Search the Database

Grietjen Westercamp Gerritsen

Grietjen Westercamp databaseflag (Grietjen is a Dutch diminutive for the name Margaret) was born in New Amsterdam to Hendrick Jansz Westercamp and Femmetie Alberts in 1642.  Like most women of her time and place she faced many hardships, and in fact, survived some experiences that most did not.

In 1650, upriver farmers started to move south toward New Amsterdam, the seat of government, to purchase land that was independent from large patroonships like Rensselaerswyck. By 1652, Pieter and Grietje had acquired a farm in the newly established community of Nieuw Amersfoort in what would eventually comprise the city, and later borough, of Brooklyn. The house they occupied was a simple one room structure with a packed earth floor and unglazed windows, with doors at both ends and a large jambless (open) hearth. Miraculously, it still stands today.

The houses in the Wiltwyck area probably looked a lot like this, the oldest surviving Dutch farmhouse. “In 1650, upriver farmers started to move south toward New Amsterdam, the seat of government, to purchase land that was independent from large patroonships like Rensselaerswyck. By 1652, Pieter and Grietje had acquired a farm in the newly established community of Nieuw Amersfoort in what would eventually comprise the city, and later borough, of Brooklyn. The house they occupied was a simple one room structure with a packed earth floor and unglazed windows, with doors at both ends and a large jambless (open) hearth. Miraculously, it still stands today.” Click the image  to go to the website for the Wyckoff farm museum.

Court records indicate that she maintained a healthy self-confidence and willingness to defend herself. She seems to have lived most of her life in Wiltwyck (now Kingston), where she was a magnet for trouble.

First appearance before the courts

On Oct. 1, 1662, church records list the baptism of Pieter, son of the miller Pieter Jacobsen and Grietjen Hendricks Westercamp.   Three days after the baptism, Grietjen Westercamp filed a lawsuit against Pieter Jacobsen, stating that he was the father of her child. He did not appear to answer the charges.

On October 17 both parties appeared before the court. From the record:

Grietjen Hendricks Westercamp, plaintiff, vs. Pieter Jacobsen, defendant.  Plaintiff demands of defendant why he denies his child.  Defendant answers, and says, ‘I have my doubts about it.’  Plaintiff says that defendant ruined her, and asks that he restore her to honor.  Defendant denies that her ruined her, and says ‘she must prove this to me,’ and also denies that he promised to marry her.  He asks her when she became pregnant, and when she was delivered.  Plaintiff says that defendant made her pregnant eight days before Christmas, 1661, and that she was delivered eight days before Kermis [the Fair], 1662.  Plaintiff says she conceived at the mill-house of Pieter Jacobsen.  Defendant requests two weeks’ time. The Schout and Commissaries grant the defendant two weeks’ time, and order plaintiff to prove at the next session that defendant ruined her.

From the appearance on November 1:

Plaintiff exhibits to the Schout and Commissaries a certificate and deposition by seven women who certify and declare that they were present at the birth of Grietje Westerkamp’s child, and that she swore three times that Pieter Jacobse was the father of the child.  The Plaintiff asks for a vindication of her honor.  The defendant says plaintiff did not behave as a decent girl should, and produces a certificate of Juriaen Westvael and his wife who declare that Grietjen Westercamp lay under one blanket with Jan van Breemen, with his daughter between them.  Defendant, being interrogated, admits having conversed and lain with plaintiff, but did not promise marriage, and, besides, gave her no money for it, and asks if a woman can be thirteen months and four days in the family way.  The Schout and Commissaries order defendant to bring clearer proof at the Court’s next session.

On January 9, 1663, Jacobsen filed a countersuit asking to be released from Grietjen’s demands.  The court gave her as plaintiff two weeks and an ultimatum:  “if she cannot bring proof, plaintiff shall receive the judgment of the Court which, upon request, will mete out justice. ” Grietjen did not appear in court as ordered on January 23.

On February 6 Jacobsen once again addressed the court and asked that it

grant him justice against defendant.  Defendant answers that plaintiff is the father of her child.  He denies this, says it is not his child, and offers to affirm upon oath.  Which he did before the Court, saying, ‘I am not the father of the child: So truly help me God Almighty!’  Therefore, the Court decides to allow plaintiff to marry any other person he pleases, and it has also thought it proper, in view of several certificates previously shown by both parties to the Court, that plaintiff shall, for the nonce, pay defendant two hundred gilders, on a former acknowledgement made by him that he did not compensate her for lying with her, and he is therefore bound to pay her for that service.

