On September 7 (say November 7), 1645
Hans Hansen, plaintiff, vs. Lambert Clomp, defendant, for payment of fl. 225 for the purchase of a half-interest in a sloop. Defendant acknowledges that he purchased the sloop, on condition that it should be delivered tight and be made seaworthy.
Ordered, if the sellers can prove that the sloop was seaworthy when the purchase was made or afterwards and that Cornelis Teunesz neglected or refused to fulfil his contract, defendant is condemned to pay according to the agreement.
November 16
Hendrick Pitersen, plaintiff, vs. Jochim Kalder, defendant, for fl. 195, arising from the purchase of land and a house. As no contract was made, nor any proof exists, the parties are ordered to agree if possible.
Lysbet Tyssen, plaintiff, vs. Jan Forbus, defendant, for payment of fl. 22:10 for house rent. Defendant acknowledges the debt and is satisfied to have plaintiff receive the fl. 22:10 from Adriaen Dircksz in the inn. Defendant is condemned to pay plaintiff in accordance with his acknowledgment and promise.
Jan Forbus, plaintiff, vs. Albert Jansen, defendant, for payment of fl. 40. Defendant says that he promised to pay the plaintiff fl. 40 out of the money which he was to receive for Roelandt Hackwaert. Jan Forbus confirms on oath that the defendant promised to pay for Roelandt Hackwaert. Defendant is therefore condemned to pay.
Ordinance prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquors to Indians[1]
Whereas daily much strong liquor is sold to the Indians, whereby heretofore serious troubles have arisen in this country and, if no provision be made herein, it is to be feared that further calamities may occur; Therefore, in order to prevent the same, we, the director and council of New Netherland, do forbid all tapsters and other inhabitants from this day forward to sell, give, or trade to the Indians any wine, beer, or other strong liquor, or, under any pretext whatsoever, to fetch it, or to cause it to be fetched by the third or fourth hand, directly or indirectly, from any houses, taverns, or elsewhere. If any one, be he who he may, be found to have acted contrary hereto, he shall for the first offense forfeit five hundred guilders; for the second offense forfeit double the amount, receive arbitrary punishment and be banished from the oountry, and in addition be held responsible for all the damage which may result from the selling or giving of any liquor to the Indians. The 2lst of November 1645. Published and posted at the usual places.
November 24, 1645
Jeuriaen Blanck and Tomas Willit, plaintiffs, vs. Jochim Kirstede, defendant, for profit which they claim from the goods sold by the defendant according to their agreement made with him and which he, upon adjustment of accounts, offered to pay them at Rhode Island, leaving the decision in the matter to the oath of the defendant, or offering to take one themselves. The defendant leaves it to the plaintiffs to take the oath, which is done. Therefore, the defendant is condemned to pay them the amount according to the adjustment of accounts.
On November 30, 1645, in Fort Amsterdam
Cornelis vander Hoykens, fiscal, plaintiff, vs. Jan Jansen Ilpendam, defendant. The fiscal asks for speedy justice and that Jan Jansen make written answer to the plaintiff's reply on condition that the fiscal furnish him with copies of the affidavits. Said Jan Jansen is ordered to answer by next Thursday.
December 7, 1645
Jan Jansen is allowed time to see whether meanwhile he can adduce evidence to overthrow the testimony.
Henry Breser, plaintiff, vs. Aert Willemsen, defendant, for wages amounting to fl. 100. The defendant's wife, appearing for the defendant, promises to pay this week as much as possible and the remainder after Christmas, with which the plaintiff is satisfied.
Lysbet Tyssen, plaintiff, vs. goodman Karreman, defendant, about the purchase of a petticoat. Goodman Harck declares at the request of goodman Karreman that when Karreman called him, the deponent, Lysbet Tysen was standing in her doorway and Roelant and Karreman were at the door on the road. Said Karreman held up a woman's petticoat and asked what it was worth. Roelant demanded four marks for the petticoat; it was a red petticoat, lined with blue and bound with cord. The case is submitted to referees, to wit: Mr. Ochden and Lieutenant Bacxter, to make parties agree with each other.
