Appeal of Samuel Mahu of a judgment of the court of New Amsterdam in favor of Nicolas Booth

Scanned Document:

Petrus Stuyvesant, on behalf of their honorable High Mightinesses, the lords States general of the United Netherlands, and the honorable lords directors of the Chartered West India Company, chamber at Amsterdam, director general of N. Netherland, Curaçao, Bonaire, Aruba and dependencies thereof, together with the honorable lords councilors, have summoned hereto the court messenger, Claes van Elslant de Jonge, greetings.

Whereas Samuel Mahu has remonstrated to us by petition that he finds himself greatly injured by the judgment handed down by the honorable burgomasters and schepenen of this city dated 29 May, between him and Nicolaes Booth,[1] because Nicolaes Booth was permitted and allowed to collect 2460 pounds of tobacco in the Virginias (for which he is indebted to the aforesaid Mahu, as per balance), and then, at the risk of the aforesaid Mahu he was allowed ] not to freight it there until this coming October and bring it to this place, notwithstanding that the aforesaid Claes Booth himself confesses and admits to having already received the aforesaid tobacco. For this our assistance is requested.

Therefore, we order you to summon the aforesaid Nicolaes Booth to appear here before us in Fort Amsterdam next Tuesday, being the 9th of July,[2] or to send a deputy, to respond to any demands and rejoinders that the aforesaid Samuel Mahu shall make or effect against him, inviting those of the aforesaid court to appear or to send deputies on the day stated above (if it pleases them) in order to see us annul or confirm the aforesaid judgment; providing copies for use of the parties, and relating to us what you encounter.[3]

Last line(s) destroyed. ]


Mahu was suing Booth for delivery of tobacco in accordance with their contract. See Records of New Amsterdam, 2:394-95 (hereafter cited as RNA).
The date of this document is most likely July 2,1658.
The council upheld the decision of the court of New Amsterdam and denied Mahu’s appeal; see NYCM, 8:929.


Translation: Gehring, C., trans./ed., New Netherland Documents Series: Vol. 16, part 1, Laws and Writs of Appeal, 1647-1663 (Syracuse: 1991).A complete copy of this publication is available on the New Netherland Institute website.