Research

Series:

Scanned Document:

Interrogatories in which the notary, Abraham van Nas, Hendrick Kip, junior, Francois Cregier, Willem Cornelis Ryckenvryer and Foppe Jansz Outhout are questioned, 31 July 1662.^[1]

First.

Whether he, Abraham van Nas, on 7 June, last past, went to Jan Staelcop's house, at the request of the commissary, Willem Beeckman, to ask Cornelis Martense Factoor, Hendrick Kip, Francoys Criegier, Willem Cornelis and Foppe Jansz, who had just arrived from New Amstel, to come to the fort in order to attest to the truth of a certain matter?

To the first question: At Vice-Director Willhem Beeckman's request I served a summons on Cornelis Maertensz Factoor, Hendrick Kip, Francoys Cryger, Willhem Cornelis and Fop Jansz Outhout, at Jan Staelkip's house, to attest to the truth of a matter known to them, at the same time they arrived in Altena from the colony of New Amstel.

Hendrick Kip replies to the first question that it happened thus, to which he attests with his own signature.

Frans Kregier concurs therein with his signature.

Willem Ryckevnyer concurs therein as appears by his own signature.

Foppe Janssen replies that it happened thus and confirms it with his own signature.

Second.

Whether Commissary Beeckman invited them to an anker of wine?

To the second question: It is completely unknown to me whether they were invited to an anker of wine since I have heard nothing about it.

Hendrick Kip answers that this is false and confirms it with his own signature.

Frans Krigier says also that it is false and confirms it with his signature.

Willem Cornelissen agrees with Kip's statement as it appears by his signature.

Foppe Jansz also agrees that it is false and thus signs.

Third.

Whether Commissary Beeckman had made them drunk and then obtained declarations or testimony of matters which are false and untrue.

To the third question: None of them was drunk nor in the least deprived of their senses when the aforesaid deponents gave and completed their testimony; I also believe that they testified truthfully because they, the deponents, on the following day and also at other times thereafter, demonstrated this clearly by their sober words and reasoning while making the depositions. Therefore, if it is necessary, this reply is to be accepted as sufficient proof in court in order to counter such calumnies.

Abraham van Nas,
notary public

To the third question Hendrick Kip replies that he has attested truthfully without any inducement and without being in any way muddleheaded; to which he attests with his own signature. Done as above.

Hendrick Kip, junior

Francois Kriegier replies that he was unaware that any of the deponents were drunk while he was present and signed the deposition to which he attests with his own signature. Date as above.

Frans Crigier

Willem Ryckenvryer agrees with the reply of Hendrick Kip to which he attests with his own signature. Dated as above.

Willem Cornelisen Ryckenvryer

Foppe Jansz Outhout agrees with the above replies, to which he attests with his own signature. Dated as above.

Foppe Jansz Outhout

[ Addressed: ] Noble, Honorable, highly Esteemed, Wise and very Prudent Lord. My Lord Petrus Stuyvesant, Director-General of New Netherland, Curacao etc. Residing in Fort Amsterdam on Manhattan.

By an Indian.

Notes

References

Translation: Gehring, C. trans./ed., New York Historical Manuscripts: Dutch, Vols. 18-19, Delaware Papers: Dutch Period, 1648-1664 (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co., Inc.: 1981).A complete copy of this publication is available on the New Netherland Institute website.