Transcriptions » Recently generated summaries of recognized texts

On 14 July, Governor and Council of Suriname sent legal documents in the case of Unico Wilkens vs. David Cohen. The case was postponed so both parties could review the documents and proceed. On 15 September, Eijsch van de Bije concluded the case of A. J. Solak vs. Waeme der Hoogde and the Jewish Nation in Paramaribo. On 3 October, Polak's party was still pending. On 22 October, a mandate was issued for Claend. On 11 November, Andries van Lon concluded for Weedmrn's party to reply. On 11 December, Weesmen's party appealed. On 19 December, a conclusion was persisted for a reply in Polak's case and for a duplicate in Vors's case, considered completed. On 14 July, in the case of Isoek van Son and Kervel vs. J. Verschuur and others, a condemnation was based on an accord. On 17 July, Brouwer and Brugmans were referred to the Court of Justice in Brabant to plead an exception according to a dictum. On 20 November, Rytrabt issued a dictum, ending the case. On 23 July, Director and Council of Curaçao sent legal documents in the case of J. Nieman vs. Hogguer d Galz. The case was postponed. On 22 September, J. Nieman requested a default judgment. On 3 October, Rodrigues d'Acosta requested a purge of the default. On 30 October, Const concluded for a purge in Nieman's case. On 11 November, Eijsch van Son concluded for the party. On 11 December, Nieman's party appealed. On 23 July, Director and Council of Curaçao sent documents in the case of M. Kimmel Wede, Aalpieter vs. J. H. da Lannoij. The case was postponed. On 25 July, Governor and Council of Suriname sent documents in the case of de Lannoij vs. J. Mourques and Unico Wilkens. On 30 September, Eijsch van Son concluded. On 23 October, de Lannoij's party was still pending. On 31 October, Wede and Aalpieter were referred to the Court of Justice to form a dictum. On 22 September, J. Mourques requested a default judgment. On 11 November, de Lannoij requested a review. On 28 November, an act was served. On 5 December, Andries van Stenfort concluded for Aalpieter's party to reply. On 25 July, Hamilton and Meij requested a revision of L. Pents van den Hove's sentence from Suriname with relief and inhibition clauses. On 28 July, G. A. D. de Graaff vs. Willems had a second default judgment, annulling the Court of Suriname's sentence. On 14 August, Governor and Council of Suriname sent documents in the case of Dedel and Rocquatte vs. A. Donzel regarding the plantatie Vreedenburg. On 30 September, Eijsch van Kersel concluded in the case of Roequette and van de Poll. On 23 October, Rocquette's party was still pending. On 19 November, Uts's party was still pending. On 24 November, Andries van der Alphen and Dorszel concluded for a reply. On 1 December, Eijsch and Minima concluded in revision. On 22 December, Donzel's party appealed. On 30 September, Roequette and van de Poll vs. U. Wilkens had a second default judgment. On 10 September, N. H. M. Evertsz requested a revision of the Council of Curaçao's sentence. On 20 August, C. Stuijlingh requested an injunction against G. M. Ellis and C. Bergh. On 28 August, the Landsadvocate advised, and the mandate was issued. On 25 July, Governor and Council of Suriname sent documents in the case of A. Keisel vs. J. Beudt and Donzel vs. E. Wilkens. On 30 September, Eijsch van Hervel concluded. On 23 October, Ripsalden Geerke requested a default judgment. On 19 November, Albs's party was still pending, and Kasel's purge was considered completed. On 18 November, Eijsch van Son concluded in Kiesal's case. On 12 December, Kiesel's party appealed. On 29 July, Director and Council of Curaçao sent documents in the case of M. van der Meulen vs. Is. Gouverneur. On 30 September, Eijsch van Vlon concluded. On 23 October, Gouverneur's party was still pending. On 11 November, Uts and Estek annulled the sentence. On 18 November, Andries van Alphen concluded for Baart's party to reply. On 18 December, Baart's party appealed.

27 April 1785 and 28 April 1785:

• Her Lohman presided over the meeting in The Hague with representatives including van Haesten, van Randwyk, van Heeckeren van Kell, Pestevenon, Romswinckel, Kendorp, Raadpensionaris van Bleiswijk, and others from Holland, West Friesland, and Utrecht.
• A request was made to Her Hogguer to inform Secretary Ayres de Sa that Her Secretaris expected the discussions about the Portuguese Consul in Amsterdam to be resolved. It was emphasized that no special privileges should be granted to the Portuguese Consul that were not also given to other foreign consuls in similar circumstances.
• A letter from Secretary Lucius in Mainz reported that the Prince of the Lower Rhine Circle had received imperial requests similar to those sent to the Upper Rhine Circle. It was noted that further troop movements might not be avoidable.
• Reyndert van Randwyk was appointed as a council member in the Admiralty of West Friesland and the Noorderkwartier starting 1 May 1785.
• Evert Jan Eckhout, mayor of Zwolle, was appointed to the same Admiralty in place of H. W. Ravestein.
• A legal judgment involving Aaron Jacobs Polak (executor of the estate of Daniel Salomons van Rotterdam) and the Weesmeesters of the High German Jewish Nation in Paramaribo was upheld. The case concerned the estate of Eleasar de David Cohen.
• Approval was granted for a scholarship from the foundation of Peeter Peelmans to Aldert, son of Arnoldus van Caten, with conditions including proof of studies and age.
• A scholarship from the foundation of H. Buck was approved for Ferdinandus Hendricus, son of Johannes van der Linden, under similar conditions.
• A dispute in Schoondijke (in Land van den Vryen, Flanders) between the Burgomaster and Schepenen and the parishioners over the appointment of a receiver was discussed. The parishioners claimed the right to appoint their own receiver, while the Burgomaster and Schepenen maintained their traditional authority. The Council of Flanders had ordered mediation.

