SWEDISH JURISPRUDENCE. 345 



within the Skall-plats, and is accidentally killed, for which 

 no one would be responsible. I have during twenty-five 

 years known Svensson, and looked upon him and that 

 with good reason as a skilful bear hunter. What, there- 

 fore, could have induced him to act contrary to a direct 

 command, and to commit so great an imprudence, is to me 

 incomprehensible. That Mr. Lloyd, who always had very 

 great confidence in his old and well-tried forest friend, never 

 could have supposed, or even have thought it possible, that 

 Svensson was gone into the Ring, and especially to that 

 part of it where he himself had said the bear must be, is 

 clear and manifest as it also is, that Mr. Lloyd never 

 could have supposed it possible to meet a human being in 

 a wilderness, a (Swedish) mile from a dwelling; and con- 

 sequently could not but take a dark, stooping, and moving 

 object for the bear, which was said to be lying there. These 

 my opinions and convictions T will strengthen with my oath 

 when required." 



Subjoined is the decision of the Harads-Ratt, dated 18th 

 of March, 1835, respecting this unhappy affair. 



" Whereas, from what the witnesses Elg and Atter have 

 jointly deposed to on oath, it appears that they, in company 

 with Lloyd and Svensson, proceeded on the 15th of last 

 January, in the forenoon, to a part of the forest situated 

 between Tyngberget and Nasan, in the parish of Malung, 

 to shoot a ringed bear ; that Svensson was stationed by 

 Lloyd at some little distance to the east of the Ring, where 

 he was strictly ordered to remain until he heard shouts or 

 a shot, when he was to slip Lloyd's dog, which he had with 

 him in couplings. Lloyd, Elg, and Atter then entered the 



