Transcriptions » Recently generated summaries of recognized texts

• A request was made by Daniel Salemons from Rotterdam, living in Amsterdam, for a Mandate of Revision against a sentence from the court of Civil Justice of the colony of Suriname, dated 27 April 1780, in the case of Anico Wilkens against Eleazar de David Cohen. The request was granted, and a Mandate of Revision with a clause of Inhibition was issued against Eleazar de David Cohen.
• A request was made by Anthoni Joseph Boyaval, living in the colony of Essequibo, for a Mandate of Revision with clauses of Relief and Inhibition, as well as a Civil Request with a Writ of Summons against Hendrik Milborn, a council member of the colony, and Daniel Chanquion, a merchant in Amsterdam, as guardians of the underage heirs and executors of the estate of the late Jan Baptist Struys. The opposing party failed to reply to the Conclusion of Declaratory and answer to the Civil Request. The request was granted, and the opposing party was ordered to reply within 3 weeks under penalty of default.
• A request was made by Johan Gustav Behnehen, living in Paramaribo, as guardian and stepfather of the underage children of Jan Matthys Angerstein. He was defending a process before the court as the defendant in a Mandate of Revision against Jan Koolhoff, living in Amsterdam. In this case, a Conclusion of Answer had been served by an appointment of the court on 17 October 1780.

On 20 October 1783, Lynde van Henwe and other deputies of Haar Hoog Mogende for maritime affairs examined resolutions from the provinces regarding the non-execution of orders to send ships from Lie to Brest. They reported that differences in provincial resolutions were not significant enough to delay the investigation.

They advised that, following a resolution from Holland and West Friesland on 7 February 1783, an investigation should be conducted to determine if the ships for the expedition were properly supplied. If not, the cause should be identified through interviews with the involved officers. The investigation should be carried out by deputies from Haar Hoog Mogende for maritime affairs, with one deputy from each province, appointed by Haar Hoog Mogende.

These deputies should start the investigation immediately, continue without interruption, and not be replaced to avoid delays. The goal was to complete the investigation quickly so that a competent court could proceed with the case.

On 22 October 1783, the deputies from Gelderland, Holland, West Friesland, Utrecht, and Overijssel decided to further deliberate. The deputies from Zeeland and Stade Lande accepted the report to communicate it in their provinces.

A request was read in the assembly from Aron Jacobs Polak, a merchant living in Amsterdam, acting as the executor of the will of the late Daniel Salomons from Rotterdam, who had also lived and died in Amsterdam. Polak was also the guardian of Daniel Salomons's minor heirs and the administrator of his inherited goods.

The request stated that Polak, in his aforementioned roles, was forced to engage in a legal process before the High Court as the petitioner of a mandate of revision with a clause of inhibition against the Orphan Masters of the High German Jewish Nation in Paramaribo, Suriname, representing the estate of the late Eliazar de David Cohen, who had lived and died in Paramaribo. The other party in this case was summoned on 22 October 1783.

In this matter, Polak had served a conclusion of demand, which was delivered to the other party on 15 September 1783 with an appointment to respond within 14 days after notification. The notification was properly done on 18 September 1783.

As the other party failed to respond to Polak's conclusion of demand, Polak requested and obtained on 3 October 1783 an appointment from the High Court, ordering the other party to respond within 9 days after notification under penalty of default. This notification was done on 7 October 1783, as could be seen from the attachments accompanying the request.

Polak requested that the other party or their prosecutor be declared in default of responding to his conclusion of demand and that he be admitted to present a raw intent for the profit of the sentence of the Court of Civil Justice of the Colony of Suriname dated 27 April 1780, with admission to present the intent within 40 days after notification.

After deliberation, it was decided that the other party or their prosecutor would be declared in default of responding to Polak's conclusion of demand. Polak was admitted to present a raw intent for the profit of the sentence of the Court of Civil Justice of the Colony of Suriname dated 27 April 1780 on 28 October 1783.

