Transcriptions » Recently generated summaries of recognized texts

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.

On 19 December 1783, a case was heard in Amsterdam involving:

• 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.

After deliberation, the court decided to consider the case settled and ordered the parties to proceed according to legal custom. Additionally, the deputies of the province of Friesland presented a resolution from the States of Friesland to the States General. This resolution, dated 4 November 1783, urged deficient provinces to promptly submit their contributions to the General Treasury of the Union. These funds were intended for a petition from the Council of State on 20 June 1781, which aimed to finance armed ships destined for the Dutch colonies in the West Indies, particularly Suriname. A resolution from the States of Holland and West Friesland, dated 29 October 1783, was also discussed. It addressed a request from shipowners and participants seeking payment for funds approved in the Council of State's petition of 20 June 1781 for armed ships to the colonies, especially Suriname. The resolution also called on deficient provinces to submit their contributions and requested that the petitioners provide detailed accounts of costs and actual damages caused by the detention of their ships on the Suriname River. The States of Friesland decided that, since the petition of 20 June 1781 and related documents clearly indicated that the funds were intended for premiums to outfit armed ships sailing in convoys of at least 10 to 12 to the colonies, the deputies would request a list of such ships. This list would help determine how payments from the General Treasury should be made if the approved sum of 1,200,000 guilders was not fully subscribed.

On 30-1775, the ship Johanna Elisabeth, captained by Matthijs Baalgreen, was loaded with goods destined for Suriname. The cargo included:

• 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.

18th century, Colsces:

• 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.

Caura, free black woman:

• Estate sealed on 387 and unsealed on 389.

28023:

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

J. D Meyer, Herm::

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

Gerrit:

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

Emchedina, Sam=l Robl. de:

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

Da Meurs, C. W.J.:

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

2 Montnort, Pierre de:

• Estate sealed on 412 and unsealed on 431.

Marteilhe, Jaan:

• Surety act for himself (late) for 477.

1771:

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

Graasij, Ab=m Ieh. Coh::

• Estate inventory of Pita El66.

Eliau de Moses, Sagel, Ch=:

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

Looten Jansz, I Marteilhe:

• Surety act for Sebast..

449:

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

Vorden, Beelje, er Zados Soesman:

• Acquittal act for Eleenser David Cohen for 2168.

I. ch:

• Surety act for I. J. Clemen for 45.

Pieter:

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

Larha., David de la Dij:

• Act of compromise.

Pinto, Jos: Haem. Parra, widow of Joseph: d' Ab=m de la:

• 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.

Isaac de la::

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

Laulinij, Johs.:

• Estate sealed on 177 and unsealed.

Laabs qq, Ab=m:

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

Estherde:

• Estate unsealed.

Pelichet, W.D::

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

Ldichet, widow N. O (born Jver):

• Act of deliberation for 4762.

Luiras, M. MJ:

• Estate unsealed regarding the aforementioned estate.

Quires, Jos. Htaim (late):

• Act of liberation for 82.

Richard, Couis:

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

Reynsdorp, Huysver van W. C. F.:

• Estate sealed on 39.

Rocheteau, Pomn:

• Surety act for himself (late) for 464.

Roax, F.F.:

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

5 May 1784: In Philadelphia, John Dickers, president, signed a document under the small seal of the state, granting full trust and credit. It was translated from English by James Primblen for John Armstrong Junior, secretary. L. Tythoff confirmed the translation matched the original on 23 May 1785. J.J. Polak presented it, and it was registered on 17 August 1785 by W. Esser, city clerk of Arnhem. Anna Louisa Scholten, widow of Abraham Martens and heir of her late son Johan Frederick Martens, assisted by Gerhardus Hermanus ter Hoeve, clerk of the provincial court of Gelderland, appeared before the officials of Arnhem. In June 1784, she had given power of attorney to Heer Hoogenhouch van Lobbrecht to handle her son’s estate in Suriname while he traveled for personal matters. Later, she received letters from her son J.C. Martens and J.B. van Voorst, urging her to authorize her son to manage the estate, as he was preferred as the eldest and had the most interest in preserving it. She then issued a broad power of attorney to her son and van Voorst, sending it to them and to Hoogenhouch van Lobbrecht, requesting that the two powers of attorney not conflict but work together for the best management of the estate, protecting her and the creditors' interests. She was later informed that J.F. Landman and L. Thym, in their roles as aldermen,

On 4 May 1784, H. C. Cohen gave a person authority to:

• 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.

This document was signed, sealed, and delivered by H. C. Cohen in the presence of Peter Miller and John Refontaire. On the same day, Abraham Eliezer Cohen appeared before William Rush, a judge in Philadelphia, and acknowledged the document as his own, requesting it to be registered. William Rush signed and sealed this confirmation. E. S. L. J. van Berckel, Minister Plenipotentiary of the State of the United Netherlands to the United States of North America, certified that Abraham Eliezer Cohen had granted power of attorney to John Philip Lambact in Philadelphia on 11 May. This was signed by P. G. Duker, Secretary. The document also notes that William Rush was a properly appointed judge in the city and county of Philadelphia in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania at the time of signing.