Transcriptions » Recently generated summaries of recognized texts

On September 5, 1736, in the United Netherlands, there was a legal case between an inheritor and a notary, Reijnhard Johannes Wiltens. The case started on May 2, 1736, with a claim followed by a response on May 8 and a debate on May 16. The case concerned inheritance matters from a previous decision made on February 29 of that year. The case was heard in the name of the High and Mighty Lords States General of the United Netherlands.

On September 5, 1736, a court case was decided in which Nicolaas Iongsma filed a claim against Cornelis van Hamme, a citizen of this city. Van Hamme was representing himself and his deceased brother and sister, Anthonij and Aginta Susanna van Hamme. They were the heirs of their late sister Maria Cornelia van Hamme, who was the widow of Walter Christiaan Cruger. Cruger had been the second secretary of the high government of these lands.

The court ordered a payment of 50 rijksdaalders (at 48 stuivers each) to be paid to the plaintiff to help build the new Dutch church. The case was settled on September 4, 1736 by the following judges:

• Jacob van den Bosch
• Jacob Lakeman
• Bernhard Jacob Dellafaille
• Willem Vincent Helvetius
• Theodorus van Reverhorst

On September 5, 1736, an injustice case was brought before the council. The sworn clerk of the council, Nicolaas Jongsma, filed against Johan Willem Jordens, a senior master in service of the East India Company. The case also involved Elisabeth Margaretha Devogel, who was the widow and universal heir of Lieutenant Adam Alexander van Schnabel. This case related to a previous claim from October 27, 1734. The Council reviewed all documents in detail and pronounced judgment in the name of the High and Mighty Lords States General of the United Netherlands.

On September 5, 1736, attorney Van Vliet appeared before the council on behalf of Miss Giliana Torant, widow and heir of Mr. Gerardus Gerlag, who had been a presiding member of the council. He showed a document dated August 8 proving that Jan Hendrik Boom, the council's interpreter, had been ordered to pay 50 rijksdaalders plus interest and costs to the petitioner. When bailiff Nicolaas Smit approached him for payment, Boom declared he was unable to pay and requested that half of his salary be garnished. The widow was therefore forced to address the council to formally request this garnishment of Boom's wages, promising to properly file a complaint at the next court day. The council granted the garnishment request on the condition that it would be properly reported at the next court day.

On September 5, 1736, George Metsche, a junior merchant serving the East India Company, presented evidence to the Council showing that Gerrit Wintrak, a junior helmsman, was ordered on June 13 to pay him 1,140 rijksdaalders plus interest of half a rijksdaalder per month since April 18, 1734 until full payment, along with costs. Since Wintrak failed to pay despite requests, Metsche humbly asked for permission to garnish half of Wintrak's wages. The Council granted this request for wage garnishment, provided it was properly reported within days.

On September 5, 1736, several people were involved in a financial matter in Amsterdam. Elisabeth de Soute, widow of surgeon general Jan Pinket, and Maria Blok, former widow of Diodati and current wife of Francois Roos (vice president of the city's council of aldermen), were mentioned. Also involved were:

• Willem De Bruijn, secretary of the city's orphans' board
• Francois de Cocq, junior merchant of the Dutch East India Company, acting both for himself and as representative of Willem Maurits Bruijnink
• Evert Lanius, city auctioneer
• Pieter Theunis, assistant to the Dutch East India Company
• Alexander Plache, bookkeeper and harbor master

These individuals were all listed as creditors in an insolvency case.

On September 5, 1736, a legal request was made concerning van Vliet. He wanted to set a final date because he heard that someone was planning to return to the Netherlands that year. Hartman opposed this request, saying he had no knowledge of such plans. Both parties maintained their positions and asked for a ruling. The Council denied van Vliet's request and ordered the parties to keep to regular time limits.

On the same day, Gijsbertus Schuijlenburg, secretary of the Council and trustee of the bankrupt estate of the deceased junior merchant and cashier Pieter Versteeg, made a request against the orphan masters of the City. They were administering the estate of deceased merchant and head cashier Jan van Landschot. Jan Harman Theeling was mentioned as the current second senior merchant of Castle Elisabeth.

On September 5, 1736, an important legal case was heard. It involved Paulus Rauwenhoff, former governor of Ternate, and Maria Heerega, who was separated from her husband Abraham de Clercq, who worked as a senior merchant for the East India Company. Maria Heerega was acting as executor of the estate of Catharina de Horn. The case dealt with the division of property between Catharina de Horn and Cornelis Heerega. The defendant Abraham de Clercq was given 14 days to respond to the main charges in this case.

