Transcriptions » Recently generated summaries of recognized texts

• Amsterdam as the executor of the will of the late Daniel Salomons van Rotterdam, who had lived and died in Amsterdam, and as guardian of his minor heir and administrator of his estate.
• Matthijs Hendrik van Son, acting as proxy for the orphan masters of the High German Jewish nation in Paramaribo, in the colony of Suriname, managing the estate of the late Eleazar de David Cohen, who had lived and died in Paramaribo.

• From Jan Jacob Faesch: 3 crates, 6 barrels, 1 chest, 1 ton, and 14 items.
• For Hatterman & Benelle via S. R. van Idem: 8 barrels and 2 small barrels.
• For C: T: Verlen Porte via Lant: 34 items.
• For I. C. van D: I: Blog: 2 barrels numbered 1 and 2.
• For Jacob Gomperts via I.I.L. van Daniel, Salomon van Rotterdam: 1 cellar and 1 chest numbered 1a2.
• For Jacob Abrah: de Vries via I. C. van Idem: 2½ ledgers, 1 chest numbered 1a3, and 18 items.
• For Eliazer David Cohen via C Do van Idem: 1 chest, 1 small barrel, 1 cellar numbered 1a3, and 4 items.
• For Mozes Abraham de Vries via I W. van Idem: 1 barrel numbered 1a6, 6 small barrels, 3 chests, and plaster items, 12 crates numbered 2 to 16, 20 crates, and 2 cellars numbered 2 and 3.
• For Mozes Wolff via 14D. van Idem: 1000 blue frost pans, 6 small barrels, 3 chests, 1 cabinet, and 1 cellar numbered 1a9, totaling 36 items.
• For Jacob Abraham de Vries via A. DR. van Idem: 1 chest, 1 barrel numbered 1a3, 6 grindstones, and 1 branch.
• For Abraham Jacob de Vries via Pieter Rijfsnijder: 2 crates, 4 chests numbered 1 to 3, and 7 items.
• For Abraham Vander Landen via I. A: Polak & Zoonen: 2 chests numbered 1 and 2, 1 box, and 1 box totaling 8 items.
• For Jacob Abraham De Vries via Samuel van Gelder: 4 barrels, 2 caps, and 1 chest numbered 10, totaling 4 items.
• For Marcus Jacobs: unspecified items.

Within 14 days after the presentation of this document, the following was decided:

Lords of Lijnden van Hemmen and other deputies of Their High Mightinesses for maritime affairs examined the resolutions from the States of the respective provinces. These resolutions, submitted on 1 July of this year, concerned the failure to execute orders to send 10 line ships to Brest.

The deputies noted minor differences in the provincial resolutions but deemed them insignificant. They emphasized the urgency of resolving this important matter through mutual consultation.

Following the resolution of the States of Holland and West Friesland from 7 February of this year, presented on 10 February to the assembly of Their High Mightinesses, they advised an investigation. This investigation would determine whether the ships designated for the expedition had been properly supplied and, if not, who was responsible. The inquiry would be conducted through hearings or reports from the involved officers in a political and extrajudicial manner.

The investigation would follow customary practice, involving 2 lords from Holland and 1 from each of the other provinces. These individuals would be specially appointed by the provinces from the assembly of Their High Mightinesses. They would begin the task without delay, continue without interruption, and not be replaced by others to avoid any delay or obstruction. The goal was to complete the investigation as quickly as possible so that the competent judge could proceed with legal action if justice required it.

After deliberation, the deputies from the provinces of Gelderland, Holland and West Friesland, Zeeland, Utrecht, and Overijssel agreed to declare their positions later. The deputies from the provinces of Friesland and Stad en Lande adopted the reported proposal in copy to communicate it in their broad councils.

The court of Russia requested that Her High Mightiness send an order for the benefit of the petitioner, considering the heavy expenses he constantly incurred. The petitioner's current declaration was for an amount of 6000 guilders. After deliberation, it was decided to request the Council of State to issue an order for the benefit of the petitioner for an amount that the Council of State, according to the order of the Finance, would deem appropriate.