• Payments made from the estate of Holland:
  • H. Stroijer: 33 guilders
  • F. Breemer: 34 guilders and 40 cents
  • Sinagopie Nevi Salom: 35 guilders, 12 cents, and 7 cents
  • Jacob Sweeris: 36 guilders and 17 cents
  • Mos. Abm de vries: 37 guilders, 7 cents, and 10 cents
  • Ios. Fk Levij: 38 guilders, 7 cents, and 10 cents
  • Mos Henriques J:o: 39 guilders and 66 cents
  • Gedd. Woordeman: 40 guilders, 15 guilders, and 10 cents
  • A. M. Vissen: 42 guilders and 7 cents
  • D. Nueman: 42 guilders and 10 cents
  • J. Fos: David Cohen in Amsterdam for receiving money from the deceased H. Voges: 43 guilders, 152 guilders, and 10 cents (total: 1915 guilders and 16 cents)
• Date: 265

If the representatives deemed it necessary, they could act as if the principal were present, even if a broader or more specific power of attorney was required than stated here. The principal declared this document to hold as written, including the power of substitution.

The principal promised to uphold and ensure the validity of all actions taken by the authorized representatives or their substitutes under this letter. This was bound by the principal’s person and property, as per the law.

This was done in Paramaribo in the presence of witnesses Iacobin Dieulefit and Carel Fredrich Ludwich. Signed by Elazor Pohen, Jeulefit Van Caveren, Gesw: Clercq, and C:F. Ludwig.

On 135, the representative was authorized to take legal action, appeal, reform, or revise matters, and to negotiate, settle, or compromise with Thomas Karel Thomassen as the appointed parties deemed necessary for the representative's benefit.

The representative was also empowered to:

• Receive any positive balance due after the account of all disputes was settled and liquidated, issue a receipt, and release all further claims.
• If Thomas Karel Thomassen was owed a positive balance, pay it on behalf of the representative and obtain a proper receipt.

Additionally, the representative could act on instructions given or to be given in letters to the appointed parties, with these letters holding the same force as if inserted word-for-word in the document.

Finally, the representative was authorized to do everything else required by the matters at hand, as deemed necessary by the appointed parties, collectively or individually.

• Demanding a proper account and verification from Thomas Karel Thomassen regarding their business correspondence, including goods, merchandise, received bills of exchange, and money.
• Carefully examining the account and its verifications, approving it if correct, or disputing and correcting any errors.
• Using legal means in case of delay or refusal, including appointing necessary lawyers and appearing before all courts.
• Attending all legal days and terms, requesting and hearing judgments, enforcing favorable ones, and appealing unfavorable ones if deemed appropriate.

On 4 July 1774, a financial document was issued in Amsterdam for 6000 guilders in Dutch currency. It was a second bill of exchange, the first being unpaid, from Mejuffrouw Beeltje Vorden, wife of Eleaser David Cohen (formerly the widow of Jacob Levy from Suriname), to Aron Jacobs Polak or his order. The value was received in Amsterdam on 5 July 1774.

On 25 November 1774, Johan Friederich Hay sen Andree, a sworn clerk and secretary of the colony of Suriname, went to the home of Beeltje Norden (wife of Eleaser David Cohen) with witnesses. He presented the bill of exchange and demanded payment. Eleaser David Cohen responded that he could not pay the bill for certain reasons. The clerk had already protested the non-payment on 4 July and did so again, including protests for exchange, re-exchange, costs, and damages. This was done in Paramaribo in the presence of witnesses Johan Arnold Wenneger and Johan Pieter Meijer.

On 5 December 1774, the original bill was received back in Paramaribo by Johan Arnold Wenneger and Koses Sanches.

On 19 December 1777, before Iohan Ernst Halstenberger, clerk of the colony of Suriname, appeared Mejufrouw Beeltje Noorden, widow of Iacob Emanuel Levy and now married to Eliaser David Cohen. She acted as the executor of her late first husband’s will and as guardian of her minor son Emanuel Iacob Levy. She was assisted by her current husband, Eliaser David Cohen, and by Ladok Soesman, who was appointed by the Court of Police and Criminal Justice on 22 February 1773 as co-guardian of the minor Emanuel Iacob Levy.

Beeltje Noorden declared that before her marriage to Eliaser David Cohen, she had prepared a proper inventory of the estate of her late first husband, Iacob Emanuel Levy. She had sworn to this inventory before the Honorable Commissioners of the Court of Civil Justice and, by notarial deed dated 18 May 1773, had proven that she had handed over to her minor son a sum of 2711 guilders and 14 stuivers.

