This is the handwritten version of the sentence by the "Høyesterret" (Supreme Court) on 23 April 1841. The first part of the transcription (through line 8) should not be considered reliable; it is my own guesswork. The rest is by Else B. Rustad of the Norway Genealogical Society. Below the image, Else's transcription is translated to English by Berit Carlsen.
9: a) The night between 30-31 March (1840) at the small place Rudlandshaugen
10: where she went with the other accused in lower court, where they
11: removed the window of the [entryway?] beside the house, and the accused
12: entered the [entryway], and from there to the living room where she took a few pieces of clothing
13: plus some butter and flour, etc. belonging to the 1st offended. The thievery was done
14: at night and by break-in, but the buiilding was unoccupied and --------
15: the accused found it out before the break-in [ ? ], when they saw that
16: the house was locked. The stolen things are returned to the owner.
17: b) The same persons went two nights later to the farm Skougen
18: or farms, where they broke in to a stabur by
19: breaking the lock to the upper part of the same and then the floor to the
20: lower part. Here they took some food belonging to the 2nd offended, some other
p.2
1: foodstuffs belonging to 3rd offended and some linen thread belonging to the 4th. Compensation for
2: that which has been returned is [cancelled?]
3: c) The accused, with Kari Olsdatter one time before at the farm Skougen
4: broke locks to two main buildings, where they took [approx. 5 gallons]
5: of potatoes, cured herring, and some potatoes plus a bottle. All valued at 40 [shillings].
6: In neither of these buildings were there any people during the thievery.
7: Of the crime there is no question.
8: Not considering that the thieveries are performed at night and in occupied houses,
9: they are not considered qualified, and therefore [by agreement?]
10: that the accused, is judged after [ statute 1 I Fs. 1789] and one must on the one
11: side consider the way the thieveries were performed, her
12: boldness and bad reputation, but on the other side one must consider her
13: poverty; in all, I consider her punishment of 8 months prison
14: to be suitable.
15: As far as the lawyer has [brought attention to = argued that?] the other thieves
16: should have been brought in, which probably would have been correct and
17: [careful?], but I also believe that the lower court can be defended for
18: not [doing that], because the order refers to
19: The [investigation? Interrogation?].
20: No [pardon? Lessening?] of the degree of punishment.
21: Conclusion
22: [the lower court] sentence should by power stand. Payment to
23: The lawyer - - - Andresen [should pay??] the accused 12 [dollars].
24: 2nd Lawyer Larson: [I] Agree, but believe that her compatriots should have been imprisoned.