Albert Heymans Roosa and Wyntje Ariens De Jongh

Albert Heymans Roosa[1] was the son of Heijmans Guijsberts and IJken Jans Kuijsten. He had at least two brothers, Jan and Govert, and one sister, Anneke. It was likely that he also had a brother named Gijsbert. Albert married Wyntje Ariens de Jongh. Wyntje was the daughter of Adriaen Meertensen de Jongh and Maijken --. She had two brothers, Marten and Govert, and three sisters, Aricken, Neelke, and Engelje.

Albert Heymans served as the buurmeester of Herwijnen in 1655-6 [2]. On 16 Apr 1660, Albert, Wyntje, and eight of their children, ages 17 to 2, sailed from Amsterdam aboard de Bonte Koe, and settled in Wildwyck (later Kingston, Ulster, New York. Albert was listed as a farmer. Just over a year later, on 16 May 1661, Albert was chosen to be one of the three schepens of Wildwyck. He was reelected 27 April 1662. He was last mentioned as a commissary on 17 April 1663. In November and December of 1663, he was recorded in the Kingston court record as the Consistory. Albert was appointed 20 Apr 1665 as one of the persons who were to draw up the conditions for a cattle auction. He can be found many times in the court records and secretary's papers of Kingston serving in the capacity of arbitrator, appraiser, and a witness to transactions

In June of 1663, at the start of the Second Esopus War, a group of Native Americans attacked the village and took two of Albert and Wyntje's children prisoners. At least one of the children, Albert's eldest daughter, was held captive until the end of the year. During her captivity, Albert and another man reacted by threatening to shoot two Wappinger Indians who were being questioned by the Dutch and had been promised safety. He was accused of challenging a member of the court at Thomas Chambers' house on November 6, threatening to fight those who were friends to the Indians. Albert, however, denied the accusation. He was also brought to court for insulting a commissary over the issue of horses provided for the expedition against the Indians.

In April of 1664, the English annexed New Netherland. The Director General Peter Stuyvesant surrendered that September and the colony was soon renamed New York. Over the next several years, there were many conflicts between the Dutch and English. Albert was deeply involved in these conflicts. The first of these conflicts that the Roosas took part in took place over a canoe belonging to the family. He, his son Arien, and Ariaen Huyberts (probably the son of Neeltje, Wyntje's sister) became involved in a fight with three English soldiers on 18 November 1664. The soldiers had been asked to guard the canoe by the previous watch and Albert's group had come to claim it and use it for hunting. Albert's party did not speak enough English and the soldiers did not speak enough Dutch to be able to understand each other and a fight ensued. Albert, his son, and nephew were all fined by the court for their actions.

The Roosas quartered a soldier by the name of Daniel Butterwout. On 26 May 1665, Albert and Daniel had a quarrel and an order was made that Albert was to be arrested. As rumor spread through the village of the arrest, a riot started, ended peacefully. A number of the inhabitants were later questioned about their role in the riot, including Albert's son Ariaen and nephew Arien Huyberts, who both claimed to have been out for other reasons.

The next incident occurred on 28 April/3 May 1666, when Albert took a broken coulter (part of a plow) and went to the home of Louis Dubois to find the blacksmith to have it repaired. There were a number of inhabitants and soldiers drinking at the Dubois home. One of these soldiers, Francois Vreeman came out of the house and attacked Albert. Albert fought back, throwing part of the coulter at him and fighting him off with a stick. Four other soldiers joined the fight. Albert went underneath one soldier's sword and took hold of him but Albert was wounded by the other soldiers. Ariaen Huyberts testified that he tried to run to his uncle and was also attacked by the soldiers. He was arrested and said that one soldier beat him in the guardhouse.

Governor Nicolls attempted to ease the tensions between burgher and soldier by replacing the garrison's commander at Kingston with one Captain Brodhead. Brodhead, however, only worsened the problem with his favoritism towards the soldiers and abusive behavior towards the Dutch. The Dutch openly rebelled when Henderick Cornelissen, the ropemaker, was killed by an English soldier and when Brodhead assaulted, then arrested Cornelis Barentsen Slecht, one of Albert's former colleagues. A large number gathered together in what became known as the Esopus Mutiny. The burghers refused to obey Brodhead's order to disperse and Brodhead, in turn, refused to listen to the magistrates' pleas to compromise peacefully by allowing Slecht to be tried in the burgher court. Afterwards, Nicolls wishing to keep control of his colony by making an example out of those who assembled, ordered the "principal Incendiaries" to be tried in Kingston and sent to New York City for sentencing. Albert and his son Ariaen were among these and were found guilty of "rebellious and mutinous Riot". In New York City, Nicolls felt the defendants were deserving of death but, at the advice of the Council and the petition of the inhabitants of Kingston, he gave these men a less drastic punishment. Albert, an apparent leader in the "mutiny", was given life banishment from the colony, as well as confiscation of property. Ariaen was given a shorter term of banishment out of Albany, New York, and the Esopus. Shortly afterwards, however, when the English possession of New Netherland was confirmed, Nicolls granted them amnesty.

Albert died 27 February 1678/9. An inventory was taken 30 April/ 10 May 1667 and his property included "a farm with its growing crops, a dwelling and a barn, seven heads of horses... eight heads of cattle..." Wyntje survived him as she appears as a witness to a grandchild's baptism and was listed as Albert's widow and she also appears as taking part in her husband's inventory.

Albert and Wyntje's children [3]:

  1. Arien Allertsen Roosa[4], married Maria Everts Pels.
  2. Heiman Aldertse Roosa [5], married Anna Margriet Roosevelt [6], lived in Hurley, Ulster, New York, will dated 23 Aug 1708 and proved 9 Sep 1708.
  3. Jan Aldertsse Roosa [7], married Hillegond Willems van Burren [8].
  4. Eyke Alberts Rosa [9], married Roeloff Kierstede.
  5. Marritje Aldrichs Roos [10], married Laurens Janszen.
  6. Jannetje Rosa[11], born in Herwijnen, Ulster, New York, married Mattys ten Eyck 16 Nov 1679 in Hurley, Ulster, New York.
  7. Neeltje Roosa [12], baptized 5 Nov 1655 in Herwijnen, Gelderland, Netherlands, married Hendrick Paling in 1676 in Kingston, Ulster, New York.
  8. (child) Roosa, born in the Netherlands. [13]
  9. Guert Roosa, died as an infant, his parents had made arrangements for his baptism to take place 15 Jun 1664 in Kingston, Ulster, New York but he died shortly beforehand.


  1. Judicial Archives of Tuil, Folio 19 verso; folio 20 "Power of Attorney of Alardt Hemans to Adriaen Adriaenss, D'Jong" (See De Boer, Louis P., The New York Genealogical & Biographical Record, April 1927, pp. 149-150).
  2. O'Callaghan, Edmund Bailey, The Documentary History of the State of New-York, Vol. 3. Albany: Weed, Parsons, 1851, .p. 56
  3. Tepper, Michael (ed.), List of Passengers 1654 to 1664 and Immigrants to the Middle Colonies).
  4. Hoes, Roswell Randall (comp.), Baptismal and Marriage Registers of the Old Dutch Church of Kingston, Ulster County, New York, Baltimore, MD: Genealogical Publishing Co., Inc., 1997 (originally published by De Vinne Press (New York), 1891).
  5. Records of the Reformed Dutch Church in the City of New York: Marriages.
  6. O'Callahan, E. B. (comp.), Laws and Ordinances of New Netherland, 1638-1674, 1868.
  7. Versteeg, Dingman, New York Historical Manuscripts: Dutch: Kingston Papers, 2 vols., Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co., 1976.
  8. Kregier, Capt. Martin, Journal of the Second Esopus War, 1663, as found in O'Callaghan, E.B., The Documentary History of the State of New York, Vol. IV, Albany: Charles Van Benthuysen, 1851.
  9. Brodhead, John Romeyn, History of the State of New York, Vol. II, 1st Ed., New York: Harper & Brothers, 1871, pages 121-3.
  10. Bennett, David Vernooy, "The First American Mrs. Rosencrans", New York Genealogical & Biographical Record, Vol. XC, No. 2, Apr 1959.
  11. Anjou, Gustave, Ulster County, New York, Probate Records, 2 vols.
  12. Van Maanen, R.H.C., "Bestuurders en dienaren binnen de heerlijkheid Herwijnen (1616) 1700-1800 (1809)", Gens Nostra, pgs. 33-36.
  13. Index Kerkregisters Doop en Trouw, 1607-1681 (Herwijnen en Hellouw), (LDS Film 1743581).

Nederduitsch-Hervormde Gemeente te Herwijnen

No. 14
Doopakte d.d. 5 November 1655
Kind:  Neelken
Vader:  Alert Heijmense
Moeder:  Wiljlken Ariens de Jong
Getuigen:  Arien Huijbertse, Neelke Ariens de Jong.

Source:  Index Kerkregisters Doop en Trouw, 1607-1681 (Herwijnen en Hellouw), (LDS Film 1743581).