With the consent of Beeltje Noorden and Ladok Soesman in their capacities as guardians, Eliaser David Cohen had, against proper security, kept this money and now repaid and handed over the sum of 2711 guilders and 14 stuivers.

Beeltje Noorden and Ladok Soesman, in their capacities as guardians, declared under oath that they had received this sum.

On 8 December 1777, Johan Ernst Hafftenberger, a provisional sworn clerk and secretary of the colony of Suriname, its rivers, and districts, recorded a statement. In the presence of witnesses, Jan Rocheteau, a resident of the colony, declared himself to be the guarantor and principal debtor. He acted as the authorized representative of the heirs of the late Mr. T. J. Blosg.

This was for the benefit of U. Wilkens, the provisional first exploiter, and to secure any sum of money that Jan Rocheteau might receive from the exploiter's office. Jan Rocheteau was declared preferential for the amount of 1525, following a decree from the Honorable Court of Civil Justice dated 29 November 1777. This was in the case of U. Wilkens, the provisional first exploiter, against all known and unknown creditors of Abraham Fernandes Henriques. The money in question came from the sale of four houses and their estates.

Jan Rocheteau accepted and promised that if, within the aforementioned period of 3 years, any creditor of Abraham Fernandes Henriques appeared with a better claim, he would be obligated to restore the money, either partially or in full.

About 1.5 years ago, the petitioner asked his correspondents for information about how much of his claim had already been paid. They replied that they did not know and had referred the matter to lawyer Erdman in Hildburghausen. The petitioner then wrote to Erdman but received no response. Eventually, he learned that Erdman had died some time ago, and the bill of exchange was returned to him. The petitioner requested that the authorities write to the Minister of State at the Court of Vienna to intervene on his behalf with the Court or the Imperial Council in Vienna. He also asked that the Execution Commission or Council in the lands of the Duke of Hildburghausen be ordered to pay his claim for capital and interest.

The request was considered, and it was decided to send a copy of the petition to Count von Degenfeld, the Extraordinary Envoy and Plenipotentiary at the Court of Her Imperial Majesty. He was to use his good offices and strongest efforts to ensure the petitioner received swift and fair justice regarding his claim against the Duke of Hildburghausen.

A request from Daniel Salomons of Rotterdam, living in Amsterdam, was read. He was forced to take legal action in Suriname against Eliazar de David Cohen, who was ill and falling behind in managing his affairs. The petitioner feared that due to the length of the procedures and the cost, he would not receive what was rightfully his, especially if Cohen died or his estate was dispersed. He requested that the Court of Civil Justice in Suriname be ordered to expedite the proceedings between him or his representative in Suriname, Jodph Willhergs Jacobs Colak (or substitute), and Eliazar de David Cohen, with short deadlines of 14 days.

The request was considered, and it was decided to send a copy to the Governor and Council of the Court of Civil Justice in Suriname. They were to be ordered to expedite the proceedings between the petitioner or his representative in Suriname, Junick Wilkers, Joseph Jacobs Solak (or substitute), and Eliazar de David Cohen.

A request from Petrus van Slippe dated 9 September 1778 was read.

• A complaint from L. Coppelman against H. L. Bro„ niet was discussed. The court decided to combine this case with another from the previous day. The Raad Fiscaal was authorized to handle it.
• A request from the widow J. André for authorization to pass a certain transport was considered. The court found the reasons valid and forwarded the request to the Officie Fiscaal for action.
• The Weesmeesters of the Hoogduitse Joodse Natie requested clarification on funds managed by Eliaser David Cohen for his absent adult son, A. Eliazer David Cohen. The court ruled that the father could keep the funds if he provided sufficient security. The Weesmeesters were to receive a copy of this decision.
• C. E. Meijer, a Burger Sergeant, was found to have misbehaved while intoxicated on the Plantagie Bleijendaal. He was demoted and declared unfit for service. The court ordered his removal from his position and condemned him to pay procedural costs. The Commissarissen van de Rolle were asked to seriously warn him against future misconduct.
• M. D. Buttner accused Jan Isser, an onderschout, of misconduct. The court decided to hear Jan Isser through the Commissarissen ter Rolle.
• J. Caucanas, a Burger Sous Lient, requested resignation from his position as a Burger Officier and agreed to pay the associated fine. The court approved his request.