A request from Aron Jacobs Lak, a merchant living in Amsterdam, was read at the meeting. He was the executor of the will of the late Daniel Salomons van Rotterdam, who had also lived and died in Amsterdam, and the guardian of his minor heirs and administrator of his inherited goods. The petitioner, in his aforementioned capacity, was forced to sustain a legal process before Her High Mightiness as the petitioner of a Mandate of Revision with the Clause of Inhibition on one side, 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, as defendants in the aforementioned case.

In this matter, the petitioner, in his aforementioned capacity, had served a Conclusion of Demand, which by appointment on 15 September 1783 was placed in the hands of the party to respond within 14 days after notification. This notification was duly done on 18 September 1783. As the party had failed to respond to the petitioner's aforementioned Conclusion of Demand, the petitioner had requested and obtained on 3 October 1783 an appointment from Her High Mightiness, whereby the party was ordered to respond within 14 days after notification under penalty of default, which notification was done on 7 October 1783, as could be seen from the attachments joined to the aforementioned request. However, the party still failed to comply with the aforementioned appointment.

Therefore, the petitioner requested Her High Mightiness to issue an appointment whereby the party or their prosecutor would be declared 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 1780 in question, to admit the petitioner to submit a raw intention, and to grant another mandate to have it verified, with the possibility of purging within 14 days after notification.

After deliberation, it was decided that the party or their prosecutor would be declared 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 1780 in question would be annulled. The petitioner was admitted to submit a raw intention and granted another mandate to have it verified on 22 October 1783.

In a legal case on Curaçao, Drik van Son, acting as the representative of Jan Hendrik de Lannoij, requested a review with the option to lift a previous order. On the other side, H. Stenfert, representing Margaretha Kemmel (a widow previously married to Michiel Alpeter and later to Johan Godfried Scholtz), acted as the guardian of her minor daughter Anna Barbara Alpeter. After discussion, the court decided to consider the case settled and instructed both parties to proceed according to standard legal procedures.

A request was read from Mr. Hubertus Coerman, a former fiscal officer and later a member of the Great Council of Curaçao, and Gerard Striddels. They asked for permission to obtain copies of requests and attachments presented to the authorities by J. W. Erberfeld and M. Cambiaso on 25 August 1783 and 17 October 1783. After deliberation, permission was granted on 11 December 1783 for them to obtain these copies at their own expense from the clerk’s office.

Another request was read from Baron van Belderbusch, a Knight of the Teutonic Order and Land Commander of the Bailiwick of den Ouden Biesen. He had previously submitted a request on 22 July 1783 to the authorities, seeking a review of a decision made by the Commissioners and Deciders in Maastricht on 1 August 1782. This decision involved the Dean and Chapter of St. Servaas in Maastricht. The Dean and Chapter responded with a counter-request on 7 August 1783, and the authorities commissioned Baron van Belderbusch’s request to them on 22 September 1783. The Dean and Chapter submitted their defense on 10 November 1783, which was also commissioned. Baron van Belderbusch trusted that he would be allowed to present his counter-arguments in this important case and submit them to the clerk’s office.

A letter was received from graaf van Wassenaer tot Wassenaer, the Extraordinary Envoy and Plenipotentiary of Their High Mightinesses at the court of His Imperial Majesty, written in Vienna on 29 of the previous month.

A request was read in the meeting from Joachem Nieman, residing in Amsterdam, stating that the petitioner was forced to sustain a legal process as the plaintiff in a Mandate of Revision against Isaac Haim Rodriques da Costa, residing on the island of Curaçao, also a defendant in the aforementioned case. On 11 November 1783, a demand was made on behalf of the petitioner, and the defendant was ordered to respond within three weeks after notification, which occurred on 15 November 1783 by the clerk of Their High Mightinesses. However, the defendant's party had failed to respond. The petitioner therefore requested that Their High Mightinesses issue a summons ordering the aforementioned party to respond to the petitioner's demand within three weeks after notification, under penalty of default. After deliberation, it was decided that the party would be ordered by summons to respond to the petitioner's demand within three weeks after notification of this order, under penalty of default.