    Elias Leeuw (Notary Public) declares that Alardt Heymans, yeoman at Herwynen, having in mind to transport himself with his family, next month to Nieuw Netherlands, appoints Adriaen Adriaenss, D'Jong, also at Herwynen, to manage, to administer and to guard in his name all his goods, houses, lands and acres, none excepted belonging to him at present, or still due to him through inheritance or otherwise; to give the same out in rent and lease for a certain term of years; to demand and to collect, to accept and to receive the annual income thereof, and all other proceedings as claims, credit, rents, etc., due to him, the constituent, now and of years past, as well as of years to come;-to give receipt for payments, and if necessary to use judicial compulsion upon the debtors. Further to act for him in all law suits which may result therefrom be it as plaintiff or defendant, before all lords, judges, courts and benches, or whosoever administers justice; to observe all the rules of justice and if demanded, to appoint other Powers-of-Attorney in his own place.
Further gives he, the constituent, to the said Adriaen Adriaenss complete and irrevocable power to sell the named goods, lands, acres and rights, to convey the property to the purchaser or purchasers, divesting, thereby him, the constituent, according to the laws of our city and country (Bommel), guaranteeing full transfer thereof with his person and goods as guarantee; to restitute to purchase the part of the rents due to him; to give legal receipt to the purchaser before the magistrate; to accept the purchase sums or interest on the installments, and also to give receipt thereof.
And further to do in, general all that which the constituent himself, if present, could or might do, even if in normal cases, the matter might require special personal instruction; the constituent hereby confirming the above stated appointment.
And the constituent promises hereby to maintain, and to cause to be maintained as legal and of value, all and everything done by the said Adriaen Adriaenss, D'Jong, or his substitutes, as if he had done and transacted the same himself, without protesting against it, either directly or indirectly either in or out of Court. All under guarantee of his person and his goods.

Source: Judicial Archives of Tuil, Folio 19 verso; folio 20 "Power of Attorney of Alardt Hemans to Adriaen Adriaenss, D'Jong" (See De Boer, Louis P., The New York Genealogical & Biographical Record, April 1927, pp. 149-150).

From the ship manifest of de Bonte Koe, sailing 16 Apr 1660 from Amsterdam and arriving in New Amsterdam, Captain Pieter Lucasz:
"Albert Heymans, farmer, from Gelderland, wife and 8 children: 17, 15, 14, 9, 8, 7, 4, 2 yrs old"

Source: O'Callaghan, Edmund Bailey, The Documentary History of the State of New-York, Vol. 3. Albany: Weed, Parsons, 1851, .p. 56 (See also Tepper, Michael (ed.), List of Passengers 1654 to 1664 and Immigrants to the Middle Colonies).

Records of Baptisms of the Reformed Church at Kingston, Ulster, NY.

Page Number Baptism Number Baptism Date Parents Child Witnesses
3 38 1664 Albert Heymensen Roose Guert Anna Blom.
15 June Weyntjen Ariens "Hic filius obiit ante baptismum" [14]
11 175 1679 Heiman Aldertse Rosa Aldert Mr. Roelof Chierstede.
2 March Margriet Rosevelt Wielke de Jongh, widow of Aldert Heimansse Rosa, who died 27 Feb., 1678-9.

Kingston Marriage Register.

Page 504, Marriage Number 34        1676    (Date of marriage not given)
HENDRIC PAELDIN, and NEELTIEN ROOSA, j. d. First publication of Banns, 3 Nov. [15]

Page 504, Marriage Number 42        16 Nov 1679
MATYS TEN EYCK, j. m. of Nieu Jorck (New York),and resid. there, and JANNETIE ROSA, j. d., of Harwynen, [16] in Gelderlandt (Gelderland), resid. in Horley (Hurley). Married in Horley. First publications of Banns, 25 Oct.

Source: Hoes, Roswell Randall (comp.), Baptismal and Marriage Registers of the Old Dutch Church of Kingston, Ulster County, New York, Baltimore, MD: Genealogical Publishing Co., Inc., 1997 (originally published by De Vinne Press (New York), 1891).

Records of the Reformed Dutch Church in New Amsterdam/New York Marriages

14 dicto. Mathys ten Eyck, j. m. Van N. Yorke, en Janneken Rosa, j. d. Van Harwynen in Gelderlt. wonende op de Esopus.
(14, same month as above (Oct 1679). Mathys ten Eyck, unmarried man of New York, and Janneken Rosa, unmarried woman of Harwynen in Gelderland, married in the Esopus.)

Source: Records of the Reformed Dutch Church in the City of New York: Marriages.

In an ordinance of the Director General (Petrus Stuyvesant) and Council of New Netherland for the erection of a Court of Justice at Wildwyck, 16 May 1661:
"...In order that all things there may be performed with proper order and respect, it is necessary to choose, as Judges, honest, intelligent persons, owners of real estate, who are lovers of peace and well affected subjects of their Lords and Patroons, and of their Supreme government established here, promoters and professors of the Reformed Religion, as it is at present taught in the Churches of the United Netherlands, in conformity to the Word of God, and the order of the Synod of Dordrecht. Which Court of Justice, for the present time, until it shall be herein otherwise Ordained by the said Lords, Patroons, or their Deputy, shall consist of one Schout...and with him, of three Schepens, to which office are, for the present time and ensuing year, commencing the last of next May, elected, and on having taken the Oath, are confirmed by the Director General and Council, Evert Pels, Cornelis Barentsen Sleght and Elbert Heymans Rose..."

Source: O'Callahan, E. B. (comp.), Laws and Ordinances of New Netherland, 1638-1674, 1868, pg. 396.

From the Kingston (Wiltwyck/Esopus) Tax List (to defray the cost of building the Dominie's house), 12 November 1661:
"Albert Heymans, on the bouwery of Jacob Janse Stol's widow, 30 morgens...90 florins"

Source: O'Callahan, E. B. (comp.), Laws and Ordinances of New Netherland, 1638-1674, 1868, pg. 414.

Vol. I, Page 13, 3 Jan 1662
    Gerrit van Campen appears and assigns to Jan Barensen six schepels of wheat which Aldert Heymanse promises to pay.

Vol. I, Page 32, 27 Apr 1662
    In the matter of the elections, the Schout and Commissaries have decided to nominate the following persons to govern us hereafter, subject to the approval of the Very Noble Honorable Lord Director General and the Lord High Councillors: Thomas Chambers, Jan Willemse, Tjirick Classen de Wit, Albert Gysbertsen, Aert Jacobsen.
    The Noble Lord Director General and the High Councillor Gerret Decker were this day here present. The Lords Director General and High Councillor continued Evert Pels and Aldert Heymanse Roose as Commissaries, and from the nominees above mentioned appointed Albert Gysbertsen and Tjirick Classen deWit.
    Below stood,

April 27, Ao. 1662, Pieter Stuyvesant.
Vol. I, Page 43, 28 Nov 1662
    Albert Heymanse, plaintiff, demands proof of Pieter van Alen who has accused him of using false weights. Defendant admits (the accusation), and says that he did not receive full weight.
    The Court orders defendant under arrest until the accusation shall have been proved.

Vol. I, Page 53, 13 Jan 1663
    Albert Heymanse, plaintiff, vs. Pieter van Alen, defendant. Plaintiff says that by a previous judgment of the Commissaries, rendered at their session of November 28, defendant was ordered to prove to plaintiff that he used false weights. The defendant, after being under arrest for four days in the hands of the Schout, moves him to bring him to Court.
    The Court, Commissaries, resolve and decide to give defendant time until the next session of the Court, and in the meantime he may give bail, or else be detained until then.

Evert Pels,
Tierck Claszen de Witt.

Vol. I, Page 55-6, 23 Jan 1663
    Aldert Heymanse Roose, plaintiff, vs. Pieter van hAlen, defendant. Plaintiff, under an earlier judgment of the Commissaries directing defendant's arrest, requests his apprehension outside his own house, until he has proven plaintiff's weights to be false. Defendant, on an examination by the Commissaries, answers that he did not say that plaintiff's weights were false, but that he had not received full weight. At the former session, November 28, 1662, he roundly declared it be true that he had said so.
    The Commissaries, therefore, decide to refer the parties to three good men, Thomas Chambers, Mr. Gysbert van Imbrogh and Sergeant Christiaen Nissen romp, for the purpose of settling, if possible, the difference between them, otherwise to have the defendant arrested at plaintiff's request; the expenses to be paid by the party decided to be in the wrong.

Evert Pels,
Tierck Claszen de Witt,
Albert Gysbertsen, (x) his mark.
    The good men selected not having been able to settle the above dispute, the Commissaries are asked to act as arbitrators. These state that the parties have come to such an understanding that Pieter van Halen declared I their presence that he knew nothing of Albert Heymanse and his wife but what was honorable and virtuous, and promised to pay through the Schout the expenses incurred in the above matter.
Evert Pels,
Tierck Claszen de Witt,
(x) (Albert Gysbertsen.)
Vol. I, Page 92, 23 Oct 1663
    Roelof Swartwout, Schout, plaintiff, vs. Albert Heymans, defendant. Plaintiff enters suit against defendant on a complaint of the Commissaries, Tjerck Claesen, Albert Guysbertsen and Gysbert van Imbroch, that defendant publicly accused them of being deceitful in carrying out their ordinances, and that they did not do justice in accordance therewith.
    Defendant says, that the Court did not act in accordance with the wording of the ordinance, and demands a copy of the record herein.
The Honorable Court orders Tjerck Claesen, Albert Gysbertsen and Gysbert van Imbroch, at its next session, to furnish proof of the foregoing complaint, in conformity with their own statement.