• Satien, Cneglio, Consul Ricardi, Civita Vecchia, and Fort Mahon reported nothing.
• In Modena, there were no judicial matters.
• Judicial documents included:
  • Advice from Lands Advocaaten and krancke regarding a case sent by N. Everts to the Fiscaal office in the matter of D. Salomon from Curacao; a compulsory order was granted to E. de David Cohen on 1770.
  • A request from N. Everts for clarification on taking over a condemnation by agreement between the Fiscaal office, Verschuur, Schimaltz, and Tourne.
  • Judicial documents in Curacao, totaling 390, with advice on a request from Statiering and a resolution of 656.
  • Conclusion of a response from Seewvel van Kervel, Procureur of Hluy, and Procureur van Wichers, totaling 513.
  • A request from D. Conlenie van Wichens for a reply, totaling 44.
  • Conclusion of a duplicate from van Son, totaling 90.
  • Conclusion of a response to a request from Taekert; a mandate was granted to Huigens, Procureur of Contini and F. P. Brugmans.
  • A 14th request from D. Contini for an order to C. H. Brouwer, referred to Huyling and Compe to be sent to the Raad van Braband.
  • A request from Baron van Belderbusch for a revision mandate, totaling 145.
  • A mission from the Raad van persistil for a reply from Kewvel and the Capittel van St. Servaas in Maastricht, totaling 122, and for a duplicate from Huigens.
  • A follow-up on Maastricht was considered completed, totaling 177.
• Commissaris and Deciseurs:
  • A request from H. Huyling etc., totaling 99.
  • An act of service for Kewvel by Prot Aquero for a court of justice, totaling 30.
  • A mission from the Hoogen Raad and the government of Curacao regarding process documents in the case of H. Ribbers, Cr. S. Hoelant, and others, totaling 491.
  • A request from H. Ribbers and H. H. de Lannoy, totaling 40.
  • A conclusion regarding a point of law in the case of van Son, Procureur, totaling 89.
  • A request from J. N. de Bruin and O. Obreen regarding de Lannoy, totaling 416.
  • A request from Ca. Deeken and others regarding the Lieve Vrouwe kerk in Cortrijk, totaling 343.
  • An act of service for a request from Wede. Halpeeter, totaling 94.
  • A request from H. H. de Sannoy and C. hem, totaling 1611.
  • A request from Procureur van Hoelands, totaling 3514, referred to the Hoogen Raad.
  • A conclusion of consent in the interest of forming a Deblum for the civil request of the Raad van Braband, totaling 605.
  • A conclusion of a declaratory judgment from Nederburg, Procureur of Ca, and meeren van Diclum regarding Stenfert, Propittel in Costryk, totaling 497.
  • A request from Thackeert, party of Son, Procureur of H. H. de Lannoy, by appointment, totaling 284.
  • A request from haekert for a default of answer and another mandate, totaling 391.

1778.

• On 30 July and 31 July, conclusions were drawn in the case involving Eijsch in reconvention and response in convention, and directors of the colony Suriname against Iaques Roux and des Loyes. These were recorded as R 274 and placed in the hands of the party.
• On 3 August, the conclusion of the request by Danel Changion against Jan Adam Charbon was recorded as 275 and placed in the hands of the party.
• The verdict of the High Council in case 275 between Eijsinck and William C. Fletcher was arrested. The missive of the chamber Zeeland dated 27 June regarding the English depredations taken over by Holland was recorded as 278.
• On 4 August, the conclusion of Joh. Fr. Crumme against de Nensoille and Sewolff was recorded as 277.5 and placed in the hands of the party.
• On the request of F. G. Eylink against the officer of the Exftoniten, Wilhem Fleskken, the officer of the Explricten, A. van Goot, was ordered to restitute the consigned route to the suppliant, recorded as 278. This concerns St. Eutatius.
• The conclusion of Eisch by Ferdinand Ia Hendrika van Nout, separated wife of Samuel van Rrijst in Suriname, against the same P. van Heijst was recorded as N° 273 and placed in the hands of the party.
• The report on the request of Jean Telij (see page 132), directors of Berbice, for the kissing of the double by Zeslems Latten, was recorded as 273. See also page 304, taken over by Maurits Londt and Pieter van Ter Muslen, granted permission to view copies, recorded as 282.
• Resolution (see pages 153 and 222) on the missive of the chamber Zeeland dated 17 July from Middelburg, containing a response to their High Mightinesses' resolution of 30 June regarding the state of the Ve= N° 283. Sent by Jer Dem (see page 231).
• On 26 August, the intention of the Council in Essequibo against the Lutheran preacher Sammd Echmids was annulled (see page 284, also 211 and 160).
• The report on this resolution or provincial advice of 27 August by Jan Holland (see page 253) regarding the diverse resolutions on pages 109 and 175 by Zeeland and Utrecht was taken over by the community, recorded as 286, and subsequently 504 plantations.
• On 7 September, the party of Hermanus Leonardus Bromet was ordered to provide documents, recorded as 232.
• The conclusion of Iaquet Roux, married to Elisabethe Maria Magdalna on 7 September, was placed in the hands of the party, recorded as N° 232.
• On 7 September, the conclusion of John Bermingham against P. van Schuijlenburg was placed in the hands of the party, recorded as 233.
• On 8 September, the party of Sebattiaan van Nooten Jansz was ordered to respond, recorded as 233.
• The party of Pieter Contraritijn Nobel was ordered to reply on 8 September, recorded as N° 294, under penalty of default.
• The party of Sch. Fr. Crumme was ordered to reply on 8 September, recorded as 236, under penalty of default.
• The copy of the answer in the case Gradis in Suriname was placed in the hands of Zichieen, recorded as 236, for the party to reply.
• On 31 August and September, the missive of the chamber Zeeland concerning the hostilities of the 8 English and what the captain of Ziet Pier de Velde, commanding the Paton in Rio Demerarij, did there, recorded as 237, was taken over by Holland.
• On 9 September, on the request of Daniil Salomons from Rotterdam, living in Amsterdam, the governor and council in Purmane were ordered to proceed in the case of the suppliant against Cleater de David Cohen on short notice, recorded as N° 298.