A request was also read in the meeting from the Orphan Masters of the High German Jewish Nation in Paramaribo, in the colony of Suriname, dated 11 December 1783, acting as administrators of the estate of the late Eleazar de David Cohen, who had resided and died in Paramaribo. They stated that as defendants in a Mandate of Revision with an Inhibitory Clause, they were forced to defend a legal process against Aron Polak, a merchant residing in Amsterdam, as executor of the will of the late Daniel Salomons of Rotterdam, who had also resided and died in Amsterdam, and as guardian of his minor heirs and administrator of his inherited goods, the plaintiff in the aforementioned case. On 11 November 1783, a response was given on behalf of the petitioners, and the plaintiffs were ordered to reply within three weeks after notification, which occurred on 15 November 1783 by the clerk of Their High Mightinesses. However, the plaintiffs' party had failed to reply. The petitioners therefore requested that Their High Mightinesses issue a summons ordering the aforementioned party to reply to the petitioners' response within three weeks after notification, under penalty of default. After deliberation, it was decided that the party would be ordered by summons to reply to the petitioners' response within three weeks after notification of this order, under penalty of default.

• Guarantee act for Ruchle van Elienstern.
• Transport act for the widow C. Podelffroy for 3098.
• Surety act for H. I. A. de Veies for 833.

• Estate sealed on 387 and unsealed on 389.

• Hypothecary bond with voluntary condemnation for Sebastiaan van Noot for 515.

• Surety act for himself and J. Schasne (late Meyne).

• Surety act for E.W. du Bruijel for 807.

• Acquittal act for the widow Ab=m de Mattos and Dav: Raph=a Robles de Medina for 321.

• Surety act for I. H. van Heyst (born v. Hout) for 402.

• Estate sealed on 412 and unsealed on 431.

• Surety act for himself (late) for 477.

• Ab=m de P=l Cohif: Act of requisition of the estate Sijae Saderd for 145.

• Estate inventory of Pita El66.

• Surety act for I. Gv. Tichol for 400.

• Surety act for Sebast..

• Hypothecary bond with voluntary condemnation for interested parties in a negotiation of 300000.

• Acquittal act for Eleenser David Cohen for 2168.

• Surety act for I. J. Clemen for 45.

• Hypothecary bond with voluntary condemnation for Ruymond and Theodorus de Smeth for 944.

• Act of compromise.

• Transport act and convention with voluntary condemnation for Dav: de J=r Cohen Nassy (late) and Portuguese Jewish Orphan Masters (late) Id=z. Parra for 75.

• Surety act for I.J.K. Arrias c. Puis, Peharel, E..

• Estate sealed on 177 and unsealed.

• Act of liberation regarding the estate of Saul Pardo for 21.

• Estate unsealed.

• Estate sealed on 534 and unsealed on 482, 431.

• Act of deliberation for 4762.

• Estate unsealed regarding the aforementioned estate.

• Act of liberation for 82.

• Act of convention and insurance with voluntary condemnation with his creditors.

• Estate sealed on 39.

• Surety act for himself (late) for 464.

• Estate sealed on 462, 469 and the same estate unsealed.

• use all legal means to collect debts or sums of money owed to H. C. Cohen;
• issue receipts or discharges for payments received;
• perform all acts necessary for the collection of these debts, as if H. C. Cohen were present;
• appoint one or more representatives under him and revoke their authority if needed;
• ratify and confirm all actions taken by the authorized person under this power.

• Receiving payments and debts.
• Issuing receipts and discharges.
• Performing all necessary legal acts related to the debts or sums of money.
• Substituting further authorized representatives under him.

• Claim, demand, receive, and collect all sums of money, debts, goods, wares, actions, accounts, and other claims.
• Act on behalf of Cohen in matters related to the estate of his late father, Eliezer David Cohen, in Suriname.
• Deal with Joel Gompert and Isaac Emanuel in Paramaribo, Suriname, who were managing the estate.

On 17 September 1784, Jeanne Alexus Dietens, widow of the late Arg Westmaas, appeared before Iohan Eerst Berkhof Hafftenberger, sworn clerk and secretary of the colony of Suriname and its rivers and districts. She presented a sealed and superscribed will, made by her late husband and herself before the sworn clerk Iohannes Adolp van Claveren and witnesses on 20 December 1781.