Vol. I, Page 92-3, 23 Oct 1663
    Roelof Swartwout, Schout, plaintiff, vs. Albert Heymans, defendant. A complaint is made to the Schout that on August 30, last Albert Heymans, when lawfully called upon by Gysbert van Imbroch, at a meeting held at the Schout's house, to furnish a horse for the expedition against the savages, would not say "yes" or "no" to the Court, but said he would first see what the gentlemen were going to do, and that, when the Commissary again demanded an answer, the defendant called his a little tattle tale. By reason whereof, the said Commissary, nomine officio, pursuant to the said complaint, requests the Court to sustain his said action.
    The foregoing having been read to the defendant, he admits having used the aforesaid words, "little tattle tale," towards the Commissary, at the said place, and requests a copy of the record here, and promises to reply at the next session of the Court.

Vol. I, Page 101, 6 Nov 1663
    ...The Consistory, Albert Heymans, appeared, and was asked by the Honorable Court whether the Domine and the Consistory forbade Cornelis Barentsen Slecht and Juriaen Westphael to pay anything to any one for Willem Jansen Seba, deceased, and Hendrick Looman. He answered "Yes."

Vol. I, Page 102, 6 Nov 1663
    Roelof Swartwout, Schout, plaintiff, vs. Allert Heymans Roose, defendant. Plaintiff asks the defendant for the documents demanded of at the last session of the Court. Defendant submits his answer in writing, which literally reads as follows: Anno 1663, October 23. I was standing in the street near the guard house looking at the people going out, and then asked Tjerck Claesen how many horses would go along with the expedition against the savages, to which Tjerck answered, "sixteen;" whereupon I replied, "There are not as many farmers, unless double farms like those of Tomas Aert, Aert Jacobsen and your own furnish two." Whereupon he said, "Well, farmer, you pay rather much attention to me; well, you did not do so much in the expeditions pursuant to the ordinance, for you rather stood on one wagon with two in it, and I alone on one. Ho, farmer, you lie, I have done as much as you." Thereupon. I answered, "Thus you give the lie to your own ordinance. It is not right.'" For these words, Mr. Gysbert comes and makes complaint.

(Subscribed) Alaerdt Heymansz Roose.
    This matter, on the votes of three Commissaries, is, for cause, referred for decision, to the Director General and Council of New Netherland.

Vol. I, Page 102, 6 Nov 1663
    Roelof Swartwout, Schout, plaintiff, vs. Allert Heymans Roose, defendant. Plaintiff alleges that defendant challenged a member of the Court when sitting in the Council of War at the house of Thomas Chambers, July 7, concerning two Wappinger savages, saying, "If there is anyone at this meeting who is a friend of these savages, I dare him to come outside."
    Defendant denies this, and requests a copy of the record.
    The Honorable Court orders plaintiff, at next session, to prove his charge.

Vol. I, Page 115, 27 Dec 1663
    Allert Heymans appears before the Honorable Court, and requests that the minister, Hermanus Blom, be paid his salary, because, he says, the Consistory has made default thereon. He also shows the contract made between the minister and some of his congregation, dated March 4, 1661.
    The Honorable Court decides that the contract, dated March 4, 1661, between the minister and some of his congregation, was entered into for the period of a single current year. For the remaining years still to come the congregation shall agree with the minister about his salary, to be on a reasonable basis, and they shall meet at the minister's convenience.

Vol. I, Page 118-9, 29 Jan 1664
    The Same (Mattheus Capito, Provisional Schout), plaintiff, vs. Allert Heymans Roose, defendant. Plaintiff demands from defendanteleven guilders, heavy money the balance of the aforesaid minister's (Hermanus Blom's) salary for the year 1662. Defendant admits the debt.
    The Honorable Court learns that defendant owns a double lot. He must pay for the double lot twenty guilders, being in proportion to other single lots which must pay ten guilders, towards the minister's salary, and in addition one guilder, for acreage money. The aforementioned balance amounts to twenty-one guilders, which he is ordered to pay, in heavy money.

Vol. I, Page 141, 1 Apr 1664
    Frederick Philipsen, plaintiff, vs. Wyntje, wife of Allert Heymans, defendant. Pliantiff demands from defendant fifty-nine schepels of wheat, and the expenses therewith, for which an obligation was delivered May 4, 1662. Defendant admits the debt, but does not know how much it is, and says he has a counter claim for carting goods.
    The Honorable Court having heard the parties, and taking into consideration that defendant's husband is absent, he having gone to the Manhatans, orders the parties to liquidate their accounts between themselves, and that defendant on his admission of indebtedness pay plaintiff the balance of the account.

Vol. I, Page 155, 24 Jun 1664
    Foppe Barents, plaintiff, vs. Evert Pels, Alert Heymans Roose, absent, and Cornelis Barentsen Slecht, defendants.
    Plaintiff demands from defendants the sum of fifteen guilders, eleven stivers, in seewan, being the balance for carpenter work on the parsonage at Wildwyck.
    Cornelis Barentsen Slecht, appearing alone, says that judgment may be rendered and recorded against them, as Evert Pels, in Foppe Barents' presence, so verbally instructed him.
    The Honorable Court finds that, as the retired Commissaries have never been willing to render an accounting to the newly installed Commissaries, and the new Commissaries know nothing about the receipts and expenditures, the credits or the debits, the newly installed Commissaries are therefore not willing to accept any bills until the retired Commissaries have rendered their accounts.
    And for cause, the appearers, Cornelis Barentsen Slecht and Evert Pels, are ordered by the Honorable Court to pay the aforesaid demand of the plaintiff who is a country man and a stranger, and therefore must not be delayed.

Vol. I, Page 175, 18 Nov 1664
    Tomas Harmensen, Plaintiff vs. Allert Heymans, Defendant.
    Plaintiff demands from defendant payment of three sch. of wheat. Defendant admits the debt, but says having a bill against it.
    The hon. court orders parties to liquidate their accounts.

Vol. I, Page 176, 18 Nov 1664
    Samuel Olivier, Joris Porter, Eduard Chattelton, appearing before the hon. court, say that on last Thursday, being Nov. 3/13 (they being stationed on the redoubt as a guard), Allert Heymans came with his people for the purpose of taking a canoe from the shore which canoe they had been ordered to watch by the guard which they relieved. Ariaen Huybertsen then came and took hold of the canoe for the purpose of shoving it into the water, whereupon Samuel Olivier came with his gun for the purpose of preventing the same, and threatened to shoot said Ariaen Huybertsen. Ariaen Albertsen, in the meantime, took the small shot out of his gun, and reloaded it with ball, and Allert Heymans also challenged the guard to fight them, man against man, and even raised his axe and threatened the soldier Eduart Chattelton to hit him with the same, and make a complaint about the violence committed against them in their quality of guards at the redoubt by the aforementioned persons. Allert Heymans answers that he arrived on the bank with his people, for the purpose of launching their own canoe, and to use it for hunting, whereupon Samuel Olivier, coming from the redoubt, with his gun cocked, spoke to them. They not being able to understand him, Ariaen Huybertsen, nevertheless, intended to float the canoe, whereupon Samuel pointed the gun at his chest, whereupon he, Ariaen, pushed the gun out of the way, and took hold of his arm, and, this happening, Eduard Chattelton approached Ariaen, aforementioned, with and oar and struck at him, whereupon Joris Porter drew his sword for the purpose of separating parties. Thereupon Allert Heymans called from the wagon, "Keep quiet, I shall immediately come over to you to get the canoe afloat." When he came near the canoe, Eduard Chattelton also came with his gun, holding the thumb on the trigger and pointed to him to let the canoe alone. In the meantime, he (Heymans) took up the axe from the canoe and threatened him with the same, whereupon Eduard reversed his gun and threatened him with the butt end. In the meantime Ariaen Allerts, seeing this also took hold of his gun and loaded it with ball. Allert Heymans further went with the others to the redoubt, and there they were better informed by each other. The English, then understanding them a little (and understanding) that it wastheir own canoe, thereupon gave them the oars, and allowed the canoe to follow, and even Eduard Chattelton himself assisted them in getting the canoe afloat. They also deny having challenged the English soldiers, and further deny having taken the small shot out of the gun, but (say) that they simply loaded it with ball, because it was unloaded.

Vol. I, Page 180, 25 Nov 1664
    Willem Beeckman, Schout, Plaintiff vs. Allert Heymans, Adriaen Huybertsen and Ariaen Allertsen, Defendants
    Plaintiff demands from defendants on account of violence committed on the bank near the redoubt against the guard there, being for Allert Heymans and Ariaen Huybertsen 25 gldrs. each for the poor and for Ariaen Aelertsen 50 gldrs. for the poor, because he loaded his gun with ball, while they were having a quarrel on account of the taking away of a canoe, and sustains that defendants were not permitted to be their own judges in their own behalf. Defendants, having been informed by reading to them the complaint made on Nov. 18 last by the English soldiers, and the answers given thereupon, affirm their foregoing answer, and thereto add that the difference between them originates in their inability to at first well understand each other, the one party being English, the other Dutch. The hon. court, upon the advice of Mr. Christoffel Beresfort, commander of the local garrison, decides that defendants are not permitted to be their own judges, but that they ought to have addressed themselves to the court, and therefore sentences defendant Allert Heymans to pay 20 gldrs. to the poor and Ariaen Huybertsen 10 gldrs. in sewan.

