Document: Judgment in case of appeal of Paulus van der Beecq vs. Hans Petersen

Poulis vander Beecq, petitioner of writ of summons in a case of appeal, against Hans Pietersz, defendant. The petitioner having found himself injured, submits his written complaint and conclusion; also appeared the scholtus of the respective court of Breuckelen in order, according to the writ of summons, to confirm the judgment by the aforesaid court. Therefore, the high council (except for the honorable general) having reviewed the papers submitted by the respective parties to the aforesaid court, and having referred further to the request and conclusion of the petitioner and the confirmation and assertions of the schout, the aforesaid honorable lords high councilors perceive that the judgment pronounced by the court of Breuckelen last January 20th in favor of Hans Pietersz was poorly adjudicated and appropriately appealed; especially as Hans Pietersz says as plaintiff in the judgment that he had left his masters’ service because his master, Poulis Verbeecq, would have given him his passport, which the defendant has denied; whereupon the court passed judgment without having investigated the plaintiffs testimony. As a result the aforesaid Hans Pietersz [ ] [ ] the aforesaid [ ] discharged or given a passport [ ] [ ] the fiscal was ordered [ ] as an example [ ] willful servants, to take the aforesaid Hans Pietersz into custody and make him pay the fine according to the ordinance. Thus done at the session of the honorable lords high councilors (except for the honorable lord general) held in Amsterdam in New Netherland, ady ut supra. Was signed: Nicasius de Sille, La Montagne.