On 22 June 1765, goods including 8634946/8 lb of coffee beans, 1105 lb of cocoa, and 530 lb of cotton were sent. Heer Commendeur had previously issued a permit for Plantagie Purmerend and Kurcabo. Nothing happened on 23 June 1765. On 24 June 1765, the burger officer N. van sent three enslaved people (two men and one woman) from Clanlage Krawassibo to the fort. They belonged to Ducresot. In the afternoon, a severe thunderstorm struck. Lightning hit the house of Heer Cellier three times, damaging the top slightly. It also struck near the shed of Capt. Hildebrand Htuijgens, damaging the great mast but not severely. A chest of the crew caught fire but was quickly extinguished. Two sailors were struck by lightning but recovered. One sailor was hit on his right side, the ship's carpenter on the arm, and another in the cabin, breaking a small bowl in the middle with a round hole, but no serious harm was done. On 24 June 1765, Jean Clantear Piesers and J. Clanken Ptz, council in the Hof van Politie en Crimineele Justitie, died after a long illness. On 25 June 1765, nothing happened. On 26 June 1765, Capt. Pieter Baartz arrived with the ship De Weenard from Amsterdam. He received letters from Haar Edele Groot Achtbaare dated 3 April and 4 April, and a cash box with a silver vase. Also, a passenger list of 11 military recruits arrived: Salomon Cassagiers, Jacab Sanches, Abranam Jacob de Vries, his son Moses de Vries, Dogler frousje de Vries, and an enslaved person named Eruneiro and Eliazar David Cohen with his wife and son, a rabbi. Capt. Edward Jarvis arrived with the barks Benjamin and Sallij from Bosson, bringing 18 barrels in and out. The mailbag of Capteijn Arij Coors was closed and sent to Amsterdam. Passengers Cassagiers went with Capt. Ahij Poort, along with the widow Sfaber Anna van der Meij, Anna francina Boom, a mulatto youth, a soldier, and an enslaved woman. On 27 June 1765, Capt. Nicolaas Noordhof arrived with the ship D' America from Angola with 241 enslaved people. His honorable strictness was reported to Caramaribo. On 28 June 1765, a report from Vaendrig Hofwold stated that the Maroon Chilander had escaped in the Mappane creek. Patrols found nothing, so Het Hof van Politie was called to the Gouvernement. Sijn WelEdele Gestrenge announced the arrangement of the officers at the barricade. Commis J. Appius and the sous lieutenant took their oaths in the hands of his honorable strictness. His honorable strictness handed protested bills of exchange to the receiver of outgoing rights. On 29 June 1765, Jan fredrik Qnetse arrived with the ship De Maria Rhijnbrandina Agnes. Capt. J. Gressie and his helmsman swore to their cargo: 830 sugar, 124615 lb coffee beans, 3289 lb cocoa, and 10817 lb cotton. In the morning, a military execution took place. At 10 am, the war council judged Sous Sieus Kaaks at the Gouvernement, as noted on 14 June in the journal. On 30 June 1765, nothing happened. On 1 July 1765, a military inspection took place in front of heeren A. Nepoen and Roux. His honorable strictness announced to the corps of officers the complaints of Haar Edele Groot Achtbaare about the rumors of receiving goods in kind and discontent among the military, which they all denied as untrue. On 2 July 1765, the Hof van Civiele Justitie convened its ordinary session. Sijn WelEdele Gestrenge presided. A report from Capleijn Voel stated that the free Maroon Rama Conto from behind Auka was robbed by several military of their goods while traveling to Victoria. They were ambushed, and one was shot but escaped into the water. His honorable strictness ordered the surgeon major to treat the wounded Maroon Ponto and to carefully investigate the incident. Information was already being gathered. In the afternoon, the sale of enslaved people from Capt. Hendrik meester began, and the remaining were sold. Capteijn John Malbone arrived with the bark Princess Anna from Rhodijsland, bringing 40 horses in and 25 out.

After discussion, it was decided and understood to request the Council of State to issue an order for the benefit of the petitioner for such an amount as the Council of State, according to the Finance Department, would deem appropriate.

A. J. Polack presented the 49th petition of Aron Jacobs Polak, a merchant and orphan master of the High German Jewish Nation in Amsterdam, acting as executor of the estate of the Jewish Nation in Caramaribo and guardian of the minor heirs and administrator of the estate of the late Daniel Salomons van Rotterdam, who had also lived and died in Amsterdam. The petition stated that the petitioner, in his capacity, was forced to incur costs to appeal to Her High Mightiness as petitioner for a writ of revision with a clause of inhibition against the orphan masters of the High German Jewish Nation in Paramaribo, in the colony of Suriname, who managed the estate of the late Eliazar de David Cohen, who had lived and died in Paramaribo, the defendants in the aforementioned case.

In this matter, the petitioner, in his aforementioned capacity, had served a conclusion of demand, which by appointment on 22 October 1753 was placed in the hands of the party to respond within 14 days after notification. This notification was properly done on 13 October following. As the party failed to respond to the petitioner's aforementioned conclusion of demand, the petitioner had requested and obtained on 3 October 1733 an appointment from Her High Mightiness, ordering the party to still respond within 14 days after notification under penalty of default, which notification was done on 7 October following, as could be seen from the attachments submitted with the aforementioned petition.

The party still failed to comply with the aforementioned appointment. Therefore, the petitioner requested Her High Mightiness to declare the party or their proxy in default of responding to the petitioner's aforementioned conclusion of demand and, for the benefit of this, to annul the sentence of the Court of Civil Justice of the Colony of Suriname dated 27 April 1730 in question, admit the petitioner to submit a raw intent and grant another writ to have it verified, with the possibility of purging within 14 days after notification.

After discussion, it was decided and understood that the party or their proxy would be considered in default of responding to the petitioner's aforementioned conclusion of demand and, for the benefit of this, the sentence of the Court of Civil Justice of the Colony of Suriname dated 27 April 1750 in question would be annulled. The petitioner was admitted to submit a raw intent and another writ was granted to have it verified, with the possibility of purging within 14 days after notification of this decision.

The Lords of Lynden van Hemmen and the other Her High Mightiness' deputies for the investigation of the failed expedition to Brest for the affairs of the sea, in accordance with and in execution of their commission resolution of 20 of this month, having examined the successively received resolutions from the Lords States of the respective provinces on the report of 1 July of this year, presented to the assembly of Her High Mightiness, concerning the non-execution of the orders to send ships of the line to Brest, reported to the assembly that they, the deputies, considering that some difference appeared in the aforementioned resolutions, which, however, did not seem to their Lords Commissioners to be of such importance that the investigation of this matter should be postponed or delayed. Considering the necessity that with common consultation a decision on this important point should be made, they would advise that, in conformity with the resolution of the Lords States of Holland and West Friesland of 7 February of this year, presented to the assembly of Her High Mightiness on 10 following, the investigation according to the content of the aforementioned resolution should be instituted. This investigation would concern the existence of the fact, namely whether the ships destined for the aforementioned expedition had been provided with the necessary supplies or not, and if not, who had caused the deficiency. This would be done by hearing or reporting from the officers concerned in a political and extrajudicial manner. However, the investigation should be conducted according to the usual practice by two lords from Holland and one from each of the other provinces, to be appointed by or on behalf of the provinces for this purpose from the midst of the assembly of Her High Mightiness. These lords should then also handle the affairs without delay, continue without interruption, and not be hindered by others, so that no delay or obstruction would be caused to this matter, but it would be completed as quickly as possible.