Vol. I, Page 185, 9 Dec 1664
    Henderick Albertsen, Plaintiff vs. Allert Heymans, Defendant.
    Plaintiff says he contracted with defendant about threshing his grain, from doing which he has been prevented. Denied by defendant, having prevented plaintiff from threshing, but defendant says that plaintiff did not proceed fast enough with it. The hon. court, having heard parties, orders plaintiff properly to attend to the threshing, and to continue with the same, so that defendant may not have cause for complaint.

Vol. I, Page 190, 16 Dec 1664
    Allert Heymans requests that Tjerck Claesen, Albert Gysbertsen and Aert Jacobsen may be ordered to have their farms fenced in, for the purpose of preventing damage owing to the trespassing of pigs and cattle, on account of which petitioner has, heretofore, sustained much damage.
    The hon. court refers to the decree issued in this regard on (left open).

Vol. I, Page 190, 16 Dec 1664
    Allert Heymans complains about the village (tax) bill, sent to him on account of his lot, saying that it was granted him as a single lot, and on the village bill he finds that the same has been charged to him as a double lot, and requests the decision of the court concerning the same.
    The hon. court decides whereas his lot has been found to be larger than two common lots, that petitioner is obliged to contribute to the preacher's salary, and to the other expenses as much as other lots having the same dimensions as his.

Vol. I, Page 197, 20 Jan 1665
    Willem Beeckman, Schout, Plaintiff vs. Mattheu Blanchan, Defendant.
    Plaintiff says that defendant has refused to pay (his contribution to) the preacher's salary, being as per bill 20 gldrs. in beavers. Defendant replies that the preacher does not hold consistory as is done in other congregations, and further says that the domine has not dealt justly with him, for which reason he will not contribute toward the preacher's salary, unless the domine give him satisfaction in the case between him and Allert Heymans.
    The hon. court orders defendant to pay, like the other inhabitants, such moneys as are shown by the bill sent to his house, taken from the village book, under penalty of execution, and that defendant shall once more address himself to the consistory, and in case he cannot get satisfaction there, will be at liberty to apply to the court.

Vol. I, Page 205, 3 Feb 1665
    Jan Willemsen Hoochteylingh, Plaintiff vs. Allert Heymans, Defendant.
    Plaintiff demands from defendant 42 sch. of wheat and 30 st. in sewan, for delivered merchandize and assignments by others. Defendant admits the debt, but says not being able to pay right away. The hon. court orders defendant to satidsfy plaintiff's aforenamed demand.

Vol. I, Page 215-6, 17 Feb 1665
    Walran DuMont, Plaintiff vs. Allert Heymans, Defendant.
    Grietje the wife of Walran DuMont demands from defendant payment of the amount of 98 gldrs. 4 st. heavy money in grain at 3 gldrs. the sch. of wheat. Defendant says there is still a difference about the bill concerning a pair of scissors which John the Smith promised to repair for the same money and would like to have it deducted from the aforesaid amount, and also says he paid a mudde of wheat on the aforenamed debt which mudde has not been entered in his book nor in plaintiff's book, though defendant's wife delivered said mudde which was taken away y the smith's helper. Plaintiff replies he is not willing to accept or to have deducted the scissors, but requests that the defendant shall adduce further evidence concerning the same. Concerning the mudde of wheat, plaintiff is not willing to admit, but says if defendant is ready to swear that he paid the mudde of wheat on account of the claimed amount, she is willing to deduct the mudde.The hon. court orders defendant to prove that Jan the smith promised him to repair the scissors, for the same money, up to the third time, as also the delivery of the mudde of wheat in question, or in case he is unable to do so, he sentenced to pay the entire amount claimed.

Vol. I, Page 220, 24 Feb 1665
    Joris Porter, Plaintiff vs. Allert Heymans, Defendant.
    Plaintiff demands of defendant payment for three days' threshing, 1 1/2 days labor on the cellar, for assisting in grinding 16 sch. of malt. Defendant says they threshed 2 1/2 days, and that plaintiff began to work about dinnertime, worked one-half day on the cellar, and that he helped some at grinding 16 sch. of malt. Defendant also says that his wife washed for plaintiff and that he bought some woolen yarn of her, amounting, both together, to 45 stivers in sewan. The hon. court orders defendant to pay plaintiff for his work, as per balance, the amount of five sch. of oats.

Vol. I, Page 221, 24 Feb 1665
    The same (Jacob Burhans), attorney for Thomas Hal, Plaintiff vs. Allert Heymans, Defendant.
    Plaintiff demands of defendant an amount of 7 sch. of wheat. Defendant says he does not owe more than five sch. of wheat for six pairs of stockings. The hon. court orders defendant, as per his admission, to pay plaintiff five sch. of wheat, and plaintiff to adduce proof for the balance of two sch. of wheat.

Vol. I, Page 222, 24 Feb 1665
    Walran DuMont requests that the claim against Allert Heymands Roose for the amount of 98 gldrs. 4 st. heavy money in wheat may be collected through the court. The hon. court orders the officer to proceed with the execution.

Vol. I, Page 223-4, 3 Mar 1665
    Walran DuMont, Plaintiff vs. Allert Heymans, Defendant.
    Plaintiff demands of defendant a mudde of wheat and on account of the scissors as per previous demand on Feb. 17 last request that defendant shall be sworn concerning the mudde of wheat (which he said) having paid him for his personal debt. Defendant says that said mudde of wheat was delivered during the period in the year 1664 when the people had proceeded against the savages, and on account of this trouble it had been forgotten to mark it down and he and his wife refuse to swear concerning the same; in regard to the scissors, hi is willing to swear. The hon. court decides that defendant shall pay plaintiff the mudde of wheat, and that defendant shall deduct what plaintiff says he owes for the repairing of the scissors, because he has taken an oath in regard to the same.

Vol. I, Page 229, 20 Apr 1665
    Whereas it is deemed necessary to authorize some (person) to farm out the caretaking of the cattle to the lowest bidder, for this purpose are appointed and authorized Allert Heymans Roos and Aert Jacobsen, to draw up the conditions, as is customary, with the lowest bidder.

Vol. I, Page 233, 27 May 1665
    In regard to the quarrel which broke out yesterday between Allert Heymans Roose and Daniel Butterwout, the soldier quartered with him, appeared Mr. Berrisfort, who requests that the Heer Officer shall deposit in the storehouse the gun which he (Berrisfort) took last night from some free people who, though not being on guard, carried the same through the street.
    It is proposed to the hon. court that said gun may be returned to said persons, out of consideration that in case of alarm on account of the savages or other cause, they may be immediately able to use their gun, and also because they have to mount guard, and further that owing to the dangerous times, they may be provided with a gun, when working on the land. And in consequence said persons were called and reprimanded for what had happened. They promised that it would not occur again, and the hon. court becomes surety for the gun of said persons, so that, at the order of the Gov. Genl. it will be surrendered.
    The wife of Allert Heymans requests that Mr. Berrisfort be pleased to relieve her of the people he brought into her house. To which Mr. Berrisfort answers, saying, as soon as her husband Allert Heymans will again allow himself to be found at home, he will then relieve her of this trouble. And he intends to arrest her husband and to take him to the redoubt until the arrival of a yacht then to send him to the Manhatans to the Governor General, for the purpose of there answering any accusation which they, the soldiers, may make against him.
    The hon. court proposes to adjust the affair between Allert Heymans and his soldier here before the court, as per instructions, and in the mean time, to keep him under arrest in his own house, with orders for him to keep silent and quiet until the arrival of a vessel, then to go to the Manhatans to answer there, in case the difference cannot be adjusted here, and in case he does not keep still and quiet during his arrest, that he shall be handcuffed and sent to the redoubt.
    Mr. Berrisfort permits that Allert Heymans shall, during his arrest in his own house, keep still and quiet until the arrival of a vessel. The aforesaid wife, having been called in, was acquainted with the foregoing, and (advised) to see her husband in regard to the same.

