Transcriptions » Recently generated summaries of recognized texts

On January 17, the estate of Pieter Barbiers and his wife Maria Geertruij Snabillie was divided. After selling paintings, drawings, and prints, and accounting for debts, the total value of the estate was 7,000 guilders. The estate was divided into seven equal parts among their children:

• Helena Francisca Zynenwartel-Barbiers received 1,000 guilders in cash
• Pieter Barbiers received 1,000 guilders in cash
• Maria Geertrui Barbiers, wife of Pieter de Goeije, received 1,600 guilders in cash
• Parolina Barbiers received a mortgage bond worth 1,000 guilders from Willemyntje Warmerdam, widow of Pieter Jacobse Kroon
• Cecilia Geertrui Barbiers received 1,000 guilders in cash
• Louisa Henriëtte Charlotta Barbiers received 1,000 guilders in cash
• Willem Frederik Barbiers received 1,000 guilders in cash

The document was signed in Haarlem on May 28, 1838 at the notary office in Zijlstraat 95, with Barend van Dapperen and Jacobus van Daalen as witnesses, and Jacob Scholting as notary.

A letter from Cormandel dated March 19, 1683 discusses debt collection and expressions of friendship. The writer acknowledges receiving a reply through Josep de Markara and wishes good health to the recipient and their household. The letter mentions the recipient's role as a mediator with Mang de Vacia regarding the king's pepper trade. While they received what Mang de Vacia specified in his letter, according to their calculations, 1000 bits were still missing. They believe this discrepancy was caused by poor accounting by the king's treasurer. Despite this, they appreciate the recipient's support and favor shown to Anthonio de Cunka.

In a letter dated March 19, 1683 from Coromandel, the writer discusses trading activities. They acknowledge receiving various items including 7,000 bitslack on sticks, 3,000 namrak or acheran, and 16 picols of tin, amounting to 8,835.65 bits. Around 1,000 bits were still outstanding, likely due to the treasurer's carelessness. In return, they sent gifts including:

• 6 cobido of very fine scarlet cloth
• 1 case of rosewater
• 3 pounds of cloves
• 3 pounds of mace
• 3 pounds of cinnamon
• 3 pounds of nuts

These items were to be delivered by Joseph Markaria, for whom they requested special favors and friendship.

On March 15, 1813, at the house of widow Jan Alderts Noordhuis in Uithuizen in the Canton of Middelstum, Alje Berends Bonting, a carpenter, appeared before notary Juffridus van der Tuuk in Appingedam. Bonting was guardian of three underage children from Theodorus Berends Bonting's first marriage to Prientje Cornelis. Also present was Pieter Jacobs Scholten, a farmer from Zandeweer, who was guardian of three underage children from Theodorus Berends Bonting's second marriage to Martje Edes.

Following a court decision from January 21, 1813, they requested, in the presence of witnesses Jeres Klasen van Huizen (supervising guardian of the first group of minors) and Cornelis Jannes Ausema (supervising guardian of the second group), to proceed with the preliminary auction of a farm numbered 200.

On March 1, 1813, at the notary's office in Appingedam, a document of charges was deposited. This document, written on two official seals, was registered by Gruindorge for a fee of 1 franc and 26 centimes. The document contained:

• Names, occupations, and residences of buyers
• Brief description of the property for sale and its assessed value
• Proof of ownership documentation
• Terms of sale

The property belonged to minors and children from the first marriage of Theodorus Berenas Bonting to Triente Cornelis. The document was witnessed by Toppo Chris, a clockmaker, and Jan Gwalt, a cooper, both local residents. The document was signed by K.S. Ausema, the witnesses, and notary J van der Tuuk.

On February 28, 1813, in Uithuizen, it was agreed that buyer and seller would each pay half of the costs related to the sale, including registration fees. These fees had to be delivered to the notary's office in Appingedam within 10 days.

Cornelis Jannes Ausema was tasked with depositing the document at the notary's office. The document was signed by A B Bonting, J K van Huisen, P I Scholtens, and K I Husema.

