Document: Order in the case of Martense vs. Van Tienhoven

[several lines lost] Received the reply of Cornelis van Tienhoven on and countering the petition of Cornelis Martensz, factor, concerning two half amen of brandy and two ditto of Spanish wine impounded by Cornelis van Tienhoven in the year 1655; in addition, reread the petitions of the plaintiff Cornelis Martensen aforesaid, exhibited and shown to both the honorable lords directors and the director general and councilors here, in which the plaintiff or petitioner, among others, remonstrates and says that he, petitioner, in the year 1654 from October to 27 November following thereon did load in the ship the Groote Christoffel the wines specified on the manifest signed by the Company’s bookkeeper, Jan Baptista Liefrinck, in order to ship the same (having paid the recognition fee and further duties, as was done) to aforesaid New Netherland, where upon arrival the fiscal Tienhoven was pleased, as has happened various times, to seize from the same wines two half amen Spanish and two ditto brandy on his own authority; whereupon the interlocutory judgment by the honorable lords councilors of New Netherland dated 27 April 1655.[i]

[several lines lost] addressed to the lords [ ] in which petition as [ ] he remonstrates and declares [ ] and that the recognition fee and further duties were paid [ ] wines are [ ] among many other goods according to the subscribed bookkeeper Lieffrinck, whereupon the lords directors (who assuming the remonstrance and statements of the petitioner are sincere and truthful) please to order the restoration of the wines in question [ ] in the event the seized wines were not confiscated as a result of the aforesaid judgment [ ] as can be seen in broader detail in the extract from their resolutions dated 2 March 1656,[ii] which apostille of the aforesaid lords directors squares in substance with the interlocutory judgment of the councilors dated 27 April, aforesaid; and whereas until today the declaring of the [ ] wines in question on the manifest did not appear sufficient to the director general and councilors, much less the satisfaction of the recognition and further duties according to the firm stand of the petitioner, director general and councilors can not yet withdraw the [ ]

[several lines lost] manifest by Lieffrinck [ ] were declared and the recognition thereof was paid, which in order better to experience, the lord Nicasius de Sille and the secretary Cornelis van Ruyven are moreover ordered and commissioned to examine and review the aforesaid manifest of the Groote Cristoffel in the presence of the petitioner and to report to the director general and councilors whether any wines appearing on the aforesaid manifest were withheld as the petitioner presumes and determines in his request to the lords directors; in case it is so found, the petitioner shall be granted satisfaction for the wines in question, pursuant to the aforesaid interlocutory judgment of the councilors and the further resolution of the lords directors, or otherwise they be and remain confiscated according to the same judgment and the further resolution. Done as above (was signed)

P. Stuyvesant, Nicasius de Sille and La Montagne.