On 5 December 1781, Johannes Adolph van Claveren, sworn clerk of the colony of Suriname, its rivers and districts, recorded a statement in the presence of the mentioned witnesses. Claus Reeder and Mr. W. P. Visscher, as representatives of Cornelis Leever and Johan de Bruine, merchants in Amsterdam, acting together and in the name of their company Leever & de Bruine, each individually, declared that in their mentioned capacity they had tried, through an interim court order, to prevent the execution of a deed of transfer for 2/6 of the shares in the plantation Lustrijk, acquired by F. I. d. Raineval.

However, the Honorable Court of Civil Justice of the colony, upon the request of the plaintiffs in the aforementioned capacity, granted a provisional order for an injunction and a lawsuit (if necessary) with referral to one side, against the Secretaries and their sworn clerk as the prohibited parties, and G. A. D. de Graaff, authorized by J. de Raineval, as the defendant.

• In the front room:
  • 1. A shop cabinet with glass paneled doors
  • 2. Another glass cabinet
  • 3. A dining table
  • 4. A small cabinet with glass paneled doors
  • 5. A clothes cabinet
  • 6. A chest
  • 7. Another chest
  • 8. The door to the attic
• In the room:
  • 9. A cabinet
  • 10. A cradle
  • 11. A small cradle

On 4 July 1774, in Amsterdam, G. G. Berkhoff issued a bill of exchange for 6000 guilders in Dutch currency, payable six weeks after sight. This was the second bill; the first was already paid to Aron Jacobs Polak or his order. The amount, 6000 guilders, was received by Mejuffrouw Beeltje, the widow of J.J. van Rottersam, from Eliazer David Cohen, formerly the widower of Jacob Levij in Suriname. On the back, it was noted that the payment was for Moses Sanches or his order, signed by soon Ab=s Polak on 5 July 1774.

On 5 October 1774, Johan Niederich Haypen, a sworn clerk and secretary of the Suriname colony, with the mentioned witnesses, went to the home of Beeltje Norder, the widow of Eliazer David Cohen, and showed her the bill of exchange, asking her to accept it. She refused to accept the bill. The clerk protested this refusal, as did the witnesses Johan Pieter Meyer and Otto Frederich Dewerh. This protest was recorded in Paramaribo on the same day. The original bill was returned in Paramaribo on 6 October 1774, as noted by J.F. Diewrih and Moses Sanches.

A sum of 8000 guilders was allocated, consisting of 750 ducats (or 3937 guilders and 10 stuivers) to settle a claim, and 4062 guilders and 10 stuivers for expenses and a gift. This amount would be handed over by the agent of Spieringshoek to the recipient, along with an extract of the resolution and a copy of the letter from Her High Mightiness in response to the letters from the Bey of Tripoli.

An extract of this resolution would be sent to the Receiver General of the High Court and Ferry Toll, M. Johan Patin, instructing him to pay the sum of 8000 guilders to the agent of der Borch from Spieringshoek against proper receipt, which would be validated in his accounting.

A request from Daniel Salomons of Rotterdam, residing in Amsterdam, was read. He asked Her High Mightiness to revise a sentence from the Court of Civil Justice of the colony of Suriname, dated 27 April 1780, in the case of Unico Wilkens Jr. against Eliazer de David Cohen. The request was granted, and it was decided to issue a revision mandate against Eleazar de David Cohen with an inhibitory clause.

A request from Anthonij Joseph Boyaval, residing in the colony of Essequibo, was also read. He was involved in a legal process as the petitioner of a revision mandate with relief and inhibitory clauses, as well as a civil request with a committimus to Her High Mightiness against Hendrik Milborn, a council member of the colony, and Daniel Chanquion, a merchant in Amsterdam, as guardians of the underage heirs and executors of the estate of the late Jan Baptist Struijs, who had lived and died in the colony. The case had progressed to the point where a conclusion of declaratory and response to the civil request had been served, but the other party had failed to reply. Boyaval requested an appointment for the other party to still reply to the conclusion of declaratory and response to the civil request, under penalty of default, with the possibility of purging within three weeks after notification. It was decided to order the party by appointment to still reply to the conclusion of declaratory and response to the civil request within three weeks after notification of this, under penalty of default.

15 November 1780

The government received two letters from the Bey of Tripoli. The first asked for friendly reception and the usual protection and assistance for his affairs. The second concerned a claim by the Bey against Consul Reijs, now Consul in Algiers, regarding the treatment of goods loaded on a Ragusan ship 9 years ago.