She requested that the will be opened again due to her husband's death. After the seals were confirmed intact by the clerk and witnesses, the will was opened in their presence. The superscription read: In dorse A. The will followed.

In her will, the testator states that the following items belong to her: a writing desk, a cabinet, and all other goods in her son’s room. She requests that after her death, these items be left to her son. She specifies that her executor should not interfere with these goods, as they are not part of her estate.

She respectfully excludes the involvement of the Lords New Weermeesteren and Commissioners of the Unadministered Estates of both the Sooden and Caristeren Kamer of the colony, as well as any other places where her estate might be settled. She politely excuses these commissioners and officials from any involvement, thanking them for their efforts.

The will was read aloud to the testator, who confirmed that she understood and approved it as her final testament. She wishes for it to be followed exactly after her death, whether it is considered a testament, codicil, or any other legally valid form, regardless of any omissions or defects.

Finally, the testator declares that she does not possess 5,000 guilders in assets.

The document was signed in Paramaribo on 1784 in the presence of witnesses Anthonne Cmbert and Daniel Fernander. The clerk Jan Feynander also signed, along with CB Weden, Copen Athone pibeff, W Coser, and gesw Clercq.

• She revoked all previous wills, codicils, or other acts of last will.
• She requested her body be buried according to Jewish customs.
• She bequeathed 5 guilders to the poor of the High German Jewish community of the colony.
• She bequeathed 5 guilders to the poor of the Reformed community of the colony.
• She named her son Emanuel Iacob Levij and her children David Cohen, Simon David Abrahams, and the children of her daughters Clara Juda and Rachel Juda as her sole, universal heirs to all her remaining property, movable and immovable, including credits and rights.
• She appointed Emanuel Iacob Levij and Zadok Zoerman as executors of her will, guardians of her minor children and grandchildren, with full power to manage her estate.
• She declared that her son Emanuel Jacob Levij had received his father's inheritance and, with the consent of his guardian Zadok Soesman, had purchased a named Porcia and started a small shop or business with his earnings as a smith. The goods in this shop were also bequeathed to him.

• Collect debts from Eliaser David Cohen's debtors in Suriname, including those acquired in the future.
• Receive and sign for all payments owed to Daniel Salomons.
• Settle accounts, liquidate, and close debts.
• Negotiate, compromise, or arbitrate disputes.
• Sign and execute necessary legal documents.
• Arrest people and goods, pursue arrests, and release them.
• Appear in all courts, serve legal notices, pursue judgments, obtain and enforce them, or appeal unfavorable ones.
• Collect deposited or seized money.
• Choose a place for legal actions.
• Provide security for seized money, other funds, and legal costs.

• 6 pieces of Tiux boat wood at 126, priced at 8 stivers each, totaling 1 hous.
• Kisie sperm candles, 324 lb at 36 stivers, totaling 58 hous, 20 stivers, 50.
• 1½ d=m English planks, 1166 at 3 stivers, totaling 174 hous, 18 stivers, 28.
• 1 Istux boat wood, 21 at 1 hous each, totaling 25 hous, 4.

• 1½ d=m English planks, 90 at 3 stivers, totaling 131 hous, 51 stivers.
• 49 vs Luss.

• 1000 Bolletrie Zingels at 48, totaling 29 hous, 9.
• Philadelphia planks, 284 at 241, totaling 39 hous, 1, 2.
• 32 Bijlhout at 8 hous each, totaling 15 hous, 7.

• 185 Eng planks at 2¾ stivers, totaling 28 hous, 8, 1.
• 2 Vaet Kakk at 2 vaeten, totaling 36 hous, 1.
• 19 cement at 3, totaling 1.

• 36 Copie Vloer Planken.

• 4 Kisie sperm Paersc, 294 lb at ½ hous, totaling 1773.