Jacobson got his freedom, but the Court recognized his responsibility and ordered that he pay Grietjen 200 guilders. He never met this obligation, and died just a few years later. Grietjen was reluctant to let it go. On December 8, 1665 she went to the court and filed suit against  Jacobsen’s partner Pieter Cornelissen, asking that he surrender Jacobsen’s goods and belongings to her.  Cornelissen rejected this suggestion.

Taken captive

On June 7, 1663 Grietjen was taken prisoner when Wildwyck was attacked by a Lenape Indian nation war party during the Second Esopus WarThe Journal of the Esopus War, a first hand account of the battle and the aftermath, can be read in its entirely at archive.org. See also “The Esopus Wars: A History of the Battle Between the Dutch and Local American Indians in the 1660s.” David Levine at hvmag.com

Marriage

databaseflagJan Gerritsen Decker first appears in the records around 1663, and was also taken in the raid on Wiltwyck. Somehow they both made it back home and then married. But their adventures were not over.

Brawling in the street

From the Esopus Court records. Vol. II, Page 485, 21 Sep 1672

This September 21, 1672, Barbara Jans says that Grietie Westercamp has attacked her and took hold of her skirt, and said, “Let me go, your attack will cost you dear.” Whereupon Grietie Westercamp called her a “Carouje” or “Caronje.” [whore] Annetetie, the wife of Cornelis Vernooy, says that she left the fort with Grietie Westercamp. Grietie Westercamp says that her husband, coming on the land, found some pigs in the corn and told his wife about it and said some words in a passion, whereupon Barbara Jans said, “Let your thieving boy come here on the land.” Then Grietie Westercamp came and asked Barbara Jans what she had to say against her boy, whereupon Barbara Jans said, “Your boy has taken a knife of me,” whereupon she answered that she would have to prove her accusation, whereupon Barbara Jans said, “Fatted pig.” Then Grietie said, “Black devil” and more other words, and they commenced to fight.

Further adventures

New York Historical Manuscripts, Dutch, Kingston Papers: Kingston court records, 1668-1675, and secretary’s papers, 1664-1675. 1976. Two volumes. Peter R. Christoph, Kenneth Scott and Karen Stryker-Rodda, editors. Translated by Dingman Versteeg. Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co.

Sept. 18, 1663: Roeloff Swartwout, the Schout, prosecuted a number of cases involving violations of the Aug. 4, 1663, ordinance that prohibited inhabitants from working in the fields without protection from attack by Native Americans. Jan Gerritsen was among the defendants who defaulted. Vol. 1, page 73.

Oct. 9, 1663: “Roeloff Swartwout, Schout, plaintiff, vs. Jan Gerritsen, Antony Crupel, Henderick Hendericksen, Jacob Stoutenborch, defendants. Plaintiffs demand from the aforesaid defendants fines due for violation of the ordinance dated August 4, that no one should venture out to mow, without consent and a proper convoy, the fines amounting, … Jan Gerritsen, to 75 gldrs. … Antoni Crupel, 75 …. Henderick Hendericksen, 75 … Jacob Stoutenborch, 25 … Juriaen Westphael, representing the above named defendants who were in his employ, says he is not disposed to pay any fine herein, as the promises given him were not fulfilled at mowing time. Plaintiff requests judgment herein. The Commissaries, having heard plaintiff’s demand and the answer of defendants’ representative, order the defendants to pay the full fine to plaintiff, because their representative’s day had been extended through rain and other causes, and the next day, when the weather was favorable, no work was done, yet at a time when, under the general agreement of the community, he ought to have assisted other farmers with his people, he had, notwithstanding the ordinance, had the work continued without giving notice to the Council of War and this Court.” Vol. 1, page 77.

Oct. 30, 1663, Council of War and Commissaries: “Roelof Swartwout, Schout, plaintiff, vs. Jan Gerretsen, defendant. Plaintiff demands from plaintiff a fine of seventy-five gldrs., pursuant to the judgment rendered by the Honorable Court on October 9, for violating the ordinance dated August 4, in that he worked in the field without permission and a convoy. Defendant admits he worked in the field without permission and a convoy, but says he was working close by the guard house, and does not owe anything but intends to go higher up. The Council of War and Commissaries order defendant to pay the full fine, pursuant to the judgment rendered by the Court on October 9.” Vol. 1, pages 96-97.

