Extraordinary Session Held in Fort OrangeJuly 15, 1660
Present:
Sander LeendersenJan VerbeeckFrans BaerentsenEvert Jansen Wendel
Johannes La Montagne, in his capacity as officer, plaintiff, against Poulis Jansen, defendant.The plaintiff complains and says that the defendant, contrary to the latest ordinance, has ventured to go as a broker into the woods and to attract the Indians with beavers.The defendant admits having been in the woods, but claims that he went there to fetch blueberries.The honorable court adjourns the case until the next court day.
Idem plaintiff, against Rutger Jacobsen, defendant.The plaintiff says and complains that the defendant, contrary to the latest ordinance, has ventured to send his servant into the woods and to employ him as a broker to attract the Indians with their beavers, according to the report of the four magistrates who were authorized thereto.The defendant denies it.The honorable court adjourns the case to the next court day.
Johannes la Montagne, in his capacity as officer, plaintiff, againstDefault. Willem Jansen Schut and Anderies Herper[ sen ], defendants.
Idem plaintiff, against Harmen Vedder, defendant.The plaintiff says and complains that the defendant, contrary to the latest ordinance, has ventured to go into the woods to get Indians with beavers.The defendant admits that he has been in the woods, but not with the intention of getting Indians with beavers.The honorable court orders the defendant to declare the next court day under oath that he has not been in the woods with such intention.
Idem plaintiff, against Willem Brouwer, defendant.The plaintiff says and complains that the defendant, contrary to the latest ordinance, has sent his servant into the woods and employed him there as a broker to get Indians with their beavers.The defendant says that he sent his servant into the woods because Rutger Jacobsen told him at the house of Jurriaen Teunesen that he had been at the officer’s house, who said that he did not wish to have anything to do with the matter. Also, that the defendant’s wife again went to the house of Rutger Jacobsen and asked whether going into the woods was permissible? He answered, “I have already sent my servant into the woods. You can do as you like. Go to the officer and find out.” He says further that he did not send his servant to get Indians, but only to see where his two Indian brokers were.The plaintiff persists in his demand and maintains that the defendant’s excuse is not valid and that Rutger Jacobsen had no authority to give him permission contrary to the ordinance of the honorable court. As to the final excuse, that he sent his servant into the woods to look for the Indian brokers, he requests that the defendant purge himself under oath and that, in case of refusal, he be condemned according to the ordinance, for the sake of expediting justice, as provided by the statutes of the city of Amsterdam.The honorable court grants the defendant time until the next court day to purge himself under oath.
Idem plaintiff, against Cornelis Fijnhoudt, the servant of Marcelis,[1] defendant.The plaintiff complains and says that the defendant has ventured to go into the woods, or has been sent there by his master, to get Indians.The defendant admits having been in the woods, but says that he was not sent by his master to get Indians, but only to look for hogs.
Idem plaintiff, against Marcelis Jansen, defendant.The plaintiff says that the defendant, contrary to the latest ordinance, has ventured to send his servant into the woods to get Indians with beavers.The defendant denies that he sent his servant into the woods for such a purpose, but only to see if the servants of Rutger Jacobsen, Anderies Herpertsen, and Philip Pietersen were in the woods, and, on finding them, to report the same at once. He offers to make oath thereon and to prove it.The honorable court accepts the offer of the defendant to produce proof on the next court day.
Idem plaintiff, against Pieter van Alen, defendant.The plaintiff says that the defendant sent Daniel Jansen into the woods and employed him as a broker to get Indians with beavers.The defendant has under oath purged himself of the offense.
Idem plaintiff, against Philip Pietersen, defendant.The plaintiff says that the defendant, contrary to the latest ordinance, has ventured to send his servant, Jacob Loockermans, into the woods and to employ him as a broker to get Indians with beavers.The defendant denies that he sent his servant into the woods for such a purpose, but [ says that he sent him ] only to see what sort of Dutchmen were in the woods and what they did there. Not finding any, he was to come back immediately. He offers to prove this.The honorable court orders the defendant to prove his statements on the next court day.
Idem plaintiff, against Adriaen Jansen van Leyden, defendant.The plaintiff says that the defendant, contrary to the latest ordinance, has sent his servant into the woods and has employed him as a broker to get Indians with beavers.The defendant admits it, but declares that he did not know but that everyone was free to go into the woods as the servants of Rutger Jacobsen, Anderies Herpertsen, and Philip Pietersen openly went into the woods.The plaintiff persists in his demands and maintains that the defendant’s excuse is not valid, as [ permission ] was not published or posted and that one should not sin on account of the example of others.The honorable court, taking the excuse of the defendant into consideration, adjourns the case to the next court day.