• 270 on the street with a Verwulf, 170 in lime cement, the root with stone on its edge.
• 10000 new English stones at ƒ30, totaling ƒ300.
• 6000 Hollandse at ƒ40, totaling 240.
• 7000 Sooude as broken at 10, totaling 70.
• Hous at ƒ610, totaling 2 ƒ366, 28.
• Vaeten Kakken cement hous/14 at ƒ392, totaling ½ 235, 4, 10.
• Wagon Schulpen at ƒ2 each, totaling 20.
• ½ at 12.
• Eerbijts zoon so to the Neeger of Limes and the Neeger of the Weed, the Wilde at hous ƒ230.
• Total for Suriname on 4 1774: ƒ3531, 3.

• A receipt for Kraaijvanger totaling 666, 11.
• Total for Suriname: ƒ5157, 14.

• For ƒ2000 court money, paid in 6 weeks, third exchange, first and second unpaid to N: d: belichet & C:J: De Roiners or order, two thousand guilders and stuivers court money.

• For ƒ1500 court money, paid in 6 weeks, third exchange, first and second unpaid to N: O: Pelichet & J: I: De Raineval or order, fifteen hundred guilders and stuivers court money.

• Attested by H Andrae geswoor Clercq.

• 1104 pieces of wood at 5 guilders each: ƒ27
• 19 pieces of wood at 6 guilders each: ƒ5 8 22
• 70 pieces of wood at 10 guilders each: ƒ42
• 61 pieces of wood at 8 guilders each: ƒ36 12
• 2 flesh mothers at 18 guilders each: ƒ1 16
• 2 barrels of coal at 10 guilders each: ƒ24
• 4 pieces of wood at 8 guilders each: ƒ24
• 22 pieces of wood at 8 guilders each: ƒ10 11
• 1 barrel of cement at 15 guilders: ƒ18
• 1 barrel of chalk at 2 guilders: ƒ2
• 2 barrels of chalk at 15 guilders each: ƒ36
• 7000 English stones at ƒ20: ƒ280 15
• 8000 base beams at ƒ26: ƒ249 12 22
• 60 pieces of 1½ English banks at 34 guilders: ƒ211 1
• 4000 base beams at ƒ26: ƒ124 16 7
• 10 pieces of 1½ English planks at 3 guilders: ƒ34 10
• 16 pieces of wood at 8 guilders each: ƒ65 15
• 127 pieces of wood at 8 guilders each: ƒ60 19 22
• 9 pieces of wood at 8 guilders each: ƒ23
• 3 pieces of wood at 24 guilders each: ƒ67 4
• 2 pieces of wood at 16 guilders each: ƒ40
• 110 pieces of wood at 56 guilders each: ƒ67 4
• 24 pieces of wood at 10 guilders each: ƒ24
• 2 pieces of wood at 18 guilders each: ƒ26
• 2 pieces of 1½ English planks at 2 guilders: ƒ72 27
• 8 pieces of wood at 8 guilders each: ƒ19 28
• 2 pieces of wood at 8 guilders each: ƒ21 171
• Transport of beams: ƒ1542 6

On 6 April 1782, Joseph Jacobs Polak, living in Paramaribo, appeared before Johannes Adolph van Claveren, the sworn clerk of the colony of Suriname and its districts. He declared, renouncing all legal benefits, that he would act as guarantor and principal debtor for Unico Wilkens, who was acting on behalf of Daniel Salomon van Rotterdam. This was to secure any sum of money owed to the secretariat of the colony.

The guarantee was related to a specific accounting to be provided in duplicate by Unico Wilkens in his capacity as plaintiff, defendant in convention, and defendant in reconvention against Eliazer de David Cohen. The case involved a revision mandate issued by the high authorities on behalf of Daniel Salomon van Rotterdam.

Joseph Jacobs Polak promised that if Unico Wilkens failed to pay the aforementioned sum, he would pay it himself upon first demand, as if it were his own debt. To ensure this, he pledged his person and property, submitting them to the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court of Civil Justice of the colony.

This took place in Paramaribo in the presence of witnesses Moses de Samuel Robles de Medina and Daniel Fernandes.