Dec . 27, 1663: “Mattheus Capito, Provisional Schout, vs. Juriaen Westphael, defendant. The Provisional Schout submits his demand in writing. It reads as follows: Whereas defendant, Juriaen Westphael, on October 9, last, substituted himself, for the below mentioned persons, his workmen, who violated the ordinance proclaimed and published on August 4, last, providing that no one, without permission and a proper convoy, should venture out to mow, cart, or do any other work, and were detected by the former Schout, Roelof Swartwout, my predecessor: Antoni Crupel, for having violated the aforesaid ordinance twice, and having been fined 75 fl. Henderick Hendericksen, twice, 75 fl. Jan Gerretsen, twice, 75 fl. Jacob Stoutenborch, once, 25 fl. Jan Broersen, twice, 75 fl. Jacob Barents Cool, once, 25 fl. Jan Jansen van Oosterhout, twice, 75. fl. Amounting to a total of 425 fl. say four hundred and twenty-five guilders, which the defendant was condemned to pay, and the defendant, on October30, last, appeared before the Honorable Court, for the second time, for said persons, and was again ordered to pay the full amount of the fine, whereupon he gave notice of appear. The defendant is therefore asked by the Provisional Schout to show the Court forthwith what he has accomplished in his appeal to the High Court at the Manhattans, the appeal not having been received there. The Provisional Schout, plaintiff, concludes that the defendant, Juriaen Westphael, should be ordered to pay the aforesaid demands and fines, with costs, and the execution thereon issue. Defendant hereupon says he can not answer, as the promises made to him in regard to harvesting his corn were not fulfilled , and says he has done nothing in his appeal. The Honorable Court orders defendant to pay the above named fines, unless he agree with the Schout upon a settlement.” Vol. 1, page 112-113.

Nov. 25, 1664: “Willem Beeckman, Plaintiff, vs. Jan Gerretsen, Defendant. Plaintiff demands, for himself personally, from defendant 43 gldrs. 10 st. in sewan, and further 162 gldrs.15 st. in sewan or wheat, as per vendue of the effects of Frederick Claesen upon which have been paid as per bill produced, 50 gldrs., balance in all amounting to 156 gldrs. 5 st., and requests payment of the same with costs, because already more than six weeks have passed since said vendue. Defendant admits the debt, but says that at present he is not able to pay. The hon. court sentences defendant to satisfy plaintiff’s aforenamed demand with the costs.” Vol. 1, page 179.

Oct. 29, 1665, Secretary’s Minutes: “On this October 29, 1665, appeared before me, Mattheus Capito, Secretary of the village of Wildwyck, Mattheu Blanchan and Jan Gerretsen Van Heerden, both residents of Wildwyck, who, in the presence of the below named witnesses declare having agreed upon the following conditions: Mattheu Blanshan declares having sold and Jan Gerretsen having bought of the aforesaid Mattheu Blanchan a cow, said cow having been delivered on the above date to him, the purchaser, by the seller, for which cow the purchaser promises to pay the seller an amount of 190 gldrs. in sewan to be delivered in grain, viz., the sch. of wheat at five gldrs., the sch. of rye at four gldrs., the sch. of white peas at four gldrs., and the oats three sch. at five gldrs., and the buckwheat two sch. at five gldrs. The purchaser agrees to deliver the aforenamed amount of 190 gldrs. to the seller in the grains specified above from now on till Mar. 31, precisely of the coming year 1666, under the following condition: If the purchaser shall not have fully paid the seller in March of the coming year 1666, the seller shall be at liberty to again attach the aforesaid sold cow and to again own the same, not considering what the purchaser shall have paid on the said cow between the aforesaid period, without, afterward, going to law about the same. With which the aforesaid appearers declare to be satisfied. And in consequence said appearers, besides Lambert Huybertsen and Henderick Hendericksen Van Wye as witnesses called in and requested for the purpose have signed the present with their own hand, at Wildwyck on the day and in the year named above. (Signed) Mattheu Blanchan, the mark of Jan Gerritsen an Heerden, the mark of Lambert Huybertsen, the mark of Henderick Hendericksen Van Wye. In my presence (signed) Mattheus Capito, Secretary.” Vol. 2, page 577-578.
+ Nov. 3, 1665: “Thomas Chambers, Plaintiff vs. Teunis Jacobsen and Andries Pietersen, Defendants. Plaintiff complains about defendants’ having taken the reed off plaintiff’s land without his knowledge, and which he himself needed, and requests justice about the same. Defendants admit having taken the reed off plaintiff’s land, and that said reed was mowed by Jan Gerretsen and Henderick Hendericks Van Wye, which these owed to defendants, and that they ordered defendants to punctually on the following day take the aforenamed reed away. Plaintiff further says that, on the day before, he spoke to the aforenamed persons, Jan Gerretsen and Henderick Hendericksen about mowing the reed on the land for himself, which they refused him to do, saying that they had other work, but notwithstanding they asked plaintiff where they should mow the reed and (he) answered them, ‘I shall drive to Pisseman’s Corner to see whether there is reed there,’ and upon his return told them there was reed there, and they nevertheless refused to mow the same, and shortly afterward mowed the reed for themselves, and had it carted away by defendants, on account of which plaintiff enters a complaint against the aforesaid persons as thieves, and requests justice for the same.” Vol. 1, page 258.