• Paulus Rauwenhoff, former governor of Ternate
• Maria Heerega, separated wife of senior merchant Abraham de Clercq

On September 5, 1736, in Batavia, a legal proceeding took place. Jan Hendrik Ducaijlaar, a former alderman and captain of the east side militia, and Cornelis Everhard, chief surgeon of the Dutch East India Company, acted as representatives for Jan Carel Wildervank, a repatriated bookkeeper. Maurits Coeno, a merchant, requested a 14-day period to respond. Van Vliet represented the plaintiff Maria Heerega, a separated wife. The case involved Abraham de Clercq, a senior merchant of the Dutch East India Company. The proceedings followed an earlier ruling from August 29 of that year. The court noted that the defendant was planning to return to the Dutch Republic that year.

• Protect the Dutch East India Company's rights regarding the bankrupt estate of cashier Pieter Versteeg
• Handle this on behalf of receiver-general Rogier van Alderwereld
• Take legal action concerning this estate
• Defend against any challenges to this action

On September 5, 1736, a legal case took place involving several people. Barthahelena Van Suchtelen requested testimony against a non-appearing defendant. The council granted her request and ordered the defendant to provide testimony under threat of imprisonment.

Jan Harman Theling presented a special authorization dated August 28, 1736, which was signed before notary Reijnhand Johannes Wiltens. This involved Francois de Cocq, a junior merchant, who acted both for himself and as representative of several creditors:

• Willem Maurits Bruijning
• Philip Kuvel, a citizen
• Elisabeth de Soute, widow of chief surgeon Jan Pinket

These people were all creditors of Cornelis van der Hoop, a junior merchant of the East India Company. They requested him to provide testimony under threat of imprisonment.

On September 5, 1736, a court case occurred in which several people were involved. The widow Catharina Dudde, formerly married to Berendregt, requested to keep managing the estate of merchant Jan van Alderwereld. Maria van Son was also involved as a widow. Pieter Claas, a citizen, represented the Chinese captain Tjoenqua. Kung Gjeengqua, a former Chinese estate administrator, and Ni Hoekong, a Chinese lieutenant, were also parties in the case.

The court officials included:

• Isaac van Schinne, master
• Willem Timmers, orphan master
• Hillegonda Zwaerde Croon
• Maurits van Aerden
• Johannes Boekenberg

The parties were given 14 days to provide documents and respond to each other's claims. The Council approved these proceedings.

On September 5, 1736, there was a legal proceeding involving several prominent figures in Nederlands India. The case involved Carolus the Sixth and various officials including Maurits van Aarden, Isaac Timmers, and Willem van Schinne. The document mentions officials from different institutions, including:

• Willem Timmers, a former senior merchant of the East India Company
• Hillegonda Zwaardecroon, widow of Cornelis van Verendregt (former water fiscal of India)
• Johannes Boekenberg, minister of divine word
• Several guardians (weesmeesters) including Adriaan Lubbels and Pieter Claasz

The document appears to be related to an appeal case involving the Council of Justice at the castle and includes references to various widows and officials of the East India Company. The matter seems to concern guardianship and inheritance issues.

• Catharina Dudde, widow of Berendregt, a merchant
• Maria van Son, widow of Cartje
• Pieter Claas, a citizen
• Que Tjoenqua, a Chinese captain
• Kung Tjeenqua, a former Chinese estate administrator
• Hoekong, a Chinese lieutenant

• Isaac van Schinne, orphan master
• Willem Timmers
• Hillegonda Zwaerde Croon
• Maurits van Aerden
• Johannes Boekenberg

On September 5, 1736, there was a legal case involving several prominent figures in Nederlands India. The case concerned Carolus Sijmansburger and Maurits van Aarden. The following officials were involved:

• Isaac van Schinne, who was an Extraordinary Councilor of Nederlands India and president of the Council of Justice
• Adriaan Lubbels and C.L. Jubbels, who were orphan masters of the city
• Willem Timmers, former senior merchant of the East India Company
• Hillegonda Zwaardecroon, widow of Cornelis van Verendregt (former water fiscal of India)
• Johannes Boekenberg, minister of divine service

The case also involved some Chinese individuals named Tjoenqua, Kung Geenqua, and others. Several documents were presented to the Council of Aldermen of the city.

On September 5, 1736, in United Netherlands, there was a court case about an unpaid bill. The court ordered payment of 59 guilders and 32 stuivers for delivered drinks and other items. Jan Tets, who was part of the council of aldermen, and Abraham Banier, who handled marriage and small legal matters, were executors of the estate of Hendrik van der Bel, who had been the chief of the Company's trade in Japan. They filed a case against Maria Willing, who was the widow of Jan Hartog, a former bailiff of the city. The court granted a default judgment with 14 days to respond.

On September 5, 1736, Jacob Cool, a citizen, took legal action against Jan Joachim Sinnig, an assistant in the East India Company. The case involved unpaid drinks and other items worth 59 rijksdaalders and 32 stuivers. Cool requested interest payments of 3/8 rijksdaalder per cent per month until full payment was made. Due to Sinnig's failure to appear, the Council granted the request. The case referenced an earlier ruling from September 7, 1735 involving Maria Gerardina from Batavia and Pieter Versteeg.