After discussion, it was decided to respond to both letters. They would express that nothing was more pleasing than the Bey’s assurances of friendship, which they highly valued and would reciprocate with equal kindness and respect for his person.

Sidi Abderahman, after returning from Denmark and Sweden, repeated these sentiments in person, which greatly pleased the government. They trusted he would faithfully report his reception and the full support they had provided for his tasks.

Regarding the second letter, the government found the claim against Consul Reijs troubling. They believed the Court of Russia should have compensated for damages caused to some inhabitants of Tripoli. Despite their requests over nearly 9 years, there had been no response, and they saw little hope of progress.

They proposed to Sidi Abderahman that the matter be settled by paying a lump sum to the affected parties, ending their fruitless efforts. He agreed and signed the proposal. The government then resolved to provide the funds, hoping to resolve the issue completely.

They also expressed great satisfaction with Sidi Abderahman’s conduct and his actions during his stay. As a sign of this, and to settle the claim against Consul Reijs, they decided to give Sidi Abderahman a sum on 15 November 1780, both as a gift for him and to compensate the inhabitants of Tripoli involved in the claim.

On 14 November 1700, a meeting was held under the leadership of van Aijlva, van Hardenbroek van Lockhorst, Wieling, P. U. Rengers, van Dedem tot de Gelder, Sloet tot de Haer, Keizer, van Boetzelaer, van Slingelandt, Le Leu de Wilhem, Bouwens, Chanquion, Hope, Quarles, van der Goes, van der Staat, Boreel de Mauregnault, Raad Pensionaris van Bleiswyk, van Lijnden van Blitterswyk, and van Citters, along with an extraordinary deputy from the province of Zeeland. The resolutions from the previous day were read and summarized, along with the resulting dispatches.

Present were also de Cocq van Haesten and de Pagniet, with an extraordinary deputy from the province of Gelderland.

On 15 November 1780, a letter was received from Lestevenon van Berkenroode, the ambassador of the Dutch Republic to the court of France, written in Paris on 9 November. No resolution was made on this.

A letter was also received from Hop, the Dutch Republic's minister plenipotentiary at the court in Brussels, written there on 13 November. It reported that the Prins van Salm Salm Hertog van Hoogstraaten had proposed extending the highway from Antwerpen to near Bragaten through Hoogstraaten to the territory of the Dutch Republic in the Baronie van Breda.

After deliberation, the deputies from the provinces of Holland, Westfriesland, and Zeeland agreed to send a copy of the letter to their respective provinces for consideration regarding the mentioned point.

It was also decided that a copy of the letter would be given to de Cocq van Haesten and other deputies of the Dutch Republic for the affairs of the Meijerije van 's Bosch. They, along with some commissioners from the Council of State to be nominated by the Dutch Republic, would visit, examine, and report back to the assembly.

At the meeting, the translation of two Turkish letters from the Bey of Tripoli to the Dutch Republic was read. The first letter contained assurances of friendship, respect, and honor for the Dutch Republic, along with a request concerning Sidé Abderahman Aga, who had traveled to Denmark and Sweden to carry out his mission.

In a document dated 3 February 1778 in Paramaribo, Moses Sanches declared himself as the principal debtor and guarantor for Unies Wilkens (deceased) on behalf of Eliazer David Cohen. He agreed to cover all legal costs and any judgments from a case between Eliazer David Cohen and W. Wilkens (deceased). He waived all legal defenses, including the right to demand prior seizure of the debtor’s assets.

The document was confirmed as a true copy by H. Kaftenbergen, a sworn clerk, on 10 March 1779, after being presented by I.P. Pollak.

In another agreement, the representatives of the plantation Frederichsdorp acknowledged a debt of 6193 guilders and 11 stuivers in Dutch currency to N. de Kruijff for timber delivered to the plantation Oncribo by Frederichsdorp up to 31 December 1774. The debt, including 8% annual interest, was to be repaid within a year. This was signed by C.G. Kusell on behalf of N.D. Kruyff.

On 17 May 1776, N.D. Kruijff recorded receiving interest of 604 guilders for the period from 1 January 1775 to 17 May 1776 at 8% per year. After deductions, the remaining capital was 3101 guilders and 14 stuivers.

