Full resolution (JPEG) - On this page / på denna sida - Sidor ...
<< prev. page << föreg. sida << >> nästa sida >> next page >>
Below is the raw OCR text
from the above scanned image.
Do you see an error? Proofread the page now!
Här nedan syns maskintolkade texten från faksimilbilden ovan.
Ser du något fel? Korrekturläs sidan nu!
This page has never been proofread. / Denna sida har aldrig korrekturlästs.
Doc. 132.] 379
SWEDENBORG’S LAWSUITS.
50
himself and Brita Behm . * And, in the second place, Brita
Behm, 5 and her son -in -law, Johan Rosenadler,61 the Coun
cillor of Chancery, probably exasperated against the heirs of
De Behm, on account of their appeal to the courts ofjustice
to ensure an immediate division of De Behm’s property, did
everything in their power to worry and disgust Emanuel
Swedenborg, who was one of the heirs. This they did by
encouraging the manager of their interests at the works to
annoy the manager of Swedenborg’s interests, and finally by
denying to Swedenborg the right of a joint use of the furnace
with themselves. To protect himself against the aggression
of Brita Behm , Swedenborg was compelled to bring his case
before the College of Mines, and to have it adjusted there.
This case engaged the attention of the College from Nov. 9,
1724 to March 1, 1725, when it was decided in favour of
Swedenborg. The acts of this law -suit were discovered by
the editor in the archives of the College of Mines in 1869,
and carefully copied under his superintendence. The inter
esting portions in these acts are the charges and counter
charges which were respectively written by Brita Behm and
Emanuel Swedenborg. The former based all the grounds of
her action on the incompatibility of the temper of Swedenborg’s
manager, Lindbohm, which made it impossible for her manager,
Wahlström, to associate with him. Swedenborg, however,
showed in his answer to Brita’s paper that she entirely lost
sight of the point at issue, viz. that he had the right of a
joint use of the furnace with herself, of which right she sought
to deprive him, by inveighing against the private character of
his manager. As it is deemed unnecessary and undesirable
to place on permanent record a dispute on such a compara
tively trifling matter, we refrain from reproducing either
Swedenborg’s or Brita Behm’s papers, limiting ourselves to a
general statement of the nature of the case.
Another difficulty between Swedenborg and Brita Behm
arose at the division of the mining estate, of which Sweden
borg owned one-fifth , and Brita Behm four-fifths: The bulk of
the estate had been divided to their mutual satisfaction, when
.
* See Document 112.
<< prev. page << föreg. sida << >> nästa sida >> next page >>