Vol. I, Pages 236-8, 2 Jun 1665
    Examination of the below-mentioned persons, in regard to the turmoil on May 26 last. Aert Jacobsen, Corporal, having been asked why he did not mount guard on May 26 last, said, having been indisposed, and having sent his son to go on watch, (and to request) in the mean time the cadets to take his watch. Harmen Hendericks, cadet, having been asked whether Aert Jacobsen requested him to take his watch during his absence on May 26 last, says, not having been requested to do so by the corporal, but by the corporal's son. Whether he gave the word to nobody else but his watch, says, that he gave the word to his watch only.
    Jan Cornelissen, drummer, having been asked why, on May 26 last, he carried his gun by night in the street, says, that he did as any other. How he received the sign? says, having received the word of Gerret Aertsen, and at Gerret Aertsen's request made the rounds with him.
    Tomas Teunissen Quick, having been asked what induced him on May 26 last to take hold of he gun, when he did not have the watch? says that he did as any other, and that he was very drunk. Neither does he know who took his gun from him.
    Who persuaded him to do so? says that he was in company with a number of young fellows drinking and bowling, and then went out with the others. Of whom he received the word? says not being able to remember whether he had the word, because he was very drunk.
    Henderick Cornelissen, ropemaker, being asked what induced him to carry his gun along the street on last Tuesday evening? says, that it was rumored that the soldiers had chased Allert Heymans' wife and children out of the house, on account of which he went to the captain and told him about it, whereupon the captain said that it was not as bad as all that, and that they should go home and not bother with it, and that it was the magistrate's business to enquire into the same.
    Who gave him the word? says, he has forgotten, but thinks or knows no better than having received the same of Gerret Aertsen, and received it while on his way, on the street.
    Walran DuMont, having been asked what induced him to appear with is gun last Tuesday evening at the watch, says that he returned with his gun from the land, and while entering the village saw a turmoil, and therefore went to the guardhouse to inquire what was the matter, and having lit a pipe of tobacco in the guardhouse, went immediately home.
    Jan Broersen asked whether last Tuesday he had the night watch, says "No." What, then, he had to do there said evening with his gun? says because he saw the soldiers carrying their guns along the street, and did not know what they intended to do. Of whom he received the word? says not having had the word.
    Jan Jansen Van Oosterhout asked, what he did last Tuesday evening with his gun in the guard house, says, having gone with his gun, for the purpose of enquiring what was the matter, and left his gun in the guard house, and meeting Mr. Berrisfort, without his gun, on the street, asked him what was the matter, whereupon Mr. Berrisfort told him to go home and that nobody would be molested, whereupon taking his gun out of the guard house, he immediately returned home.
    Jan Hendericksen, alias Jan Buyr, asked whether his watch fell on last Tuesday evening, says, "Yes, because Warnaer Hoorenbeeck on the previous night took his watch," and that on said evening he mounted guard for Warnaer. The corporal, having been asked about the same, says, "Yes."
    Antoni Delva asked, what he did with his gun last Tuesday in the guardhouse?, says that he did as any body else, having heard some tumult, and thereupon not hearing any more, immediately went home.
    Aert Otterspoor asked, whether he had the watch last Tuesday, says, "Yes," which having been asked the corporal, also says, "Yes."
    Why he pulled the trigger of his gun? says, not having done so, but the trigger has to be pulled very deep when it is to be drawn, which makes it appear, when not pulled, as if (the trigger) were pulled.
    Gerret Aertsen asked, whether his watch fell on last Tuesday, says, no, but he took his father's turn. Who ordered him to take the rounds? say the corporal. Why he imparted the word to the drummer who made the rounds with him? says having had scruples about giving the word to the English guard in case they should meet him.
    Henderick Albertsen asked, whether he had the watch on Tuesday last, says, "No." What did he with his gun in the guard house? says having personally been there, but without gun.
    Ariaen Huybertsen asked, What he did with his gun last Tuesday in the guardhouse? says, not having been there, but that, late at night, he went to see Allert Heymans' wife on the land, and returned to the village at about 2 o'clock at night.
    Ariaen Allertsen Roos asked, whether he had the watch last Tuesday? says, "No." What did he at the guardhouse? says that he had something to do at the minister's, and seeing some people at the guardhouse also went there, and after having delivered his message to the domine, he returned home.
    This examination of the aforesaid persons by the hon. court and Bugher Council of War is adjourned till the arrival of the hon. Ld. Gov. Genl. or his order, just as the different between Allert Heymans and Daniel Butterwout was, yesterday, also adjourned till the arrival of the said Ld. Gov. Genl.

Vol. I, Page 248, 8 Sep 1665
    Mattheu Blanchan requests that the sentence pronounced on Mar. 24, 1665, against Allert Heymans may be executed. A special injunction and order of the late Ld. Dir. Genl. Petrus Stuyvesant with the attestation mentioned below, signed by the said Hon. Ld. Petrus Stuyvesant, dated 3/13 Apr. 1665, having been shown at the session, therefore the plaintiff Mattheu Blanchan is refused his demand against Allert Heymans.
    Copy of the attestation of the hon. Heer Petrus Stuyvesant:
    Whereas we are in duty bound to testify as to the truth, much more so if judicially requested to do so, therefore I, the undersigned, certify and declare by the present that at the time of the distribution and drawing of the lots on both the large pieces, it was found that there was one lot less than the number of subscribers and consequently of tickets, which came to pass because from Mattheu Blanchan's family there appeared three signers and drawers, viz. Mattys Blanchan, Louwys DuBois and Antoni Crupel, the two last named having each married a daughter of the aforesaid Mattys Blanchan. On this account it was then resolved, and communicated and ordered to Allert Heymans that two lots (tickets) should be put in and drawn for Matthys Blanchan and his two sons-in-law together and in company with each other which by these presents (I) declare to be the truth. Done at Wildwyck, this 3/13 April 1665. (was signed) P. Stuyvesant.

Vol. I, Page 267, 8 Dec 1665
    Henderick Palingh, Plaintiff vs. Allert Heymans Roos, Defendant.
    Plaintiff demands of defendant a sum of 60 gldrs. 12 st., being for a grindstone, soap, excise and a day's work. Defendant denies it, and says having paid on the same 40 gldrs. and shows also a note of Ariaen Gerretsen of 20 gldrs. containing that Ariaen Gerretsen promised to pay the same to Palingh. Plaintiff replies saying, not having been satisfied with Ariaen Gerretsen's note of the 20 gldrs., as he is not yet satisfied. The hon. court, having heard parties, orders defendant to pay plaintiff the balance of 20 gldrs. 12 st.

Vol. I, Page 272, 26 Jan 1666
    Willem Beeckman, Schout, Plaintiff vs. Allert Heymans Roos, Defendant.
    Plaintiff says that defendant was negligent in cleaning his chimney and consequently on the 18th inst. said chimney took fire and as a result there was a crowd, owing to the fire. Therefore demands of the defendant a fine of 100 gldrs. Defendant answers not to owe the fine, because the bell was not rung, nor the drum beaten in the place of the bell here, on account of the same. The hon. court sentences defendant to pay a fine of one Flemish pound because he did not keep his chimney clean, and on account of the same took fire.