On March 2, 1813, Cornelis Jannes Ausema, a farmer from Uithuizen, appeared at the imperial notary's office in Appingedam in his role as guardian of the underage children of Theodorus Berends Bonting and his late wife Martje Edes.

On October 23, 1788, Wouter Hendrik van IJsseldijk, who was the payroll bookkeeper and legal curator, reported about three estates in Surabaya. These belonged to two assistants, Johan Janzen Cramer and Jacobus Knikkenberg, and quartermaster Jan van Nieuwenhuijsen, who had all died without making wills. He stated that their estates were not insolvent (bankrupt). Based on this information, and changing their earlier decision, the council agreed that these estates could be considered settled. The estates had already been closed and settled in the payroll books and papers of the eastern region for the years 1778/1779.

On November 27, 1902, Willem van der Laan appeared before notary Pierre François de Bordes in Haarlem to make his will. He made the following provisions:

• He left 10,000 guilders each to his granddaughters Elisabeth and Johanna van der Laan, and his grandson Johannes Gerrit Adrianus van der Laan.
• The money for the grandchildren would be invested in government bonds until Elisabeth and Johanna turned 30, and Johannes turned 40.
• He left 2,000 guilders, two dogs, and a parrot to his housekeeper Margaretha Glazemaker.
• Margaretha Glazemaker could live in his house at 1 Dreef in Haarlem for the rest of her life.
• 15,000 guilders would be set aside for house maintenance.
• A 6,650 guilder loan to Gerarus van Toolen should only be repaid after van Toolen's death.
• Jan Cornelis Burkens was appointed to manage these financial arrangements.
• His daughter Alida Maria van der Laan's inheritance would be kept separate from her marriage community property.

Nicolaas Stuurenberg, a widower without occupation residing in Haarlem, had been married to Maria Elisabeth Seel, who passed away on May 27, 1835, in Haarlem. According to her will executed on May 2, 1835, before Notary Pieter van Lee and witnesses, and duly registered, he was appointed the sole heir to her entire estate. However, on June 26, 1835, Stuurenberg accepted the inheritance only under the benefit of inventory, through an act registered at the clerk's office of the Court in Haarlem.

In his capacity as the beneficiary heir, Stuurenberg wished to liquidate the estate but lacked funds to settle the debts. Therefore, he requested the President of the Court of First Instance in Haarlem to authorize him to publicly sell the movable properties belonging to the estate of the late Maria Elisabeth Seel, in accordance with the law, while preserving all his rights as a beneficiary heir.

The request was registered in Haarlem on July 4, 1835, under folio 22, volume 3, and the registration fees amounted to 2.21 guilders, including a 60-cent stamp duty and the clerk's fee of 1.61 guilders.

In the third person, Col. Goor of Agrim reported a great victory over the enemy on July 15, 1691. The enemy had over 20,000 infantry and around 1,000 cavalry, all well-armed and mounted troops. The allied forces had only 12,000 infantry and between 5,000 and 6,000 cavalry. The enemy was advantageously posted on a hill, two-thirds of which were covered by a marsh, making it difficult for the infantry to pass and forcing the cavalry to defile two by two through a narrow pass.

Despite seeing the allied forces approaching at 6 a.m., the enemy had all day to form their battle line. The allied forces could not reach them until 5 p.m., prompting debate about postponing the attack until the next morning. However, Duke of Württemberg, who had the honor of being with the narrator, observed a movement by the enemy that seemed to cause confusion, prompting an immediate decision to attack.

The narrator describes the allied forces pouring from the left and right, encouraging officers and soldiers. The enemy's cannon caused significant losses, but the allied forces pushed through the marsh and narrow pass with great effort. After a fierce battle, the enemy's infantry was routed, and their cavalry fled, pursued by the allied cavalry for over an hour until nightfall halted the pursuit. The narrator states that had night not fallen, hardly any of the enemy would have escaped.