Dec. 1, 1665: “Willem Beeckman, Schout, Plaintiff, vs. Jan Gerretsen and Henderick Hendericks Van Wye, Defendants. Plaintiff says that on Nov. 3 last Thomas Chambers made a complaint against defendants on account of theft, and that they mowed the reed off his land without his knowledge, and as soon as it had been mowed, had it removed by others, on which account the schout, as per aforesaid complaint, prosecutes defendants before the court, to punish the same as the case may be found. Defendants answer, saying not having stolen the reed, because Thomas Chambers had not fenced in the said piece of land where they mowed the reed, and also that Thomas Chambers had already had his reed mowed, before they mowed the reed for themselves. Thomas Chambers, having further been heard on this account, denies defendants’ answers in their presence, saying, that they, defendants, have knowingly and with intent to steal, mowed the reed from his land, because, forsooth, they knew he had put a mower on the said land for the purpose of mowing the reed for him, and while he needed said mower at home, they, defendants, in the meanwhile, took the liberty of mowing the reed off his land and to have it removed. The hon. schout replies, because it is plain that defendants as per Thomas Chambers’ complaint, have thievishly taken the reed off his land, therefore he demands, that in the future everyone may the more securely possess his property, and similar deeds may not be further committed, that they shall be obliged to indemnify Thomas Chambers for the damage or injury caused on account of said reed, and (be sentenced to pay) a fine of 100 gldrs. each. The hon. court, having considered the aforesaid case, decides that defendants have misbehaved, and appropriated another’s property in mowing the reed without the owner’s knowledge. Wherefore, for the purpose of preventing similar (actions) the defendants are condemned to return to said Thomas Chambers the reed they mowed off Thomas Chambers’ land and therebesides are sentenced each to pay in behalf of the hon. schout a fine of 25 gldrs.” Vol. 1, page 261.

Dec. 8, 1665: “Grietie Henderiks Westercamp, Plaintiff, vs. Pieter Cornelissen, Defendant. Plaintiff demands of defendant a sum of 200 gldrs., as per copy from the minutes dated Feb. 6, 1663, against Pieter Jacobsen, defendant’s partner. Defendant answers that plaintiff ought to have attended to said claim during the life-time of his partner, Pieter Jacobsen, and therefore concludes not to owe her anything. Plaintiff answers whereas defendant possesses deceased Pieter Jacobsen’s goods and effects, he is also obliged to pay his debts. Defendant answers that he did not agree with his partner concerning this affair, and further says that plaintiff kept his partner from working, so that (he) was very much inconvenienced through the same. The hon. court decides, whereas plaintiff has been negligent in attending to said business during Pieter Jacobsen’s life-time, therefore she is referred with her claim to the left own estate* of the deceased Pieter Jacobsen.” [Footnote: “A literal translation of naegelatene eygene goederen”. A better reading, suggested by Versteeg, is ‘the personal estate left by the deceased Pieter Jacbosen.’] Vol. 1, pages 267-268.