In a written response from Eliazer David Cohen, born in Norden, to an accusation made by Josen Wertheim on July 1782, the accused expresses deep offense. Josen Wertheim had accused her, without prior warning, of unlawfully keeping his wife, implying she had done so against his will.

The accused clarifies that Josen Wertheim's wife was brought to her home at the wife's own request. This was arranged through the intervention of Moses Abraham Devries and Aron Emanuels, leaders of the High German Jewish Nation, and with Josen Wertheim's prior approval. The purpose was for the wife to stay for 6 months to recover from an illness. Therefore, the accused argues, her actions cannot be interpreted as unlawfully detaining the wife, as Josen Wertheim suggests.

Instead, the accused states that the marital conflicts between Josen Wertheim and his wife have deeply affected the wife's health. Far from improving, the wife remains in the same poor condition as when she arrived at the accused's home. The accused notes that Josen Wertheim could have visited his wife or consulted a doctor to learn the truth but chose not to.

The accused strongly denies the accusations and protests against any costs, damages, or interest that may arise from Josen Wertheim's unlawful actions, both past and future.

In their role as representatives for Daniel Salomons from Rotterdam, the plaintiff in the main case and defendant in the counter-case, against Eliazer de David Cohen, the defendant in the main case and plaintiff in the counter-case, the Gouverneur en Raaden van Civile Justitie der Colonie Curaçao sent the documents of the aforementioned legal process, as it had been handled and decided by their court on 27 April 1780, to the Hoog Mogende Heeren. This was done in Paramaribo on 17 August 1782 by Mauanaies Jeelhans Calboth and Ambtolun, who identified themselves as the humble and loyal servants of the Hoog Mogende Heeren.

The document was signed by Den Gouverneur en Raaden van Civile Justitie der Colonie Curaçao, G. vier Dan Bruijn, and Frans Sattin Sentes, and it was sent on 4 April and received on 23 July 1783.

The Gouverneur en Raaden van Civile Justitie der Colonie Curaçao reported to the Hoog Mogende Heeren that, following their order dated 23 September 1776, they had recently allowed three marriage proclamations to take place on the same day for three officers from the ships ss Lands Scheeppen, as the Hoog Mogende Heeren had permitted at the request of the Heeren Staten Generaal der Verenigde Nederlanden in Den Haag.

On 11 December 1783, the court in Paramaribo, Suriname, read a request from the orphan masters of the High German Jewish Nation, managing the estate of the late Eleazar de David Cohen, who had lived and died in Carama. They were defending a legal case as defendants, following a revision order with an injunction against Aron Colak, a merchant from Amsterdam, acting as executor of the will of the late Daniel Salomons from Rotterdam, who had also lived and died in Amsterdam. Aron Colak was also the guardian of Daniel Salomons' minor heirs and administrator of his inherited goods, and the plaintiff in the case.

The plaintiffs had responded on 11 November 1783, and the defendants were ordered to reply within 10 weeks after notification. This notification was done by the court clerk on 15 November 1783, but the defendants had not yet responded.

The orphan masters requested that the court order the plaintiffs to reply to their conclusion within 3 weeks after notification, under penalty of default. The court decided to order the plaintiffs to reply to the defendants' conclusion within 3 weeks after notification, under the same penalty.

On the same day, 11 December 1783, the court also considered the conclusion for replication from Matthys Hendrik van Son, acting as attorney for Jan Hendrik de Lannoy from Curaçao, plaintiff in a case involving a revision order with clauses of relief and injunction. Additionally, there was a conclusion for duplication from S. Stenfert, attorney for Margaretha Kemmel, formerly the widow of Michiel Alpeters and later of Johan Godfried Scholtz, acting as mother and guardian of her minor daughter Anna Barbara Alpeter, and Anna Barbara Alpeter herself, also from Curaçao, who were defendants in the same case.

After deliberation, the court decided to consider the matter settled and ordered the parties to proceed according to the legal style.

On 73, an agreement was made in Paramaribo with the power of substitution. It was done in the presence of witnesses Cares Fredrik Ludwich and Gerardus Marinus Peneux. The document was signed by EeuroosS Schen, C.F. Ludwig, Van Caveren, GR Ceneux, and Gesw: Clercq.