Müller-Arnold case

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Müller-Arnold case is a legal case from the time of King Frederick II of Prussia , which exemplifies the problem of judicial independence.

Case description

The miller Arnold from Pommerzig im Oderbruch operated a water mill on a body of water flowing to the Oder ("river"). He was a leaseholder and so owed his lord Count Schmettau the hereditary interest, which he paid from the proceeds of the water mill.

One day, however, the district administrator of Gersdorff , who owned land upstream, built a carp pond . As a result, the (private) river (allegedly) only carried very little water, and the miller claimed that he could no longer run his business and no longer pay the hereditary interest to his master. In 1773, Count von Schmettau won a judgment against the miller from the patrimonial court (in which he himself was court lord). He then turned to the responsible court in Küstrin , which, however, confirmed the judgment. In 1778 the mill was foreclosed and Gersdorff bought it.

Müller Arnold wrote petitions to King Friedrich II, who later also heard him. Friedrich then ordered an investigation and finally gave instructions to allow the miller to file a claim for damages. However, the district court of Küstrin and the higher court also ruled against the miller in this regard.

Thereupon Frederick II had the judges of the Court of Appeal, the District Court of Küstrin and the Patrimonial Court arrested and locked up on the grounds that they had pronounced unjust judgments.

The king literally:

“The judicial collegia in all provinces may only have to act accordingly, and where they do not go straight through the judiciary without any respect for person or class, but put natural equity aside, they should do it with Sr. Get KM to do. Because a judicial college that practices injustices is more dangerous and worse than a gang of thieves, you can protect yourself from them, but from rogues who use the cloak of justice to carry out their evil passions, no one can guard against them . They are worse than the greatest rascals in the world and earn a double punishment. "

On December 18, 1779 the Prussian Minister of Justice Zedlitz received the instruction from the king:

"On the part of the Criminalcollegii these 3 people are spoken of according to the strictness of the law and at least recognized for cassation and vestry arrest, whereby I also immediately indicate that if this is not done with the utmost severity, you and the Criminalkollegium do so to do with me! "

The other judges at the Kammergericht refused to convict the arrested judge colleagues of the Kammergericht. Friedrich himself sentenced the judges to one year imprisonment in the Spandau Citadel and awarded the miller Arnold compensation for damages . The judges concerned were pardoned by the king on September 5, 1780 after serving two-thirds of their prison sentence.

The lawyers of the time in particular were shocked by what was seen as tyrannical interference with the judiciary. This ruling by the king was directed against the judiciary, which applied the applicable law in its judgments. Friedrich was therefore directed against his own enacted law and thus also against his high demands on the government. Note his “First Principle of Our General Court Constitution” from 1772: “We or our budget ministry do not give a decision if we have the force of a judicial sentence!”

As a result of this judicial scandal , the codification of general land law was pushed further and the role of the king in relation to the judiciary was reconsidered in Prussia. The procedure of the miller Arnold has been described as the beginning of judicial independence, but this was only realized 70 years later on January 31, 1850 with § 86 of the Prussian constitution . It was not necessarily a question of whether the miller was right in his allegations, but of whether the king was allowed to intervene.

Assessment and legend building

Whether the miller was actually right can no longer be clarified: There are some voices who believe that the king did not make a ruling here, but that the king helped the law to prevail against the arrogance of the judges of the time. Others, however, agree with the judge and criticize both the king's approach and the legends that emerged from the case .

Based on the Müller-Arnold case, this legend aims to demonstrate the goodness and justice of Frederick II towards his subjects. According to the biography of the seafarer and later Kolberg defender Joachim Nettelbeck , the case was known as far as Lisbon and Frederick II was celebrated internationally as a just ruler. The legend was erroneously linked to the Historic Mill of Sanssouci , although it was not a water mill , but a wind mill.

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ a b Malte Diesselhorst: The trials of the miller Arnold and the intervention of Frederick the Great . In: Göttingen legal studies . tape 129 . Verlag Otto Schartz & Co., Göttingen 1984, p. 21, 64 .
  2. ↑ Baumgart, Peter / Heinrich, Gerd: Protocol Friedricht of the Great from December 11th, 1779, taken up by the secret cabinet councilor, in: Acta Borussica: Monuments of the Prussian State Administration in the 18th Century . Ed .: Royal Academy of Sciences. 16/2: files from January 1778 to August 1786, no. 450 . Berlin 1982, p. 576 f .
  3. ↑ Uwe Wesel : History of the law . CH Beck, Munich, 3rd, revised and expanded edition 2006, ISBN 3-406-54716-8 , p. 412 f.
  4. ↑ Gerhard Prause : Nobody laughed at Columbus. Falsifications and legends of history corrected . dtv, Munich 1998.
  5. ↑ Joachim Nettelbeck: The seafarer Joachim Nettelbeck's most amazing life story. Hall 1821. ( Gutenberg project )

Cinematic reception

literature

  • Malte Dießelhorst: The trials of the miller Arnold and the intervention of Frederick the Great . Göttingen 1984.
  • Werner Frotscher , Bodo Pieroth : Verfassungsgeschichte , 16th edition, Munich 2017, marginal no. 140 ff.
  • David M. Luebke: Frederick the Great and the Celebrated Case of the Millers Arnold (1770-1779): A Reappraisal. In: Central European History 32/4 (1999): 379-408.