Blader door transcripties » Stadsarchief Amsterdam

archieftoegang 30452, inventarisnummer 883, pagina 19

Finally the respondents added and amplified to their proposal, that the summo¬
ners be allowed to sell their second ship that, should any damage be made or any
loss suffered by this sale, they are willing proportionally to help bear and pay
this loss.
And in case the summoners were not willing to accept one or another of the said
proposals, then the respondents represented, third, that they were willing to
abandon their equipment for the coninholed voyage and to forgo and transport
their ship with its equipment, guns, ammunition, goods, interchandise and trading
goods on behalf of the summoners, subject to the ammoners’ping them as
much for it as it had cost. Moreover, they are willing to pay, in recompense for
their trouble and in subsidy for their previons damage and loss, the lump sum of
one thousand Flemish pounds, and at the same time they are willing to quit
salling or trading in the afore mentioned regions.
In spite of all these honest proposals, the summoners have accepted neither the
one or another proposal nor should in any way that they were willing to comply
with the respondents or to propose any efficient means to accomodate the metter
and to tree his Excellency from further complaints. As for the contents of the
insinuation and presentation which the summoners made to the respondents, they
testifying that the same is impertinent and indeed improper. For if the respondents
would enter into such a presentation, they could expedt only considerable damage
and loss, since their equipment cost more than the equipment of the said ship
of the ammoners, Hendrick Christiaenss master; and if the summoners should
made, sell and purchase two, to the respondent’s one, of everyching, it may well
beillased that this will cause great damage to the respondents and give profit
to the condioners.
Moreover the summoners do not mention their other ship, Adriaen Block master.
The said presentations are therefore impertinent anduaereasonable.
The respondents say and answer, finally, that for their parts, they have offered
the utmost that could possible be done. Thus it is the fault of the summoners and
not of the respondents that they have not settled and joined in all equity and
reasonableness according to the desire of his Excellency, and this they protest
expressly of their good will. And since his Excellency in his last letter of Septem¬
ber 23 Judged, the freedom allowed tot the summoners nullified and set each of the
75