• After discussion, it was decided that the default would be considered purged, but the effect remains and the defendants must pay the costs.
• The response conclusion from Matthys Hendrik van Son Hendkz, as proxy for the orphan masters of the Hoogduitsche Toodsche Natie in Paramaribo, Suriname, managing the estate of the late Eleasar de David Cohen, was reviewed. The case involves Aron Jacobs Polak, a merchant in Amsterdam, executor of the will of the late Daniel Salomong van Rotterdam and guardian of his minor heirs. It was decided that the parties would receive the documents to reply within 3 weeks of notification. Signed by J. Gouverneur on 11 November.
• A request from Isaac Gouverneur of Curaçao was read, stating he had to sustain another legal process before the court as the plaintiff in a revision mandate with an inhibition clause against Michiel van der Meulen of Curaçao. On 23 October, he obtained an appointment requiring the defendant to respond within 14 days of notification, which was served on 28 October. As the defendant had not responded, the plaintiff requested a default judgment, annulment of the Curaçao Council’s sentence dated 8 September 1770, permission to submit an intent, and a new mandate to verify it within 14 days of notification. The court decided in favor of the plaintiff, granting his requests.
• The response conclusion from Matthys Hendrik van Son Hendkz, as proxy for Achim Nieman of Amsterdam, plaintiff in a revision mandate against Itaac Haim Rodriques da Costa of Curaçao, was reviewed. It was decided that the defendant would receive the documents to respond within 3 weeks of notification.
• A request from Jan Hendrik de Lannoij of Curaçao was read, stating he had to sustain a legal process as the plaintiff in a revision mandate with inhibition and relief clauses against Margaretha Kemmel (widow of Michiel Halpeeter and later of Johan Godfried Scholtz), mother and guardian of her minor daughter Anne Isabella Alpeeter. On 23 October, he obtained an appointment requiring the defendant to respond within 14 days of notification, which was served on 28 October. As the defendant had not responded, the plaintiff requested a default judgment, annulment of the Curaçao Council’s sentence dated 10 April 1778, permission to submit an intent, and a new mandate to verify it within 14 days of notification. The court decided in favor of the plaintiff, granting his requests.

On 11 December 1783, Joachim Nieman, living in Amsterdam, requested that Isaac Haim Rodrigues da Costa, living on the island of Curaçao, be ordered to respond to his conclusion of demand within 3 weeks after notification. The notification had been served on 15 November 1783, but da Costa had not yet responded. The court decided to order da Costa to respond within 3 weeks after notification, under penalty of default.

On the same day, the guardians of the High German Jewish nation in Paramaribo, in the colony of Suriname, managing the estate of the late I. Polak, requested that Eleazar de David Cohen, deceased in Paramaribo, be ordered to reply to their conclusion of answer within 3 weeks after notification. The notification had been served on 15 November 1753, but Cohen had not yet replied. The court decided to order the party to reply within 3 weeks after notification, under penalty of default.

Also on 11 December 1783, the court decided that the case between Jan Hendrik de Lannoy, living in Curaçao, and Margareta Kemmel, widow of Michiel Alpeter and later of Johan Godfried Scholtz, living in Curaçao, be considered as fulfilled and that the parties should proceed according to the style.

On the same day, Baron van Belderbusch, a knight of the Teutonic Order and land commander of the Bailiwick of den Ouden Biesen, requested permission to obtain copies of the requests and enclosures presented to the court by J. W. Erberfeld and M. Cambiaso on 25 August 1783 and 17 October 1783. The court granted permission to Belderbusch to obtain these copies at the court's registry.

Additionally, Hubertus Coerman, former fiscal and later member of the Great Council of the island of Curaçao, and Gerard Striddels requested permission to obtain copies of the same requests and enclosures. The court granted them permission to obtain these copies at the court's registry.

On 9 December 1799, the representatives of the province of Friesland presented a resolution from the States of Friesland to the States General. This resolution addressed a request from shipowners and participants in ships sailing to the colony of Suriname.

The request, originally submitted on 20 June 1781 by the Council of State, sought payment for armed ships destined for the colonies in the West Indies, particularly Suriname. The States General had previously resolved on 4 November 1799 to urge the deficient provinces to pay their contributions to the General Office of the Union for this purpose.

The States of Friesland decided to support this resolution. They instructed their delegates to the States General to demand a list of the armed ships that had sailed to Suriname in accordance with the report of 14 June. This list would help determine if the allocated sum of 1,200,000 guilders was sufficient for the promised rewards.

Regarding the costs and actual damages caused by the detention of the petitioners' ships on the Suriname River, the States of Friesland reserved the right to deliberate further once more information was received.

Additionally, on 992, a legal case involving Cornelis Thierry de Bye, prosecutor of the German Jewish Nation in Paramaribo, and Matthij Hendrik van son Hlendre, prosecutor of the Weesmeesteren der Hoogduitsche Joodsche Natie in Paramaribo, was considered. The case involved the estate of the late Daniel Salomons van Rotterdam and Eleazar de David Cohen. The court decided to hold the case as settled and ordered the parties to proceed according to the law.

On 12 November 1784, the States of Overmaas requested authorization from their High Mightinesses to borrow money if necessary, pledging their loyalty and promising to contribute personally to the common cause. Their request was reviewed, and copies were sent to Randwijk and other deputies for examination, with a report to be made to the assembly.

On the same day, a petition from Aron Jacobs Polak, a merchant and orphan master in Amsterdam, was read. He acted as executor for Daniel Salomons and guardian for his minor heir, seeking a court order to revisit the inventory of Eleazar de David Cohen’s estate in Paramaribo, Suriname. The case involved the German Jewish Nation’s orphan masters. The request was granted, and the case was referred to the High Council of Holland for a ruling.