On January 10, 1721, Jan Barels, a notary admitted to practice before the Court of Holland in Amsterdam, at the request of Frans and Emanuel der Hendera, residents of this city, acting as executors of the will of Christina Munnink, late wife of the same Frans, found himself in the presence of Hendrik Kerkhoven, claiming to be the authorized representative of Zacharias Kramer, who was married to Elisabith Groene meyer, sister and sole heir of the late Jan Groenemeyer, who was the first husband of the late Christina Nunninks, with whom she had been married in community of property. On behalf of the aforementioned, he made the following insinuation and protestation:

The insinuants declare that, in addition to the main seizures made by the opposing party, they have suffered and continue to suffer, and protest against all further actions that can or may be taken by law. The opposing party responded to the notary by requesting a copy.

This was done in the aforementioned city of Amsterdam, in the presence of Leendert Hangen and Jan Groi Junior as witnesses.

Due to the seizures made by the opposing party, both on the rental income of the houses and further on the entire estate, other impediments have arisen, preventing the payment of the outstanding rents and ground rents on the aforementioned houses, which are in poor condition. Since these charges have already accumulated to such an extent that the aforementioned houses are in danger of being seized and sold in execution, the insinuants, in their aforementioned capacity, have wished to inform the opposing party of this and, at the same time, through our notary and witnesses, to interpellate and admonish them to at least lift the seizures made by them, so that the necessary orders can be given for the payment of the outstanding charges, and thus the threatened execution of the aforementioned houses can be prevented. The insinuants protest, in case of refusal or delay by the opposing party, against the proper interpellation and warning, as well as against all costs, damages, and interests, both from the further accumulation of the aforementioned charges and from any other cause.

In the year 1615, Pieter Pietersz from Leiden, also known as Gpitter, was brought before the Aldermen's Court in Leiden for causing a disturbance in the city. During the investigation, it was revealed that Gpitter had been engaged in various misdeeds and disorderly conduct.

According to the court records, Gpitter had repeatedly clashed with the authorities and provoked quarrels with his neighbors. He was known for his unruly behavior and disregard for the law. The court deemed his actions a threat to public order and safety.

Consequently, Gpitter was sentenced to banishment from Leiden for a period of 9 years. This punishment was a common practice at the time, aimed at removing troublemakers from the city and restoring peace and order within the community.

The case of Pieter Pietersz Gpitter serves as an example of how local authorities in the 17th century dealt with individuals who disrupted the social fabric and challenged the rule of law. Banishment was seen as a way to maintain stability and protect the well-being of law-abiding citizens.

Johannes van Cittert Senior, a carpenter residing in Haarlem, appeared before notary Willem Karel Loeff and declared, for the benefit of Jacob van Westerkappel and Eduard de Lanoij, both commission agents in securities residing in Haarlem, being the sole members of the partnership under the firm name Westerkappel en Hoofd, established in Haarlem, that to further secure the payment of anything the said partnership may at any time owe to Messrs. Van Westerkappel and De Lanoij, for advances, credit openings, borrowed monies, balances of current accounts, interest, provisions, as surety, shortage on renewals or on any other account, up to a sum of six thousand guilders with interest and costs, he hereby binds and establishes as a special mortgage:

a. A plot of land (where four houses had stood) located in Haarlem at the Zuider Buiten Spaarne on the corner of the Vakkerstraat, known in the cadastre of that municipality under Section F Numbers 2105, 2106, 2107 and 2108, each as a house and lot together measuring two ares seventy-five centiares, with the buildings to be erected thereon by the mortgagor.

b. Three houses and lots, standing next to each other in Haarlem, at the Zuider Buitenspaarne, known in the cadastre of that municipality under Section D Number 391½ as a house and lot, measuring one are sixteen centiares, 391⅓ as a house and lot, measuring one are twenty-three centiares and, 391¼, as a house and lot, measuring one are twenty-one centiares.

According to the declarant's statement, the aforementioned immovable properties belong to him in full ownership. Between the parties it has been expressly stipulated and agreed upon...