Dec. 8, 1665: “Femmetie Alberts, Plaintiff, vs. Willemtie Alberts, Defendant. Plaintiff says that some time ago she bought a hood of her daughter Grietje and did not receive the same of her daughter, and in the meantime her aforesaid daughter again sold and delivered said hood to Willemtje Alberts, and requests that Willemtie Alberts shall return said hood to her, plaintiff. Defendant answers having bought said hood of plaintiff’s daughter Grietje, and (that she) partially paid for the same, the balance of the purchase money is ready with her. Plaintiff replies not being satisfied, but desires to have said hood for herself because she bought it first. The hon. court refers plaintiff to her daughter, to look to her for securing the hood and denies plaintiff’s claim against defendant.” Vol. 1, page 268.

March 16, 1666: “Grietje Hendericks, Plaintiff, vs. Arent Jacobsen, Defendant. Plaintiff demands of defendant three sch. of wheat on account of assigned money of the smith, and costs. Defendant admits the debt, and says not to be able to pay just now. The hon. court orders defendant to satisfy plaintiff’s claim and costs.” Vol. 1, page 285.

Oct. 19, 1666: “Willemtje Jacobs, Plaintiff, vs. Pieter Hillebrants, Defendants. Absent 2nd Default. Plaintiff says that defendant has his sister board with her [plaintiff] before the last war with the savages, when he was living on the Great Piece, and demands 7½ sch. of wheat for five weeks’ board.” Vol. 1, page 303.
+ Oct. 16, 1666 [probably Oct. 26]: “Willemtje Jacob, Plaintiff, vs. Pieter Hillebrants, Defendant. Plaintiff demands, as per a previous demand on Oct. 19, 1666, 7½ sch. of wheat, board for his sister. Defendant answers that it is true that he had his sister lodge at the house of her husband, for which her husband demanded of him, defendant, in payment 1½ days’ driving, which he has not yet been able, up to now, to conveniently do, and offers to do it yet. Plaintiff answers that she is not satisfied with driving, but demands payment in grain. The hon. court decides, whereas defendant agreed with her husband concerning the board for his sister, to drive for the same, and consequently refers to him, therefore plaintiff’s husband, at the next session of the court, shall appear in regard hereof before the hon. court, for the purpose of giving information.” Vol. 1, page 305.

Feb. 26/March 8, 1667: “Reyndert Pietersen, Plaintiff, vs. Jan Gerretsen, Defendant. Plaintiff demands of defendant 101 gldrs. for received goods, as per obligation. Defendant admits the debt. The hon. court orders defendant to satisfy plaintiff’s demand.” Vol. 1, page 337.

Feb. 26/March 8, 1667: “Jan Gerretsen, Plaintiff, vs. Juriaen Westphael, Defendant. Plaintiff demands of defendant 25 sch. of wheat and one sch. of oats for wages, with costs. Defendant admits the debt. The hon. court orders defendant to satisfy plaintiff’s demand with costs.” Vol. 1, page 340.

Feb. 7, 1667/8: “Roelof Kierste, Plaintiff, vs. Jan Gerrits, Defendant.” No further information is provided. Vol. 2, page 387.

Feb. 4/14, 1667/8: “Roelof Kierste, Plaintiff, vs. Jan Gerrits, Defendant. Plaintiff demands of defendant three sch. of wheat for services rendered as surgeon. Defendant admits the debt and says that plaintiff has not yet served his time. After he has done so, defendant will gladly pay. Plaintiff says that he served him beside others, and the time has already expired. The hon. court decide that plaintiff shall serve the claimed time or else allow one sch. of wheat to be deducted.” Vol. 2, page 390.

March 22, 1668/9: “Jan Gerritsen, Plaintiff, vs. Aert Otterspoor, Defendant. Default.” Vol. 2, page 429.