The deputies of Holland and West Friesland presented a resolution from the States of Holland, approving an increase in the military by 5 companies of artillery and a light troop corps led by the Rhinegrave of Salm. They stipulated that after hostilities with the Emperor ended, troops would be reduced accordingly. They also requested the inclusion of the 11th Article of the contract with the Rhinegrave and amendments to the 15th Article.

On 11 November 1784, the States of Holland and West Friesland deliberated on a letter from the States General, dated 30 October and 2 November, proposing a military augmentation of 1010 horses and 10828 soldiers, costing 1,928,961 guilders and 7 stivers, to be funded by tax revenues of 4,153,691 guilders. The proposal aimed to address an impending threat and was supported by His Highness and the Council of State.

An article stated that prisoners of war would be exchanged within 6 weeks, starting from the exchange of the ratifications of the preliminaries. To end the unfortunate situation of officers released on their word of honor but unable to serve, and prisoners still imprisoned, a request was sent to the commissioners in England. The commissioners responded that they were ready to free 663 prisoners in Winchester and 42 in Hull as soon as ships arrived in Southampton and Hull to transport them. They also ordered 22 prisoners in Kensale to be sent back on an English vessel and promised to send certificates for the officers' release with the next post.

A request was made to His High Mightiness to ask His Serene Highness Prince of Orange and Nassau to send 2 or 3 frigates to these places to fetch and bring back the prisoners. On 3 October, it was decided to send a copy of the letter and enclosure to His Highness Prince of Orange and Nassau and request him to issue the necessary orders.

On 3 October, a petition from H. J. Polack (also known as Aron Jacobs Polak), a merchant living in Amsterdam and executor of the will of the late Daniel Salomons van Rotterdam, was read. As guardian of Daniel Salomons' minor heir and administrator of his estate, Polack had to sustain a legal process before Their High Mightinesses as petitioner for a revision mandate with an inhibition clause. The defendants were the orphan masters of the High German Jewish Nation in Paramaribo, Suriname, who managed the estate of the late Eleasar de David Cohen. In this case, a conclusion of law had been served on behalf of Polack, and by order of Their High Mightinesses dated 15 September 1783, it was placed in the hands of the parties to respond within 14 days after notification. The notification was duly served on 13 September, but the defendants or their prosecutor failed to comply. Polack requested that Their High Mightinesses order the defendants or their prosecutor to respond within 14 days after notification, under penalty of default.

It was decided to order the parties, by appointment, to still respond within 14 days, under penalty of default.

The deputies of the province of Gelderland presented and read the resolution of the States of Gelderland at the meeting of Their High Mightinesses, giving their principal consent to the further petition of the Council of State for the sum of 50,000 guilders to relieve the Dutch prisoners of war in England.

On 3 October, an extract from the recess of the Landdag held extraordinarily in Zutphen in September 1783 was read. On 24 September 1783, a report from the Committee to the Generality was heard, stating that on 15 September, a letter from the Advocate Fiscal of the Admiralty College in Amsterdam was received. It stated that the money destined for the relief of the Dutch prisoners of war in England, of which the direction was demanded from him, was sufficiently absorbed. He flattered himself that if Their High Mightinesses would put him in a position to dispose of an additional sum of 50,000 guilders, the further treatment could be completed. The petition formed by the Council of State was examined, and on 23 September, it was received at the meeting of Their High Mightinesses. After deliberation, Their Noble Mightinesses decided to authorize their Committee at the meeting of Their High Mightinesses to concur with the further allies in the aforementioned petition.

18 January 1779: The court parties against parties. The secretary was ordered to send copies of the documents with the skippers and ships appointed by Mandamenten to Haar Hoog Mogende. Present, the Lords Monday 18 January 1779. G: Klijnlens, A: Arland. J. Baak, N: J: Halloij as the oldest member of the table presented a resolution from Haar Hoog Mogende E: benard De Heeren staaten Generaal der verEenigde Neederlanden dated 9 September 1778, containing a copy of a request from Daniel Salomons van Rotterdam, residing in Amsterdam, to Haar Hoog Mogende presented, containing a resolution to proceed shortly in the procedure of Rotterdam against Eliazer de David Cohen. This resolution was read and accepted with due respect for notification, to proceed shortly when the case arises. Also, Frans Augustus Taijspil: Jansz presented a resolution from Haar Hoog Mogende dated 22 August 1777, containing a copy of a request to Haar Hoog Mogende by F: Paijspil Jansz:, M:r I: D: Farret, Corive, Deweduwe Iohannes De Witt, Hendrik Lubelij, Nicolaas Rietveld, Pieter Bolten, Pieter de Mortier, A: F: Stumphius, D: Semeins van Bunnevest, I: A: Creijghton, A: W: De Bruine, and Leever en de Bruine, jointly interested in a mortgage deed of 58,000 guilders on the plantation Hoffwijk in this colony by Christiaan Kreps and Anna Maria Gijselaar dated 1 March 1772. The resolution and letters of prescription were to obtain a short and prompt expedition of justice and, in case of defeat, to prevent the sale of the plantation pending revision by Haar Hoog Mogende. This resolution was read and accepted with due respect for notification. 13 January 1779: The accounting of the sequesters over the plantations Hohensteijn and Visschershulp was approved, and the sequesters were discharged. 20 January 1774: The sequesters were discharged from their sequestration and the provision of 900 guilders was approved. Present, the Lords Wednesday 20 January 1779. C: klijnhen, Is geleezen Memorie van P: I: De Raineras, A: Arland, J: Baak, A, J: Halloi containing that during his time as a member of the court, he had the pleasure of presenting a pendulum or clock to P: van Akenen, P: Gomarns, which is still in the possession of J:s M. oehlers, with a request to return the pendulum to F: I: De Raineras or leave it to the court. It was decided to order the castelian to return the pendulum to F: S: De Raineval and thank him for its use. Thursday

On 12 November 1784, the States ordered that a decree be announced and posted publicly in all necessary places in the United Provinces. They instructed the Admiralty Councils, Fiscal Advocates, Generality Commissioners, and all other officials to enforce the decree strictly against violators, without any leniency.