This was also confirmed as a true copy by P. Visscher, a sworn clerk, on 13 March 1779, after being presented by N. De Kruijff.

On 1737, without giving up any claims or legal actions against Weesmees, the rights and claims of Wilkens and Joseph Jacobs Polak in their mentioned roles were reserved. This was done with the explicit renunciation of relief and further legal assistance regarding any claims from their marriage conditions that could arise, under legal obligation. This was done and signed in Paramaribo in the presence of witnesses Charles Brouwn and Adraan Johannes Comvalius.

Signatures: V: 6 Wilkens, C Brouwe, A.J. Convalius, Joseph Jacobs Vold, 448 R: Parden, wed=e Catten, G„F:Felsmank, GeswClercq.

The parties involved agreed on a sum of 748 guilders, 6 stivers, and 8 and 1/5 pennies to settle a dispute. The accounts were approved and considered fully valid.

Weesmeesteren (orphan masters) acknowledged receiving the following from the estate:

• A positive balance of 7,572 guilders, 12 stivers, and 7 and 4/5 pennies.
• Approved debts amounting to 748 guilders, 1 stiver, and 8 and 1/5 pennies.
• All documents, records, books, and papers related to the estate, as listed in the inventory.

The parties also agreed to cover any remaining costs in the homeland related to the division of the estate of the late David Cohen. They renounced any legal benefits, such as relief, reconsideration of accounts, or other legal remedies.

Mejuffrouw Beeltje Norden, the widow of the late Eliazer David Cohen, also appeared. She declared that she released the Weesmeesteren from any claims based on her marital conditions. These conditions were agreed upon on 31 August 1783 in Rotterdam before the then-provisional clerk Iohanna Adolph van Claveren and witnesses, with her then-fiancé and later deceased husband, Eliazer David Cohen.

The gentlemen Nicolas Houtschilt and Bernard Schagen, as commissioners of the Honorable Council of the island of Eijssel, responded to Anna Maria Koningh, a free woman of mixed race, who had submitted a reply. They rejected all her claims, stating that she had not legally acquired the goods she currently possessed through trade and business. They argued that many white women in Eijssel had conducted the same trade but barely managed to survive. It would have been sufficient if she, along with her nine children, had lived modestly from the profits. However, it was well known that she had not acquired her possessions honestly but rather as a mistress of David Cohen Henriques. Furthermore, in case of delay, the goods of a married woman with community of property could be held liable for her husband's debts. This applied even more to a mistress who had acquired goods in such an improper manner as Anna Maria Koningh had from David Cohen Henriques, and had them transferred in her name out of fear of claims from David Henriques, his heirs, or creditors. For these and other necessary reasons, the council concluded that the aforementioned inventoried goods should be declared, by judgment of the Honorable Council, to be the debt of the aforementioned David Cohen Henriques and executable as his property. They persisted in their other points from the previous reply. This was signed in Curacao on 14 May 1737 by Nicolas Houtschilt and B. Schagen. It was agreed with the original by Jasper Orneus Teronijn, Secretary.

On 9 June 1777, David de Abraham de David Cohene Jafsy, a resident of the colony of Suriname, appeared before Johan Ernst Hafftenberger, the provisional sworn clerk and secretary of the colony of Suriname and its districts, in the presence of witnesses. He stated that his late father, Abraham de David Cohen Nassy, had named his children, Judith and David de Abraham de David Cohen Nassy (the declarant), as his sole universal heirs in his will, dated 15 June 1762. The will was passed before the provisional curator of the Portuguese Jewish Nation, Isaac Nassy, and witnesses. The same will was confirmed by Abraham de David Cohen Nassy in May 1773 before his death.

David UZiel Davilar and Samuel Cohen Nassy were appointed as executors and guardians of the underage heirs. The guardians had been negligent, and the state of the estate was unknown to them when they accepted it under the right of deliberation.

The declarant, having come of age through marriage, declared on 19 April 1776 before the then provisional sworn clerk W.P. Visscher and witnesses that, not being informed of the state of the estate, he could not and would not accept it except under the benefit of deliberation and all other benefits that the laws grant to deliberating heirs.

Now, being better informed about the state of the estate, the declarant found it unadvisable to declare himself as the heir. Therefore, he declared that he renounced the estate of his late father, Abraham.