Vol. I, Page 291-5, 29 Apr/4 May 1666
    Albert Heymans Roos, appearing before the hon. court, complains of what has been done to him, yesterday, by five soldiers, saying, that he, plaintiff, returning from the land, yesterday, for the purpose of taking the coulter which was broken to the smith, for the purpose of having the same fixed; and whereas the smith was not at home, he was told by Jacob Joosten that the smith was at the house of Louwies Dubois. Plaintiff going thither found the smith there; and called him to the door, whereupon he (the smith) said that he would come right away. Plaintiff, in the mean time, going away from the door, a soldier, named Francois Vreeman, comes outside, walks up to where plaintiff stands, and immediately draws his sword without having word with or answer from plaintiff, and strikes twice at plaintiff, whereupon plaintiff says to him, "You must not do that anymore, or I shall go for you with the piece of the coulter." He nevertheless lunged a third time at the plaintiff and hit him through his coat, whereupon he threw the coulterat said Francois Vreeman, but did not hit him. In the mean time Ridsert Hamer came out of the aforesaid house, and hit plaintiff with his sword on the head. Plaintiff, feeling this, takes hold of a stick or piece of wood, which was laying handy, and therewith defended his life, striking with it at Ridsert Hamer, aforenamed, who, for the second time struck at him. Thereby still came the third, Thomas Elger, who also struck at plaintiff and whom plaintiff, dealing him (Elger) a blow with the same stick, also turned off. Tomas Quinel, the fourth, arriving, tried to pierce plaintiff from behind, whom plaintiff, jumping about, hit with the same stick, so that he tumbled to the ground. Francois Vreeman, now again attacking plaintiff with the intention of sticking through him, also received of plaintiff a thrust with the same piece of wood, so that it dazed him, whereupon the fifth, Robbert Pecock, appeared, and intended to pierce plaintiff. Plaintiff, retreating, was followed by the aforesaid Pecock who tried to hit him, whereupon plaintiff ran under his sword, and took hold of his body. In the mean time the four other soldiers attacked plaintiff from behind and wounded him five times, being three blows on the head and two thrusts, one in the back, the other in the arm. Plaintiff, on account of this, requests justice, and that he, as burgher, may not be molested by the soldiers and (be permitted) to follow his business without interruption.
    Mattheu Blanchan, having been summoned as a witness in the above case, declares that, yesterday, having taken malt to the mill, he returned the wagon with the oxen to Louwies Dubois, and says when arriving at the house of said Dubois, he heard a noise in the house, on account of which he did not want to enter, and that, in the mean time Allert Heymans Roos arrived at the front of said house and had the smith called outside for the purpose of fixing his coulter. In the mean time Francois Vreeman came out of the said house, and he saw that said Vreeman drew his sword against Allert Heymans, and thrust at him, and that thereupon, Allert Heymans threw the piece of the coulter at him, but did not hit him. In the meanwhile Ridsert Hamer attacked Allert Heymans, who was retreating to the wagon, and struck at Allert Heymans, and has seen that Ridsert Hamer's sword passed below Allert Heyman's left arm, but does not know whether or not he wounded him. Allert Heymans retreated from there to the house of Louwies Dubois, and he saw that Allert Heymans took hold of a stick there. While defending his life he (Heymans) struck Ridsert Hamer (who intended to strike Allert Heymans) with the same stick on the arm, so that he dropped the sword. And also saw that Thomas Elger appeared and intended to hit Allert Heymans, whereupon Allert Heymans hit the same with the stick so that he whirled around (or grew giddy). Francois Vreeman, appearing again, intended to hit Allert Heymans, but Allert Heymans struck him down with the same stick, and while Allert Heymans was preparing to hit said Vreeman another blow, Tomas Quinel in the mena time approached from behind with the sword against Allert Heymans, but Allert Heymans with the same stick, struck him down. Declares not having seen more, and is prepared (if need be) to affirm the present under oath.
    Ridsert Hamer, appearing, declares having seen yesterday at the house of Lowys Dubois that Dirrick DeGoyer drew his knife against Francois Vreeman. In the mean while Francois Vreeman went outside, while Allert Heymans was standing outside the door, he (Hamer) has seen that Allert Heymans struck said Francois Vreeman with the piece of the coulter, so that he tumbled down, whereupon he, appearer, also went outside for the purpose of separating them, and in the mean time Allert Heymans grasped a stick, and beat appearer with the same. Meanwhile Ariaen Huyberts also came out of the said house with a bare knife, hidden by his hand, and struck him, appearer, with the same. And says not to know more, and is ready (if necessary) to affirm the present under oath.
    Tomas Elger, appearing, declares having seen yesterday, at the house of Lowys Dubois that Dirrick DeGojer being outside the said house, had a bare knife in his hand. Francois Vreeman, seeing this, drew his sword against Dirrick DeGojer. Allert Heymans, also standing in front of the same door, threw the smallest piece of the broken coulter at aforesaid Vreeman, and taking the largest piece in his hands, ran up to the aforesaid Vreeman for the purpose of hitting him with the same, and does not know what cause there was between Dirrick DeGojer and the aforesaid Vreeman. And says not to know any more, and is ready (if need be) to affirm the present under oath.
    Ariaen Huybertsen, appearing, he was notified that he is accused by Ridsert Hamer of having, yesterday, struck said Ridsert Hamer with a knife, which Ariaen Huybertsen denies, saying that, yesterday, he did not carry his knife, but only the sheath of his knife, but says that he has been at the house of Louwies Dubois, and has heard, while still being in said house, that the soldiers were fighting on the street with Alert Heymans, and upon coming outside, he saw that his uncle, Allert Heymans, was bleeding, and intending to go to him, three soldiers with drawn swords attacked him, without a word being uttered on either side, with drawn swords, and cut through his hat. In the mean time Captain Broadhead arrived and pacified the soldiers and took him to the guardhouse under arrest. Arriving there, Corporal Ridsert Hamer, who had arrested him, and taken to the guardhouse, immediately hit him with his drawn sword in the head, and cut his hand, and says that while under arrest he would have murdered him, if another soldier had not set him free. And enters a complaint because he, a prisoner, was maltreated and assaulted by Ridsert Hamer, and requests justice on this account.
    Louys Dubois declares that yesterday some residents came to his house for a drink. In the meantime some soldiers also entered to have a drink. Coming from his inner room he saw that Francois Vreeman being half mad had partially drawn his sword whom he requested to again sheath his sword, which he did. Ridsert Hamer, in the meantime, also being mad, said something which appearer did not understand, whom appearer requested to not make trouble in his house, but to drink their wine in peace. Hereupon Ridsert Hamer, drawing his sword, appearer, with one hand, took hold of the hilt and with the other hand held his sleeve so that he could not entirely draw his sword, and thus holding fast the sword, both of them got outside. But Robert Pecock, intervening, took hold of the appearer, and dragged him away from Ridsert Hamer, and being rid of him, Ridsert Hamer struck appearer with the little stick on the head. Thereupon Robbert Pecock again took appearer in the house, and was followed by Ridsert Hamer, who, still standing before the door, struck at appearer with the same little stick, whereupon appearer's wife asked Ridsert Hamer why he beat her husband? Thereupon he twice beat his wife with the same little stick. Ridsert Hamer at the same time exclaimed, "I want my gloves, or I shall kill your husband," whereupon appearer answered, "Come inside and look for your gloves." Francois Vreeman, then, being in the house, again entirely unsheathed his sword, not knowing with whom he had a quarrel. Appearer, seeing this, took hold of aforesaid Vreeman's arm, and threw him outdoors. Thereupon he was followed by the greatest part, English as well as Dutch, and appearer then closed his door. And as to the drawing of any knife, he appearer, has not seen that the same was done in his house. And says not to know any more, and (if required) is ready to affirm the present under oath.
    Frederick Pietersen, appearing, declares, whereas yesterday he has been present at the house of Louwies Dubois, he has not seen that a knife was drawn by Dirk De Gojer, and neither knows that there were any differences in the aforesaid house between soldiers and inhabitants. And further says that he was outside the door of the aforesaid house when Allert Heymans arrived with the broken coulter and called the smith outside the said house, and has seen that Francois Vreeman came out of the aforesaid house, and further that said Vreeman drew his sword against Allert Heymans, whereupon Allert Heymans said, "Look out what you do," and at the same time Vreeman struck twice at Allert Heymans, and while he was striking at him a third time, Allert Heymans threw a piece of the coulter at aforenamed Vreeman, but did not hit him with the same. In the meanwhile the corporal Ridsert Hamer came out of the aforesaid house, drew his sword and struck at Allert Heymans who defended himself with a stick he had there found and parried as much as he could for the purpose of defending his life. And then there arrived one Thomas Elger with his sword drawn, and also struck at Allert Heymans who also parried him with said stick. Thereupon came Thomas Quinel, also with his sword drawn against Allert Heymans, and struck at him who was also parried with the same stick. At last Robbert Pecock also appeared against Allert Heymans, with his sword drawn, and struck at him, under whose sword Allert Heymans ran and took hold of his body. In the meanwhile Allert Heymans was wounded by the four other soldiers. The Captain Broodhead came and ordered the soldiers to desist. And says not to know any more and (if need be) is prepared to affirm the present under oath.

Vol. I, Page 299, 22 Jun 1666
    Andries Pietersen Van Leeuven, Plaintiff vs. Allert Heymans Roos, Defendant
    Plaintiff says that defendant uses a wagon road through his (plaintiff's) hired land, and therefore requests that defendant may be prohibited from using said wagon road, because defendant's lands are situated under the new village, and (plaintiff) on this account suffers damage. Defendant answers that heretofore he was permitted by plaintiff to use a wagon road to his lands, and that, when requested to do so, he assisted on the work on the bridge. The hon. court decides that plaintiff, for the present and as long as necessary shall allow defendant a wagon road to his lands, provided defendant shall return to plaintiff a dry sheaf for a green sheaf in case the latter should sustain any damage. Nor is defendant permitted to allow any loose horses or colts to pass along said road, for fear that they may cause damage.

Vol. I, Page 299, 22 Jun 1666
    In consequence of the request and proposition of Capt. Broodhead that the fences commencing from Wassemaker's land through the Kil and further across the Kil til Allert Heymans's fences, ought to be repaired, so as to prevent any damage, the hon. court orders the following persons, viz., De Heer Beeckman, Jan Joosten, Tjerck Claesen, Allert Heymans, Aert Martensen, Henderick Aertsen, Pieter Hillebrants, Andries Pietersen, Jan Jansen Van Oosterhout, Lambert Huybertsen, Jan Willemsen Hoochteylingh, the widow of Aert Jacobsen and Ariaen Gerretsen Van Vliet, to assist in making the aforesaid fence on Saturday next, being June 26, under penalty, for those being absent, of a fine of one Flemish pound for the benefit of those who shall have done the work. And said Capt. Broodhead promised and accepted to keep in proper repairs the further fence of Wassemaker's land. And, for the above purpose the abovenamed are ordered to call on Saturday morning at the house of Allert Heymans which Allert Heymans is authorized to see to it that the aforesaid fence be properly made (or repaired).

Vol. I, Page 312, 23 Nov 1666
    Cornelis Barentsen Slecht, Plaintiff vs. Allert Heymans Roos, Defendant
    Plaintiff demands of defendant nine sch. of wheat, wages for brewing. Defendant admits the debt, and says to intend to pay him in two or three days. And (also) says having a counter claim for a boy who is at Fort Orange for whom he is an attorney. The hon. court orders defendant to satisfy plaintiff's demand.

Vol. I, Page 346, 26 Mar/5 Apr 1667
    Allert Heymans Roos, Plaintiff vs. Thomas Chambers, Defendant
    Plaintiff demands of defendant 60 sch. of wheat, as per assignment by Cornelis Hoogeboom. Defendant admits the debt. The hon. court orders defendant to satisfy plaintiff's demand, as per his acknowledgement.

