Document: Order for a writ of appeal in favor of Samuel Mahu vs. Nicholas Booth from a judgment of the city court

[several lines lost] Received the request of [ ], inhabitant [ showing that ] he finds himself greatly injured and treated unjustly by the judgment of the burgomasters and schepenen of the city of Amsterdam in N: Netherland on the 29th of May 1658, between him and Nicolaes Booth, requesting therefore that a writ of appeal be taken up for reasons narrated in the request.

It is resolved, fiat the order for a writ of appeal.

Mr. Samuel Mahu, plaintiff by court order in a writ of appeal, against Nicolaes Booth, defendant. The defendant’s 1st default. Dated as above.

Mr. Mahu, plaintiff, in a writ of appeal against Nicolaes Booth, defendant; the defendant’s 2nd default. Dated as above.[i]

[several lines lost] Samuel Mahu [ ] of burgomasters and [schepenen ] dated 29 May between him and [ Nicolaes ] Booth, former plaintiff in a writ of appeal, plaintiff, against Nicolaes Booth, defendant in the same case. The plaintiff, making his claim in writing, demands that the defendant be condemned to pay here in this country the quantity of 2,460 pounds of Virginia tobacco, or the value thereof, that was received by the defendant for him in Virginia; likewise, that the defendant pay for the arbitration and sentence of 21 April 1656, cum expensis. The defendant demands approval of the judgment in question; he acknowledges that he received the tobacco exempt from Mr. Hoon in Virginia, but says not to have had the opportunity to ship it from there because of a lack of vessels, offering to pay the plaintiff the demanded 2,460 pounds of tobacco in Virginia value. Regarding the demanded satisfaction according to arbitration, the defendant says that in this respect he gave the plaintiff full satisfaction.

The director general and councilors, having heard the parties, and having examined the documents, decide that the verdict was correct and badly appealed, dividing[ii] the expenses made for this. Dated as above.