On Thursday, being the 7th of April anno 1639
Jan Cornelissen from Rotterdam, plaintiff, vs. Anthony Jansen from Salee, defendant, for slander. Plaintiff demands vindication of his honor as the defendant can not prove what he has said to the prejudice of the plaintiff.
Wybrant Pietersen, plaintiff, vs. Anthony Jansen from Salee, defendant, for slander. Plaintiff demands that the defendant prove that his books are false as he produced them before the director and council. Defendant answers that he can not prove it.
Gerreken Hessels, plaintiff, vs. Anthony Jansen from Salee, defendant. Plaintiff demands payment of a kid which the defendant owes him for wages. Defendant answers that he delivered the kid to the plaintiff, but that it died. Plaintiff, replying, says that the defendant wanted to deliver to him a kid which was lying sick on a pillow near the fire and which he never received, being ready to confirm the same by oath. The plaintiff has taken the oath before the director and council and the defendant is condemned to deliver the kid to the plaintiff.
Having seen the complaint of Ulrich Lupolt against Anthony Jansen from Salee and Grietjen Reyniers, his wife, in regard to their comportment and conduct, as appears from the affidavits, to wit: Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16, namely, that on the ship she pulled the shirts of some sailors out of their breeches and in her house measured the male member of three sailors on a broomstick; also, that during her confinement she asked the midwife, Whom does the child resemble, Anthony or Hudden? Furthermore, that she even went so far as to call out in the fort, I have long enough been the whore of the nobility, now I want to be the rabble's whore; and whereas Anthony Jansen heretofore has pointed a loaded pistol at the foreman, Jacob Stoffelsen, and be as well as she have committed various other offenses, according to the affidavits examined here, and daily make new and unheard of trouble, speaking evil of every one, on account of all of which he requests that they may be punished and banished, in order that the few people here in New Netherland may live together in peace;
Therefore, [ the court ] having duly considered the said case, having: heard the parties and examined all the evidence and also taken into consideration that six months ago they were obliged to pray God, the court and the Reverend Bogardus for forgiveness, acknowledging that they had lied in what they had said about him, and promised expressly to conduct themselves quietly and piously as behooves Christians, and that notwithstanding this the said Anthony and Grietje have since that time been the cause of various troubles, especially on the 10th of March last past, when they came out of the consistory, being drunk, all of which are matters of serious consequence which to disturb and shock the few inhabitants here; therefore, we have condemned, as we do condemn hereby, the said Anthony Jansen from Salee and Grietjen Reyniers to depart from the jurisdiction of New Netherland within the space of six months and to remain banished forever, and in addition to pay the costs of the trial. Thus done and sentenced, the day and year above written, in council in Fort Amsterdam.
On the 28th of April, being Thursday
Davit Provoost, plaintiff, vs. Harman Dircksen, defendant. Plaintiff demands that the defendant declare for what reasons he left his service. The defendant answers that he was not treated well as to board. Provoost is condemned to pay the defendant for the service which he has rendered him here in this country. Defendant is condemned to pay the plaintiff the expenses incurred for him on the ship De Liefde and in Holland.
Abraham Page, plaintiff, vs. Tomas Bescher, defendant. Plaintiff demands payment of the 97 pounds of tobacco earned by working. Defendant acknowledges the debt and is condemned to pay the plaintiff 97 pounds of good tobacco from the next crop.
Philip de Truy, plaintiff, vs. Anthony Jansen from Salee, defendant. Plaintiff demands that the piece of land given him by the defendant be transferred to him. Plaintiff's request is denied.
Ulrich Lupoldt, fiscal, plaintiff, vs. Symen Huypot, defendant. The fiscal demands that the peltries which were seized be confiscated for the benefit of the Company and that the yacht and Lading be also forfeited as the means wherewith the defendant Intended to defraud the Company. The peltries are provisionally confiscated for the benefit of the Company and in regard to the further demand of the fiscal the defendant is granted a delay to submit his answer.
On the 5th of April, that is to say May, being Thursday 1639
D[ e ] Coninck, soldier, plaintiff, vs. Hans Steen, defendant, for slander. Parties ordered to appear next week to present their case in writing.
On the 19th of May 1639
Tomas Besoher, plaintiff, vs. Willem Willemsen, defendant for slander.
The defendant declares that In the beginning of last month of April, on a Sunday night, he saw the plaintiff sitting In a chair by the fire, being asleep, and Ritsert, the Irishman, lying with the wife of the plaintiff on the bed in which Bescher and his wife are in the habit of taking their night rest. Also, that he could see perfectly that the said Ritsert had carnal conversation with the plaintiff's wife, seeing also that the aforesaid wife dishonorably manipulated the male member of the aforesaid Irishman. Which aforesaid declaration the defendant confirmed by oath before the court of the honorable director and council.
Pieter Breyley, aged 22 years, from Mienjeert,[1] in Somersetscheer, declares as follows: That about a month or five weeks ago, on a Sunday night, at about 10 or 11 o'clock, while Bescher say in the chair and was asleep, one Ritsert Pitser,[2] an Irishman, lay on the bed of the said Tomes Bescher with the latter's wife and that they had carnal conversation with each other. Which aforesaid declaration Piter Breyley has confirmed by oath before the honorable director and council aforesaid.
Parties to appear on the next court day to make everything clear and to produce proper and further proof.