Dec. 13, 1670, Secretary’s Minutes: “Conditions and terms whereupon the collective householders, whose lands are situated across the great kil, intend to contract with the lowest bidder to make a bridge which is to be fit to bear horses and wagon and sleighs, and to keep the same in good repairs, passable for vehicles, for the time of six consecutive years which shall commence on this date. But if, during harvest time, the water should rise high, on account of which some repairs to the bridge should be necessary, then all the principals shall assist him, the contractor, each with one man, provided the contractor shall pay one sch. of wheat a day for each man, viz., if the contractor should need any help. The bridge is to be delivered passable and fit for horses and wagons at the end of the time. The contractor shall be obliged, during the period of the six years named above, to maintain a serviceable gate with a lock, but all the principals shall, at their own expense, have a key made which they shall not give to anybody not having land across the kil, under penalty of 25 gldrs. fine in behalf of the contractor. The payment shall come from, and be paid out of, the number of morgens, in proportion, and each one will have to pay his share every year to the contractor, in wheat at six gldrs. and other grain in proportion. And if anybody shall be a year in arrears, the same shall pay double his share to the contractor for the year he is in arrears. (Signed) Jan Willemsen, Cornelis Wynckoop, Hendrick Jochems, the mark of Jacob Jansen, the mark of Michiel Mot, the mark of Cornelis Vernooy, the mark of Thomas Matthys, the mark of Dirck Hend., George Hall, Ann Brodhead, the mark of Jan Gerritsz, Tomys Hermans Brouwer. Contractors under the above conditions are Corne Wynkoop, Jan Willem, Jacob Jansz Stout. and Hendr. Jochemsz for one sch. of wheat or other grain in proportion for every morgen per year for the period named above. And in case, owing to negligence on their part, anyone should suffer loss on account of the bridge, they, the contractors, shall make good the same. But in case high floods (should cause damage) they shall be required to repair the same as quickly as possible. For the purpose of complying with the above they pledge their persons and their estates, under obligations as per law, this December 13, 1670, at Kingston. (Signed) Cornelis Wynckoop, Jan Willemsen, Hendrick Jochems. (Jacob Jansz. did not sign.)” Vol. 2, page 690.

February 1671: “Appeared before me, W. Montagne, Secretary for the hon. court, Michiel Modt and Mrs. Anna Broadheds who declare having agreed in the following manner: A certain lot, between the Miller’s and Jan Gerritsen’s as also the growing crop wherefore he, Michiel Modt, is to give 320 sch. of wheat, viz., 105 sch. of wheat next winter on Feb. 5, 1672, for the crop of grain. [Here the instrument ends. Marked ‘Error’ in the margin.]” The next entry apparently concerns the same sale, but with payments starting in 1673. It is dated Feb. 6, 1671. Vol. 2, page 713.

May 15, 1671: “List of the Inhabitants of This Village, Where Their Portion in the Curtains Is to Be Found: … Jan Gerridtsen [number] 18 [rods] 7.” Vol. 2, page 461-462.

March 20, 1671/2: “Jan Gerritsen, Plaintiff, vs. Jacob Jansen, Defendant. Plaintiff demands of defendant a quantity of 24 sch. of wheat, and four gldrs. Defendant says not to owe more than 17 sch. of wheat. The hon. court orders defendant to pay 17 sch. of wheat, and plaintiff is required to prove the balance.” Bracketed information is mine. Vol. 2, page 480.

July 27, 1672: “The Heer Thoomas de LaVall requests, whereas the hon. Lord general is engaged in repairing the fort, and whereas there is war, and the vessels have been attached in Holland, and on account there is a great scarcity of money, therefore their honors are requested to voluntarily subscribe like all other villages. List of those who have voluntarily subscribed toward repairing the fort: … Jan Gerritsen, 8 sch.” [This follows a report on July 19 about the war between the English and Dutch.] Vol. 2, page 483.

Sept. 21, 1672: “This September 21, 1672, Barbara Jans says that Grietie Westercamp has attacked her and took hold of her skirt, and said, ‘Let me go, your attack will cost you dear.’ Whereupon Grietie Westercamp called her a ‘Carouje’ or ‘Caronje.’ Annetetie, the wife of Cornelis Vernooy, says that she left the fort with Grietie Westercamp. Grietie Westercamp says that her husband, coming on the land, found some pigs in the corn and told his wife about it and said some words in a passion, whereupon Barbara Jans said, ‘Let your thieving boy come here on the land.’ Then Grietie Westercamp came and asked Barbara Jans what she had to say against her boy, whereupon Barbara Jans said, ‘Your boy has taken a knife of me,’ whereupon she answered that she would have to prove her accusation, whereupon Barbara Jans said, ‘Fatted pig.’ Then Grietie said, ‘Black devil’ and more other words, and they commenced to fight.” Vol. 2, page 485. [Footnote: “Caronje, meaning ‘whore,’ is the correct spelling.”]