On September 5, 1736, Pieter Adriaan Beijts requested a citation against Jacobus van Engelen, regarding a loan. The case revolved around a debt of 200 reals documented in a loan agreement signed before notary Johan van Visvliet on June 27, 1736. The loan carried a monthly interest rate of 0.75% per real. The case involved several other parties:

• Maria Gerardina van Gesw, married to Pieter Chaas, a citizen of Batavia
• Nicolaas Jongsma, a clerk of the council
• Gerrit van der Voorde, a former citizen
• Gijsbertus Schuijlenburg, secretary of the Council of Justice, acting as administrator of the insolvent estate of a deceased junior merchant and cashier assistant in service of the East India Company

The case was heard in the cities of Siat Staad and Dusseldorp.

On September 5, 1736, a legal case was brought before the court in Netherlands India. The executors and guardians of the deceased citizen Hendrik van Loo were Johannes Heedens, an ordinary councilor of Netherlands India, and Adriaan Pla, former governor of the Coromandel Coast and president of the College of Commissioners for Small and Legal Matters. They filed against Adam van Lints, an assistant serving the East India Company. The case concerned a loan of 200 rijksdaalders (at 48 stuivers each) that Van Lints had received from Van Loo according to a document signed on April 24, 1734. The executors demanded repayment of the loan plus interest at ¾ rijksdaalder per cent per month from the date of the document until full payment, along with legal costs.

On September 5, 1736, a court case occurred at the Castle of Batavia. Gijsbertus Schuijlenburg, who was secretary of the Council of Justice at the castle, acted as administrator of the bankrupt estate of Pieter Versteeg. Versteeg had been a junior merchant and cashier of general receipts before his death. The case was against Alexander Plache, who worked as a tree guard for the East India Company. Another official involved was A. Thomas van Spreekers, who was a senior merchant and head of the Company's general pay office, acting as temporary guardian. The Council ordered arrest due to non-appearance and condemned the accused to comply with the arrest and pay the costs of the proceedings.

On September 5, 1736, the Council of Justice, acting on behalf of the Dutch States General, made a ruling. They ordered the defendant to pay 810 rijksdaalders (at 48 stuivers each) to the plaintiffs. This sum was based on money borrowed from Bartholomeus Dewit, as shown in the presented bond. The payment was to include monthly interest of half a rijksdaalder per hundred from when the bond was issued until full payment, plus costs. The defendant retained the right to file any counter-claims.

Jacob van Hamelenberg, a bookbinder in [location not specified], was the plaintiff. He filed for arrest of wages against Aarnout Rolterus, an assistant in service of the East India Company. The case concerned the arrest and approval of half of the defendant's wages, amounting to 30 rijksdaalders, plus interest and costs. This was based on a warrant dated July 20 and an arrest order dated August 29, 1736, issued by the Council and executed the next day by bailiff Nicolaas Smith. The amount was to be reduced by 74 rijksdaalders already paid.

On September 5, 1736, a legal case was presented involving van Vliet representing the orphanage masters of the city who were administering the estate of Bartholomeus de Wit, a merchant and administrator of the silk industry who had passed away. The case was against Jan Boscorp, a garrison tailor serving the East India Company.

The case concerned a debt of 810 rijksdaalders (at 48 stuivers each) that Boscorp had borrowed from de Wit, proven by a loan agreement dated May 5, 1733. This agreement was witnessed by notary Pieter Maijden. The debt included interest of half a rijksdaalder per cent per month since the date of the original agreement.

Boscorp acknowledged a separate debt of 249 rijksdaalders and 23 stuivers. The administrators requested payment of the full amount with costs.

On September 5, 1736, a legal case was heard concerning debts and interest payments. The defendant had to pay two main debts: 7,500 and 2,000 reichsdaler, plus accumulated interest. Additionally, there was a third debt of 74 reichsdaler and 16 stuivers owed to Bernhard for unpaid interest on various capital amounts. The defendant had already paid 349 reichsdaler and 20 stuivers towards these debts. The Council ordered the defendant to pay the first two debt amounts with their accumulated interest. Attorney Dusseldorp, representing the defendant, was granted 14 days to proceed with the principal matter as would be advised.

On September 5, 1736, van Vliet presented a registry with various documents to the city orphan masters regarding the estate of Johannes Bernard, who was a council member of the Dutch East Indies. Maria Catharina de Sluijper, widow of chief helmsman Hendrik de Nijs, showed a general power of attorney issued by notary Petrus Dobbelaar.

The case involved two loans:

• A loan of 7,500 rijksdaalders at 48 stuivers each, according to a bond dated February 16, 1734, issued by notary Petrus Dobbelaar, with monthly interest of 0.5 rijksdaalder per hundred
• A loan of 2,000 rijksdaalders that the defendant received from Bernard, according to a bond dated July 30, 1735, issued by notary Aarnout Wichhelhuijsen