Vol. I, Page 347, 26 Mar/5 Apr 1667
    These four below-named persons are nominated by the commissaries from among the community, that the hon. Lord Gov. Genl. may appoint two from among them as incoming commissaries (in place of) retiring present commissaries Evert Pels and Jan Joosten, viz., Cornelis Barents Slecht, Allert Heymans Roos, Jan Willemsen Hoochteylingh, Henderick Jochemsen.

Vol. I, Page 347-8, 6/16 Apr 1667
    Received by the hon. court a letter from the hon. Lord Gov. Genl., dated Apr. 2/12, 1667, and in accordance with its contents were summoned Allert Heymans Roos, Henderick Jochemsen and Antoni D'Elba, and after having been acquainted with the order of the hon. Lord Gov. Genl., the aforesaid persons were, by the officer Willem Beeckman, arrested and taken to the watch in the guardhouse...And shortly afterwards became surety: Jan Willemsen Hoochteylingh for Allert Heymans Roos, Tjerck Claesen DeWit for Henderick Jochemsen, Francois Lecheer for Antoni D'Elba, that the aforenamed persons shall appear before his honor, or before such (other or others) as his honor shall be pleased to appoint, after having been admonished at their houses six hours previously (to answer for) such crimes as they shall be charged with.

Vol. I, Page 351, 28 May/7 Jun 1667
    Wyntie, the wife of Allert Heymans Roos, requests a certificate of the hon. court concerning the conduct of her husband here at Wildwyck, and she was given the following certificate:
    "In compliance with the request made to us Schout and Commissaries at Wildwyck, by Wyntie the wife of Allert Heymans Roos, the following certificate is granted by us, in regard to the life and conduct of her husband Allert Heymans Roos, aaforenamed, at Wildwyck: 1) Said Allert Heymans Roos, in the year 1662, he being at the time commissary of the hon. court, had arrested by the schout one Pieter Van Hael, a poor resident of this place, and did not permit him to leave his arrest on bail, but was afterwards permitted to leave the schout's house and serve out his arrest in his own house, where he ws obliged to board at his own expense a soldier for the purpose of guarding him, because the aforesaid Pieter Van Haal had said that he did not get full weight of some butter received from said Allert Heymans Roose, said (proceedings) being illegal; further, also, said Allert Heymans Roos, in the year 1663, opposed the order of the hon. Ld. Dr. Genl. in regard to the taking care of the cattle, he being at the time burgher-sergeant in the troubles and the war with the savages here, on which account an uprising among the burghers could easily have originated; furthermore, said Allert Heymans Roos has opposed the decree of the council of war and the burgher court here, during the same year who gave a safe conduct, the council of war as well as the burgher court, to two highland savages which two savages he intended to intercept outside the gate with a loaded gun for the purpose of shooting them dead, contrary to the said resolution. Also at the time when the burghers here were tumultuous , on Feb. 4/14, 1667, and we went among them for the purpose of pacifying and calming them, the aforesaid Allert Heymans Roos treated us very contemptibly by despising our authority as laid down in our instruction, and furthermore has often behaved disrespectfully in opposing decrees issued here. Which certificate, above named, concerning the aforesaid Allert Heymans Roos, having been legally asked for by Wyntie, wife of said Allert Heymans Roos, we, according to honor, duty and oath, have not been able to give to her and her husband any other than the one written above.
    "On which account we have subscribed to the present with our own hand, at our session on the day ind in the year as mentioned before.
    "Was signed by the aforesaid Schout and Commissaries."

Vol. II, Page 383-4, 13/23 Jan 1667/8
    Hermen Hendrix complains that Allert Heymans refuses to cart fire wood for the watch and further requests that the carters may be ordered to cart the whole day. The messenger is ordered to go to Allert Heymans and to tell him to do his duty besides others, and also, in general, to notify the carters to cart full days, at least four loads, or by default, that either the messenger or the woodchopper shall hire another, at the expense of the negligent.

Vol. II, Page 399, 10/20 Mar 1667/8
    Thomas Chambs., Plaintiff vs. Roelof Swartwout, Defendant
    Plaintiff says that he was summoned by Allert Heymans for delivered wine which has been used by the guardians in their quality. On this account, they must pay, not he, and further says that said guardians have several times assigned to him, and he does not owe the guardians. Defendant says that he did not know what he had been summoned for, therefore has now no answer ready. Agrees to have one ready at the next session. The hon. court orders defendant to have his answer against the plaintiff ready at the next session without any delay.

Vol. II, Page 399-400, 10/20 Mar 1667/8
    The wife of Allert Heymans, Plaintiff vs. Thomas Chambers, Defendant
Plaintiff says that on the name of Capt. Chambers nine cans of wine have been ordered and requests payment of the same to the amount of 81 gldrs. Defendant answers that it is true that the same were ordered in his name, but that the guardians of his stepchildren ought to pay. The hon. court orders defendant to satisfy plaintiff's above demand because the wine was ordered and delivered on defendant's name, provided he may claim the amount of the guardians of his stepchildren.

Vol. II, Page 425, 2 Mar 1668/9
    Maddalena Blansjan, Plaintiff vs. Allert Heymansen, Defendant.

Vol. II, Page 426-7, 9 Mar 1668/9
    Madaleena Blansjan, Plaintiff vs. Allert Heymansen, Defendant
    Plaintiff demands of defendant a sum of 7 sch. of wheat for having instructed their daughter in knitting, and they made a verbal agreement that they were to pay as much as she was paid by others, and she has received the same amount of Boertis' daughter. Defendant says that plaintiff called on them, and asked them if she should teach their daughter to knit, for the amount of four sch. of wheat, and that she would have several more children. Their daughter after having been there some time, she let her go, because she had no more woolen yarn, but she was to come back as soon as she should again have woolen yarn. The hon. court orders that parties shall respectively prove their assertions.

Vol. II, Page 432, 3 Apr 1669
    The hon. court decides in the case between Weyntie Allerts and Madalena Blansjan, because (she) cannot prove that Madalena Blansjan was to teach the daughter of Weyntie Allerts to knit, and then she will be paid as per agreement.

Vol. II, Page 433, 27 Apr 1669
    The hon. court appoints, besides Hendrick Aertsen, as examiners of the fences Allert Heymans and Jan Willemsen.

Vol. II, Page 433, 27 Apr 1669
    Madalene Blanchan, Plaintiff vs. W. Allerts, Defendant
    Plaintiff demands that defendant shall pay her 7 sch. of wheat, as much as she has received of others, and says that she is willing to instruct her daughter in knitting, if she will let her come. The hon. court orders W. Allerts to let her daughter come, or else to pay as much as any other.

Vol. II, Page 461-2, 15 May 1671
    List of the Inhabitants of This Village, Where Their Portion in the Curtains Is to Be Found:
                                                                                                    No.         Rods
    ...Sweer Teunesen say Allert Heymans (sic)                              28           10...

Vol. II, Page 481, 30 Apr 1672
    The Heer Grevenraedt, Plaintiff vs. Alberdt Heymans, Defendant
    Plaintiff demands of defendant an amount of 151 gldrs. As per account, and also for Maes Meeles. Defendant says having paid 21 sch. of wheat. Plaintiff says that the same is on account of the vendue, but says if Maes Mellis will oblige himself towork for him at harvest time, he will agree to pay the same. (There is either a mistake or something left out in original.) "I, the undersigned Maes Meelissen, oblige myself to pay to Schout Grevenraedt the amount of 75 gldrs. 22 st. for which amount I promise to work during harvest time for Alberdt Heymans, and Alberdt Heymans shall pay said sum to the schout." Was subscribed to with Maes Melis's mark.

Vol. II, Page 483, 27 Jul 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 thereof there is 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...Allert Heymans, 20 sch...

Vol. II, Page 583-4, 2 Dec 1665
    On this December 2 N. S., 1665, appeared before me, Mattheus Capito, Secretary of the village of Wildwyck, the worthy Thomas Hal, resident of the island the Manhatans in New York, who in the presence of the below-mentioned witnesses declares that Allert Heymans Roos, residing in the Esopus is permitted (he, the appearer, consenting) to use and cultivate the lands situated in the Esopus under the (jurisdiction of the) new village, belonging to him, the appearer, as per deed for the same dated Aug. 19, 1664, signed by the hon. Heer Petrus Stuyvesant, ex-director general; without giving any compensation therefore until he, appearer, will himself use, lease, or sell the aforesaid land. And the appeaerer, if he should want to lease or sell the aforesaid land, promises Allert Heymans, aforenamed, to give him the preference for the same. On this account, for the purpose of complying with the present he, the appearer, besides the hon. Heer Willem Beeckman and Cornelis Barentsen Slecht, as witnesses invited for the purpose, has signed the present with his own hand, at Wildwyck on the day and in the year named before. (Signed) Tho. Hall. (Signed) Wilh. Beeckman, Cornelis Barentsen Slecht. In my presence, (signed) Mattheus Capito, Secretary.

Vol. II, Page 657, 30 Apr/10 May 1667
    Inventory taken of the property and effects of Allert Heymans Roos in the presence of the hon. Heer Willem Beeckman, schout, Thomas Chambers and Roelof Swartwout, commissaries, in accordance with the order of the hon. Heeren Commissioners. Capt. Robert Nydham, Thomas Delaval and Cornelis Van Ruyven, and he wife of Allert Heymans Roos has shown: A farm with its growing crops, a dwelling and a barn, seven heads of horses-young and old, eight heads of cattle (cows) young and old, wagon and plow and other farming implements, and further the necessary furniture consisting of beds and pillows, dishes, kettles, and so on. Thus done at Wildwyck, this April 30/May 10, 1667.

