Research

Series:

Scanned Document:

On the 7th of August 1642

Tomas Willet, plaintiff, vs. Dirck Cornelisz, defendant. Default

On the 14th of August

Tomas Seyl, plaintiff, vs. Goetman Lengh, defendant. It is ordered that if Tomas Seyl furnish security to the owner to release the defendant the plaintiff's claim shall be paid.

Tomas Willet, plaintiff, vs. Dirck Cornelisz from Wensveen, defendant, for slander. Dirck Cornelisz declares that he has nothing to say that in any way reflects upon the plaintiff. It is ordered that the defendant shall at his discretion put something in the box for the poor,

Tymen Jansen, defendant, vs. Dirck Corsen, plaintiff. The defendant denies that Doctor Ses was paid until he is shown better and further proof for, in the first place, the plaintiff according to the power of attorney which he had from the defendant ought to have exerted himself to procure from the heirs of Dr. Ses surrender of the latter's power of attorney or in default of payment to attach his property.

In the second plave the plaintiff ought to have an authentic and formal certificate signed by the commander and council there, written by the secretary, in which the commander and council certify that the men have acknowledged under oath before them that they paid Dr. Ses for the plaintiff by virtue of a power of attorney which Dr. Ses had from the defendant.

In the third place, the promise of restitution of the money is not absolute, but coupled with the condition that the cattle must be delivered to the defendant, with which condition the plaintiff was satisfied.

In the fourth place, the defendant entertains great suspicion as regards all the assertions, as the plaintiff several times put him off with lies, which the defendant can prove, for instance, that in the presence of various people he has said that the plaintiff was not aware that Dr. Ses in Virginia had been paid and satisfied on his account.

The defendant is condemned to pay, provided the plaintiff furnish a perfect affidavit or receipt from the late Dr. Ses that he paid him by virtue of a power of attorney from the defendant and that the plaintiff produce satisfactory proof that he made every effort to demand payment from the heirs of the late Dr. Ses, according to the power of attorney granted him for that purpose by the defendant. And the defendant is ordered to furnish security.

On the 21st of August 1642

Steven Harpele, plaintiff, vs. Cosyn Gerritsz, defendant. Plaintiff demands payment of the wages earned by him. The defendant acknowledges the debt and promises to pay fl. 20 within eight days, which the defendant is ordered to carry out. He is also to pay the costs.

Jan Jacobsz Carpenel, plaintiff, vs. Jan Jacobsz, defendant. Default.

On the 28th of August

Cornelio vender Hoykens, fiscal, plaintiff, vs. Uldrlch Lupolt, defendant, for breaking the Company's seal with which his chest at his house was sealed and taking away the money that was in it.

Lupolt declares that the seal was not broken by him nor by anyone for him, nor that he has advised anyone to do so. It is ordered that the defendant and his wife shall confirm under oath that they have not broken said seals and that it happened without their knowledge. Which they have confirmed by oath

References

Translation: Scott, K., & Stryker-Rodda, K. (Ed.). New York Historical Manuscripts: Dutch, Vol. 4, Council Minutes, 1638-1649 (A. Van Laer, Trans.). Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co., Inc.: 1974.A complete copy of this publication is available on the New Netherland Institute website.