On 12 November 1734, the States sent legal documents to the High Council of Holland for a case involving Aron Jacobs Plak, a merchant from Amsterdam. He acted as executor for the estate of Daniel Salomons from Rotterdam and as guardian for Salomons’ minor heir. The case involved a dispute with the Trustees of the High German Jewish Nation in Paramaribo, Suriname, over the estate of Eliazar de David Cohen. The States requested the Court of Justice to hear the case and issue a final judgment.

On 15 November 1781, the States sent a copy of a letter from the Mayor and Aldermen of Sluis, Waterreet, and Nieuwmuiden to His Highness, along with their resolution on the matter.

On 15 November 1754, the States sent their resolution to the Admiralty on the Meuse regarding a request from the Mayor and Aldermen of Sluis, Waterreet, and Nieuwmuiden.

On 15 November 1784, the States sent a resolution to the Admiralty in Zeeland concerning the free export of goods belonging to Prince of Nassau Weilburg.

On 15 November 1784, the States wrote to the Extraordinary Envoy van Lijnden in London based on a letter from the Mayor and Aldermen of Sluis, Waterreet, and Nieuwmuiden.

On 15 November 1784, the States responded to a letter from Commissioner Paschal Grenfell in Plymouth, dated 2 October 1784, and sent their resolution.

On 15 November 1784, the States replied to a letter from Commissioner Grenfell in Plymouth, dated 28 October 1784, with their resolution.

On 25 February 1778, Eliater David Cohen appeared before Johannes Adolph van Claveren, sworn clerk of the colony of Suriname, its rivers and districts. He handed over four handwritten and signed documents, requesting they be sealed in seven places: four corners with his seal and three middle spots with the clerk's seal. He declared these documents contained his last will and testament, wishing it to be followed and valid as a testament or codicil, despite any missing formalities. Witnesses Jacobus Dieulefit and Paul David Isaac Peneux were present in Paramaribo. The document was registered on 25 February 1778.

On 4 March 1778, Robijn de Para, a free person of color, appeared before Johannes Adolph van Claveren in Paramaribo. Though ill, he was fully capable of testifying. He submitted a handwritten and signed document, requesting it be sealed in seven places: four corners with his seal and three middle spots with the clerk's seal. He declared it his last will and testament, valid as such or as a codicil, despite any missing formalities. Witnesses Jacobus Dieulefit and Gerhardus Marinus Peneux were present. The document was registered on 6 March 1778.

On 25 February 1778, Eliater David Cohen appeared before Johannes Adolph van Claveren, sworn clerk of the colony of Suriname, Rivieren & Districten. He handed over a document, which he stated was his handwritten and signed will. He requested it to be sealed in 7 places: 4 corners with his seal and 3 middle places with the clerk's seal. He declared it to be his last will and testament, wishing it to be executed as such, despite any missing formalities. Witnesses were Jacobus Dieuleffit and Paul David Isaac Peneux. On 25 February 1778, Willem Carel Visscher, sworn clerk, confirmed the document's authenticity. On 4 March 1778, Robijn de Para, a free person of color, appeared before Johannes Adolph van Claveren. He handed over a document, which he stated was his handwritten and signed will. He requested it to be sealed in 7 places: 4 corners with his seal and 3 middle places with the clerk's seal. He declared it to be his last will and testament, wishing it to be executed as such, despite any missing formalities. Witnesses were Jacobus Dieuleffit and Gerhardus Marinus Peneux. On 6 March 1778, Van Claveren confirmed the document's authenticity.

• It was decided to order Hiedburghausen to fulfill the claim for capital and interest to the petitioner. A copy of the request would be sent to Grave van Degenselen, the Extraordinary Envoy and Plenipotentiary of Her Majesty at the court of Her Imperial Majesty, urging him to use his influence to ensure prompt justice for the petitioner against Hertog van Vlildburghausen.
• On 9 September 1728, the request of Daniel Salomons from Rotterdam, living in Amsterdam, was read. He had to sue Eliazar de Daire David Cohen in Suriname, but delays in legal proceedings and Cohen’s financial decline prevented a final decision. Salomons requested that Her Highness order the Court of Civil Justice in Suriname to expedite the case between him (or his representatives Joseph Jacobt Sobate and Unico Wilkens) and Cohen, with a 14-day deadline for proceedings.
• A copy of the request would be sent to the Governor and Council of the Court of Civil Justice in Suriname, instructing them to expedite the case between Salomons’ representatives and Cohen.
• The request of Petrus van Slype, a doctor from Maastricht, was read. Due to the vacant position of a judge (Schepen) in the High Court of Vroenhove in Maastricht, he requested to be appointed. It was decided to grant him the position, with a commission to be issued and the oath to be taken before the High Sheriff or Deputy in Maastricht.
• The request of the orphan masters of Curaçao was read. They were defending a legal case against Ouderlingen en Diaconen (Elders and Deacons) on 8 September 1728.

The commissioners received a reply stating that they were ready to release 663 prisoners in Winchester and 42 in Sluis once ships arrived in Southampton and Sluis to take them. They had also ordered the 22 prisoners in Kinsale to be sent in an English vessel. They promised to send certificates of the officers' discharge with the next post. A request was made to send two or three frigates to these places to fetch the prisoners. It was decided to send a copy of this letter and its enclosure to His Highness Prince of Orange and Nassau and to request him to issue the necessary orders.

Aron Jacobs Polak, a merchant from Amsterdam, acting as executor of the estate of the late Daniel Salomons from Rotterdam and guardian of his minor heirs, had to initiate legal proceedings before the High Mightinesses. He requested a revision mandate with an inhibition clause against the orphan masters of the High German Jewish Nation in Paramaribo, Suriname, who managed the estate of the late Eleasar de David Cohen. On 15 September 1783, a deadline was set for the defendants to respond within 14 days after notification, which occurred on 18 September 1783. As the defendants failed to respond, Polak requested that they be ordered to do so within 14 days under penalty of default. It was decided to order the defendants to respond within 14 days after notification under penalty of default.

On 3 October 1783, the deputies of Gelderland and Overijssel presented a resolution from their principals, the States of Gelderland, consenting to an additional petition from the Council of State for 50,000 guilders to support Dutch prisoners of war in England. It was decided to send a copy of this resolution to the Council of State for their information. The deputies of the provinces that had not yet declared their position were requested to obtain the consent of their principals and present it at the assembly.

