Research

Series:

Scanned Document:

On April [ 19 anno ] 1646, New Amsterdam

Oloff Stevensen, plaintiff, vs. Everardus Bogardus, defendant. Bogardus produces two witnesses against Oloff Stevensen in the case of slander.

The fiscal, plaintiff, vs. Borger Jorisen, defendant, alleging that the defendant tapped without having paid the excise on beer. Ordered that the fiscal prove in eight days that Borger tapped beer. As to the road which has been made in front of his door, he [ the defendant ] must rail or fence it off, so that no persons can fall into [ the water ] and see to it that there be a good wagon road.

Willem Goulder, plaintiff, vs. Tomas Gridj, defendant. 1st default.

On April 26, 1646

The fiscal, plaintiff, vs. Borger Jorisen, defendant, because the defendant tapped beer at his house and sold it by the can without having paid the excise.

Having seen the fiscal's complaint against Borger Jorisen on account of smuggled beer which he tapped at his house, retailed by the can and sold at eight stivers the vaen;^[1] the defendant's confession that he and some company drank three halfbarrels in his house which had not been entered and that he retailed in his house four vanen by the can, and that he is not willing to swear that he did not sell any more beer for money without having entered it; all of which tends to the prejudice of the Company; therefore, we condemn the defendant, as we do hereby, to pay a fine of fl. 25, for such benefit as may be proper; and if he commit a similar offense again, said Borger shall forfeit fl. 300.

The fiscal, plaintiff, vs. Maria de Truy, defendant, for having tapped to the Indians contrary to the ordinance. Ordered that the fiscal prove his charge.

Willem Gouder, plaintiff, vs. Tomas Gridj, defendant.

1st default.

The answer having been read of Domine Bogardus, sent by the messenger on the 26th of April, wherein, as in his preceding [ answer ], he persists [ in his charges ], with many idle threatening words, it is ordered that the case shall be decided on the available documents, etc.

Oloff Stevensen, plaintiff, vs. Everardus Bogardus, minister, defendant, who sent a written answer by the messenger. Whereas Domine Bogardus says that he has still other things to say against Oloff Stevensen, it is ordered that he, the defendant, shall personally appear on the next court day and present his charges with the evidence in support thereof, in default whereof the defendant shall be debarred from all exceptions and judgment shall be given on the basis of the available documents. Furthermore, the plaintiff shall show cause why the evidence should be rejected.

Notes

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.