Sept. 21, 1672: “The hon. court orders that Barbara Jans and Grietie Westercamp shall pay the hon. schout … (this is all).” [Parenthesis is in original.] Vol. 2, page 486.

Nov. 22, 1673, Ordinary Session Held at Swaenenburgh: “Grietie Wistercam appeared at the session and requested that the witnesses between her and Hendrick Van Wyen shall be heard. Aerdt Otterspoor declares that at evening he heard the cry of ‘murder’ in the barn of Jan Gerritsen. When arriving there, he found that Jan Gerritsen and Hendrick Van Wyen were fighting and saw that Grietie Westercamp separated them and that she had a hole in the head, but says not having seen a knife. Grietie Westercamp requests that Hendrick Van Wyen shall declare under oath that he has not cut her, or else she offers to affirm the same under oath. Defendant refuses to clear himself under oath. Plaintiff is ready to affirm it under oath. The hon. Schout ex officio demands of defendant Van Wyen for his committed offence a fine of 300 gldrs. as per the decree. The hon. court sentences defendant to pay a fine of 100 gldrs. to be applied as follows: one-fourth for the poor, one-fourth for the village, and one-half for the officer, and besides to pay the doctor’s fee and expenses.” Vol. 2, pages 503-504.

Nov. 25, 1673: “Grietie Westercamp, Plaintiff, vs. Hendrick Van Wyen, Defendant. Plaintiff says that defendant cut her head when she separated him and her husband. Defendant denies having done so and requests proof. The hon. court orders plaintiff to prove her assertion.” Vol. 2, page 503.

Nov. 25, 1673: “Robberdt Biggerstaf, Plaintiff, vs. Jan Gerritsen, Defendant. Plaintiff says that defendant has run over a pig of his. Defendant says that when passing with his wagon he heard a pig squeal. His wife going to the spot found no pig. Requests proof, and if he had done so, the pig ought to have been right away appraised. The hon. court orders plaintiff to prove his assertion.” Vol. 2, page 503.

Nov. 28, 1673: “Schout Grevenraedt, Plaintiff, vs. Jan Gerritsen, Defendant. Plaintiff demands of defendant a fine of 25 gldrs. because he, defendant, has been fighting with Hendrick Van Wyen. Defendant says that Hendrick Van Wyen beat him first. He agrees to prove the same under oath.” Vol. 2, page 504.

Feb 27, 1673/4: “Schout Grevenraedt, Plaintiff, vs. Jan Gerritsen, Defendant. Plaintiff demands of defendant a sum of 23 gldrs. for the purchase of a bed at vendue, still a balance, an obligation of 46 gldrs. and the costs of the present. Plaintiff admits the debt except three gldrs. which he earned for carting freight. He also says that he has sold the horse of Barendt the Negro by execution. Requests payment for feeding it. The hon. court decides that Jan Gerritsen shall receive payment for feeding the horse since the time of the execution against Barendt the Negro. But the judgement of the hon. court must first be satisfied and all the expenses of Barendt the Negro’s execution must first be paid. And Jan Gerritsen ought to have nothing to do with anybody else’s slave without the knowledge of his master.” Vol. 2, pages 509-510.

May 21, 1674: “The hon. court authorizes the officer to judicially enforce the judgment against Jan Gerritsen in behalf of the Schout.” Vol. 2, page 516.

Jan. 12, 1674/5: “Jacob Elbertsen, Plaintiff, vs. Jan Gerritsen, Defendant. Plaintiff demands of defendant seven sch. of wheat for taking care of his cows. Defendant demands of plaintiff 28 lbs. of butter because his cows stayed out 28 days. Plaintiff says that he delivered the cows in the fort. The hon. court orders defendant to pay five sch. of wheat.” Vol. 2, page 523.

Feb. 9, 1674/5: “Dirck Jansen Schepmoes, Plaintiff, vs. Cornelis Fynhoudt, Defendant. Dirck Jansen says that Cornelis Fynhoudt last year received of Jan Gerritsen 15 sch of wheat which ought to go to Dirck Jansen as his share of the sold house and lot. Defendant admits the debt. The hon. court orders defendant to pay the demanded amount.” Vol. 2, page 527.

March 8, 1674/5: “This March 8, 1674/5, the hon. court authorizes the officer to execute the judgment against Jan Gerritsen in favor of Jacob Elbersen.” Vol. 2, page 527.

Source: The Old Homestead

Comments are closed.