On 9 September 1781, the following was read at the meeting:

• The representatives received a letter from Commandeur P:s van Schuijlenburg which included a copy of a request by some inhabitants of Demerara. The request detailed the insolence of the English privateers, which disrupted trade with neighboring islands and lands. This trade was essential for obtaining provisions and necessities for both whites and slaves. The privateers also hindered communication between Essequibo and Demerara, effectively blocking the rivers. The representatives from the provinces of Holland, West Friesland, and Zeeland decided to make copies of the letter and its enclosures to share more widely.
• A request from Daniel Palomons Van Rotterdam, residing in Amsterdam, was read. He was forced to take legal action against Eliazar de David Cohen, residing in Suriname, before the Governor and Council of Suriname. Due to Cohen's illness and the slow legal procedures in Suriname, the case was delayed year after year. Palomons feared that he would not receive what was rightfully his due to Cohen's absence and the confusion of his estate. He requested that the Court of Civil Justice in the colony of Suriname be ordered to expedite the procedures. It was decided to send a copy of the request to the Governor and Council of the Court of Civil Justice in Suriname and to order the procedures between Palomons or his representative in Suriname, Unico Wilkens or his substitute, and Eliazar de David Cohen to be expedited with short deadlines of 14 days.
• A request from the orphan masters of the island of Curaçao was read. They were forced to defend a legal case before the High Court as defendants by a mandate of revision with a relief clause. The case was against the preacher, elders, and deacons making up the church council of Curaçao. In this case, the orphan masters had already submitted acts and documents, but the other party had failed to do so. They requested that the other party be ordered to submit their acts and documents within 14 days under penalty of default. It was decided to order the other party to submit their acts and documents within 14 days under penalty of default.

• Seger and Schioter: Act of transport and mortgage with willing condemnation for J. H. Werth en Compt on 6.
• C. Samson and H. Schoute for Nannette Samson: Act of mortgage with willing condemnation for W.H. Poppelman on 20 and for Beeseen van Huyvesant on 205.
• F. Scheffer and J.L.: Act of surety for J.G. Neitrsch and act of acquittance for L. A. Thomas on 338.
• De Honnet and Weed. I. A.: Act of convention and transport with willing condemnation with E. Valois on 87.
• D Saffin and Frans: Act of surety for Reysiger en Jode Compthe on 1221.
• Nes Stolling and Ph: Act of surety for the same on 40, for J. C. Ochters on 124, and for Stolling en Barlon on 137, 290, 495.
• Enck. Seewich and O.F.: Estate sealed on 143 and unsealed on 148 for M. Htolkert.
• P:C Ven Huyser: Act of mortgage with willing condemnation for du Plessis en Taunai on 230.
• EnSchneider and C. F: Act of convention with willing condemnation with his creditors on 281.
• Soomers, T.W. and A.C.: Act of deliberation about the estate of J C Somen on 334 and act of repudiation of the same estate on 499.
• Soomers and Weed. I.C.: Act of deliberation about the aforementioned estate on 340.
• VICH Ruyter and Ju.: Act of surety for N. de Kruyt, and the estate of Beudeker, Bragil Nn Boesmang, Zadok, and Beeltje Norden; act of acquittance for Eliaser Za David Cohen on 527.
• Vilk No59 and Thomas Chargaetha born Bourquion: Act of liberation about the estate of the widow of Croonen on 49.
• Wal Sallans and Jacob: Estate sealed on 372 and unsealed on 382.
• Jallans and Weed. P. geb. Bley: Act of deliberation about the estate of haarmans on 3849 and act of repudiation of the estate of her mother on 460.
• Tovies and Crffen. van Joseph Hanicas: Act of repudiation of his estate on 425, 285, 583.
• Crici and I. F.: Act of surety for the same on 5313.
• P. so Pincke and Alb. Hend:r: Act of mortgage with willing condemnation for Jan Speten on 29, 122.
• ineke and A.A.: Act of surety for J.H. Tueffert on 40.
• Sereule prive en qq N.I.: Act of copy of sea claim against the widow D. Fermane, for Montel on 124, 293.
• Sac: alois and P. en Huysvrouw: Act of mortgage with willing condemnation for Valsceneer en du Luevne; act of transport and convention with willing condemnation with the widow J. A Sconnet on 18.
• Wichers and J. S.: Act of sale and purchase with D. M. C. Baeza; act of surety for the fiscal office and for the widow Marcus Iacobs on 527.
• Vilkens and U.: Act of surety for I. H. Sielfart and for I. Nepveu on 4.
• Wirth and C. H: Act of surety for C. J Seger.
• Walrave Couise Berigne en Andie Joseph: Act of deliberation about the estate of the widow Helgers on 32.
• Walraven and Wed. M. IA: Act of deliberation.

Representatives requested that Prince of Orange and Nassau send 2 or 3 frigates to Hampton and Hull to retrieve 22 prisoners from Kensale and bring them back.

Aron Jacobs Polak, a merchant from Amsterdam, acting as executor of the will of Daniel Salomons from Rotterdam and guardian of his minor heirs, had a legal case. He requested that the defendants, the orphan masters of the High German Jewish Nation in Paramaribo, Suriname, respond within 14 days. The court ordered the defendants to respond within 14 days or face default.

On 24 September 1783, a report was heard that funds for Dutch prisoners of war in England were insufficient. The Advocate Fiscal of the College at the Admiralty in Amsterdam requested an additional 50,000 guilders. On 3 October 1783, the States of Gelderland consented to this request.

On 20 April 1780, the court in the colony of Suriname ruled in a case between Aron Jacobs Polak, executor of the will of Daniel Salomons from Rotterdam and guardian of his minor heir, and the orphan masters of the High German Jewish nation in Paramaribo, managing the estate of the late Eleazar de David Cohen. The court found in favor of the orphan masters. The States General of the Dutch Republic reviewed the case and confirmed the decision on 20 April 1780, fining Aron Jacobs Polak for the revision and ordering him to pay the process costs. On 31 March, a letter was received from the Generaliteits Rekenkamer in The Hague, following a resolution from 8 February and an advisory report from 28 April 1785. This concerned a request from Arnoldus van Galen from 's Bosch for approval of a scholarship. The scholarship, founded by the late Pieter Peelmans, was previously awarded to Arnout Anthony, the son of Arnoldus van Galen. The request was approved, and the scholarship of 60 guilders annually was to be awarded to Aldert, son of Arnoldus van Galen, starting from 32 December 1784. An act of approval would be issued, with conditions including an oath of purification and annual proof of the scholar's age.

