-88                                     

https://media.digitalarkivet.no/view/13741/64                  Anders bought this back in 1873 from Maert? Hansdatter for 30 spd +føderaad 5-6 år=18 Spd. 

 

Maybe Even could help with a transcription on the Eøderaadsbrev, the second link?  

 

 

Endret Oktober 4, 2022 av Roy-Petter Askim

[Joanne Lillevold]

Hi Roy-Petter, I only have time for a quick reply today.  Thank you again for all kinds of interesting things.  For when they moved from Huskelien to Lillevolden, I only had church events to go by (confirmations, baptisms, marriages). I have two books about Espedalen and the nickel works, but I can't read them very well.  One says that Lillevolden and the two nearby farms were built as lodging for nickel workers.  That would be interesting to me if Ole Nielsen had moved there as early as 1846.  But some of the family stayed at Huskelien longer?  I wish I knew if Ole Nielsen or his son with his wife, Jacob Olsen (b. 1832), my great-grandfather, worked at the nickel works.

I will study your new information.  Mange takk.  Joanne