1783-09-15

A decision was made to send a copy of a letter and its attachments to the Council of State with a request to create a necessary petition for the sum of 50,000 guilders to aid the Dutch prisoners of war in England, and to present it to Their High Mightinesses. This was despite the free deliberation of the Lords States of the respective provinces.

A document of contradiction, made in a meeting by H. H. G. Coell, an ordinary councilor at the court in the overquarter of Gelderland, against F. W. de Chatellon, was to be examined. It was decided that this contradiction, along with the diminution of the party, would be handed to the Lands Advocaat to review, examine, create an act of taxation, and present it to Their High Mightinesses along with a declaration of costs.

The conclusion of the demand by Cornelis Sherrij de Bije, as prosecutor of Aron Jacobs Polak, a merchant living in Amsterdam, as executor of the will of the late Daniel Salomons van Rot of Rotterdam, and as guardian over the minor heirs and administrator of the inherited goods, was considered. The demand was for a mandate of revision with a clause of inhibition against the Orphan Masters of the High German Jewish Nation in Paramaribo, Suriname, managing the estate of the late Cleazer de David Cohen. It was decided that the parties would be given 14 days to respond after notification.

The conclusion of the demand by Jan Willem van Alphen, as prosecutor of Mozes Nas Nunes, Motes de Jacob Levij Haduro, Esther (daughter of Hae Calvo, widow of Manuel Abenator Helo), Samuel van Isac Levij Maduro, and Ephraim Sesurum Henriques, all of the Jewish Nation residing on the island of Curaçao, was considered. The demand was for a mandate of revision and a civil request against Ieac Haim Rodrigues da Costa, also of the Jewish Nation and residing on Curaçao. It was decided that the parties would be given 14 days to respond after notification.

1783-02-26: Mejuffrouw Beeltje Norde, widow of Eliaaer David Cohen, appeared before Iohannes Adolphreaw Claveren, sworn clerk of the colony Suriname and its rivers and districts. She handed over a document, written by another but signed by her, which she declared to be her last will and testament. She requested it to be sealed in seven places: four corners with her seal and three middle places with the clerk's seal. She stated that the document contained her final wishes and should be executed as such after her death, with all legal formalities considered fulfilled. This was done in Paramaribo in the presence of Carl Bedrigh Ludwig and David Raphael Robles de Medina as witnesses. The document was signed by B. Nordem wed.e Cohen, Fortes, C.T. Ludwij, D. R. Robles de medina, and I A van Claveren. On 1788-03-14, Eribardd Van Laveren, sworn clerk, registered the will. 1783-02-25: Catharina Pot, widow of Willem Arens, appeared before Johan Ernst Hafftenbeeger, sworn clerk of Suriname and its rivers and districts. She handed over a document, written by another but signed by her, which she declared to be her last will and testament. She requested it to be sealed in seven places: four corners with her seal and three middle places with the colony's secretariat seal. She stated that the document contained her final wishes and should be executed as such after her death, with all legal formalities considered fulfilled. This was done in Paramaribo in the presence of Anthonie Imbert and Johan Hendrik Thomas Pottendorff as witnesses. The document was signed by Catharina Pot wed.e Jan Wilm: Arens, Anthonie Imbert, J. H. I. Pottendaff, and J. Ed E. Hafftenberger. On 1883-02-26, JEKafftenberger, sworn clerk, registered the will.

12 May 1775: The court approved a resolution to improve the command of slaves, as it had been unequal in many areas, leading to complaints. The court decided to introduce a new command list. Extracts of this resolution were to be given to all civilian captains of the colony to guide their actions. They were also ordered to create a roster of the commands given in the past year and submit it to the court in the next session. 12 May 1775: The court granted the request of Beeltje Noodens, wife of D. Cohen, to obtain the position and benefits of city midwife, previously held by Hanna Marius. Beeltje Noodens had served provisionally for 11 years. She was officially appointed as city and country midwife. Additionally, the tax collector was ordered to provide her with extra benefits. 15 May 1775: The governor presented a new copy of the newly rhymed Psalms to the court. The court decided to publish them, following the example of the States of Holland. 15 May 1775: The court received a request from Kusel & Troucinqq., which was referred to Edoo for advice, as no other representatives from Paramaribo were present. 15 May 1775: The court was informed that a patrol of the Free Corps under Neptunes had pursued runaway slaves near Paramaribo. They had found a cleared plot of land but the runaways were still at large. The court thanked the patrol for the update. 15 May 1775: Conducteur Mazet requested the court's consideration for his payment as a doctor and apothecary in the Free Corps.

1777-05-20: Bartholomeus van den Santheuvel gave Jan Jansen power of attorney through notary Pieter Meeling in Amsterdam to represent him in all matters related to the Commission of Guardianship and Administration. 1783-10-07: G. Kuzel and F. Geerke (for the estate of B. Geerke), both residing in Paramaribo, Suriname, requested a default judgment against the defendants. 1783-11-11: Matthijs Hendrik van Son Hendks, as prosecutor for the Orphan Masters of the High German Jewish Nation in Paramaribo, managed the estate of the late Eleasar de David Cohen. He responded to a revision mandate with an inhibition clause against Aron Jacobs Polak, a merchant in Amsterdam, executor of the will of the late Daniel Salomons van Rotterdam, and guardian of his minor heirs. The court decided to allow the parties three weeks to respond after notification. Matthijs Hendrik van Son Hendks also acted as prosecutor for Joachim Nieman in Amsterdam in a revision mandate against Isaac Haim Rodrigues da Costa in Curaçao. The court again allowed three weeks for a response. Isaac Gouverneur in Curaçao requested a process stay as the plaintiff in a revision mandate with an inhibition clause against Michiel van der Meulen, also in Curaçao. Isaac Gouverneur had obtained an appointment from the court on 1783-10-23.