    Not mentioned above are references to Albert Heymans as being present at the following sessions of court (as a commissary): under the name of Aldert Heymanse on p. 4 (11 Oct 1661), p. 6 (listed as absent, 8 Nov 1661), p. 25 (28 Mar 1662), p. 41 (14 Nov 1662), p. 57 (listed as sick, 6 Feb 1663), and p. 65 (listed as absent, 3 Apr 1663); as Aldert Heymanse Roose on p. 27 (29 Mar 1662), p. 34 (4 Jul 1662), p. 35 (4 Oct 1662), p. 36 (10 Oct 1662), p. 37 (31 Oct 1662), p. 48 (12 Dec 1662), p. 56 (29 Jan 1663), p. 60 (20 Feb 1663), p. 62 (6 Mar 1663), and p. 65 (listed as in default, 17 Apr 1663); as Aldert Heymansen on p. 3 (13 Sep 1661), as Aldert Heymanse Roose on p. 9 (16 Nov 1661), p. 11 (6 Dec 1661), p. 14 (17 Jan 1662), p. 15 (31 Jan 1662), p. 16 (7 Feb 1662), p. 18 (14 Feb 1662), p. 24 (19 Mar 1662), p. 28 (18 Apr 1662), p. 31 (2 May1662), p. 43 (28 Nov 1662), p. 53 (13 Jan 1663), and p. 56 (29 Jan 1663); as Albert Heymanse Roosa on p. 21 (28 Feb 1662); and Aldert Heymanz Roose on p. 50 (9 Jan 1663).
    As a commissary, he signed arrest orders for Barent Gerritsen and his wife and Poulus Poulussen (on both as Alaerdt Heymansz Roose, p. 49, 12 Dec 1662), an order to confiscate brandy from and fine Jan Barense Amershof (as Alaerdt Heymansz Roose, p. 50, 12 Dec 1662), a land grant to Jan Albertsen van Steenwyck (as Alaerdt Heymansz Roose, p. 60, 6 Feb 1663), and order to fine Matheu Blanchan (as Alaerdt Heymansz Roose, p. 60, 6 Feb 1663).
    He was mentioned as Allert Heymans and signed his name as Alaerdt Heymans Roose as an appraiser in the case of Marten Hofman vs. Evert Pels (p. 229, 5/15 Apr 1665) and as Allert Heymans in the case of Ariaen Gerretsen vs. Jan Willemsen Hoochteylingh (p. 257, 3 Nov 1665).
    Albert was also mentioned as an arbitrator in the cases of Evert Pels vs. Aert Martensen Doorn (as Allert Heymans Roose, p. 125, 12 Feb 1664), Tjerck Claesen deWit vs. Roelof Swartwout (as Allert Heymans, p. 159, 22 Jul 1664, reporting back on p. 160, 18 Aug 1664, decision referred to on p. 163, 7 Oct 1664), Arent Jansen vs. Tjerck Claesen De Wit (as Allert Heymans, p. 204, 3 Feb 1665), Petrus Stuyvesant vs. Tjerck Claesen De Wit (as Allert Heymans Roose, p. 226, 10 Apr 1665), Evert Prys vs. Ariaen Gerretsen (as Allert Heymans Roos, p. 277, 2 Mar 1666), and Hend. Jochems. vs. Reyner Van Coelen (as Allert Heymans Roosa, p. 386, 7 Feb 1667/8), as well as in the leases contracted between the guardians of Mattys Jansen's children and Thomas Chambers (signed as Alaerdt Heymansz., p. 556, 3 Feb 1664/5) and Petrus Stuyvesant and Juriaen Westphael (as Allert Heymans Roos, p. 596, 1 Apr 1666).
    He signed as a witness to the deeds of Aert Martensen Doorn to Reynier Van der Coelen (signed as Alaerdt Heymansz Roosa, p. 624, 22 Nov 1666) and Reynier Van der Coelen to Warnaer Hoorenbeck (signed as Alaerdt Heymansz Roosa, p. 626, 22 Nov 1666), as well as the loan of money to Evert Pels from the guardians of Mathys Jansen's children (written as "Aldert Heymanse Roose, Commissary and Elder of the village of Wildtwyck" and signed as Alaerdt Heymansz Roose, p. 64, 15 Feb 1663).
    Finally, he was called the Consistory (under the name of Allert Heymans Roose) on p. 104 (20 Nov 1663) and p. 107 (4 Dec 1663).

Source: Versteeg, Dingman, New York Historical Manuscripts: Dutch: Kingston Papers, 2 vols., Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co., 1976.

Excerpts from the Journal of the Second Esopus War,
By Capt. Martin Kregier, 1663.
Translated from the original Dutch MS

Pages 29-30
Massacre at the Esopus.
    The Court at Wildwyck to the Council of Netherland.
    Right Honorable, most respected, wise, prudent and very discreet Lords.
    We, your Honors' faithful subjects have to report, pursuant to the order of the it Honble Heer Director General, in the form of a Journal, that in obedience to his Honors order, received on the 30th of May last, we caused the Indian Sachems to be notified on the 5th of June, to be prepared to expect the arrival of the Rt Honble Heer Director General, to receive the promised presents, and to renew the peace. This notification was communicated to them through Capt. Thomas Chambers, to which they answered-"If peace were to be renewed with them, the Honbl Heer Director General should, with some unarmed persons, sit with them in the open field, without the gate, as it was their own custom to meet unarmed when renewing peace or in other negotiations." But they, unmindful of the preceding statement, surprized and attacked us between the hours of 11 and 12 o'clock in the forenoon on Thursday the 7th instant Entering in bands through all the gates, they divided and scattered themselves among all the houses and dwellings in a friendly manner, having with them a little maize and some few beans to sell to our Inhabitants, by which means they kept them within their houses, and thus went from place to place as spies to discover our strength in men. And after they had been about a short quarter of an hour within this place, some people on horseback rushed through the Mill gate from the New Village, crying out-"The Indians have destroyed the New Village!" And with these words, the Indians here in this Village immediately fired a shot and made a general attack on our village from the rear, murdering our people in their houses with their axes and tomahawks, and firing on them with guns and pistols; they seized whatever women and children they could catch and carried them prisoners outside the gates, plundered the houses and set the village on fire to windward, it blowing at the time from the South. The remaining Indians commanded all the streets, firing from the corner houses which they occupied and through the curtains outside along the highways, so that some of our inhabitants, on their way to their houses to get their arms, were wounded and slain. When the flames were at their height the wind changed to the west, were it not for which the fire would have been much more destructive. So rapidly and silently did Murder do his work that those in different parts of the village were not aware of it until those who had been wounded happened to meet each other, in which way the most of the others also had warning. The greater portion of our men were abroad at their field labors, and but few in the village. Near the mill gate were Albert Gysbertsen with two servants, and Tjerck Claesen de Wit; at the Sheriff's, himself with two carpenters, two clerks and one thresher; at Cornelius Barentsen Sleght's, himself and his son; at the Domine's, himself and two carpenters and one labouring man; at the guard house, a few soldiers; at the gate towards the river, Henderick Jochemsen and Jacob, the Brewer; but Hendrick Jochemsen was very severely wounded in his house by two shots at an early hour. By these aforesaid men, most of whom had neither guns nor side arms, were the Indians, through God's mercy, chased and put to flight on the alarm being given by the Sheriff. Capt. Thomas Chambers, who was wounded on coming in from without, issued immediate orders (with the Sheriff and Commissaries,) to secure the gates; to clear the gun and to drive out the Savages, who were still about half an hour in the village aiming at their persons, which was accordingly done. The burning of the houses, the murder and carrying off of women and children is here omitted, as these have been already communicated to your Honors on the 10th June. After these few men had been collected against the Barbarians, by degrees the others arrived who it has been stated, were abroad at their field labors, and we found ourselves when mustered in the evening, including those from the new village who took refuge amongst us, in number 69 efficient men, both qualified and unqualified. The burnt palisades were immediately replaced by new ones, and the people distributed, during the night, along the bastions and curtains to keep watch.
    On the 10th inst., 10 horsemen were commanded to ride down to the Redoubt and to examine its condition. They returned with word that the soldiers at the Redoubt had not seen any Indians. They brought also with them the Sergeant, who had gone the preceding morning to the Redoubt, and as he heard on his return of the mischief committed by the Indians in the village, he went back to the Redoubt and staid there. In addition to the Sergeant they brought the men who had fled from the new village.
    On the 16th, towards evening, Sergeant Christiaen Niessen went with a troop of soldiers, sent us by your Honors, being 42 men, and three wagons, to the Redoubt, with letters for the Manhatans, addressed to your Honors, and to bring up ammunition from the Redoubt. On their return, the Indians made an attempt, at the first hill, to take the ammunition from these troops. The Sergeant having divided his men into separate bodies, evinced great courage against the Indians, skirmishing with them from the first, to past the second hill, and defending the wagons so well that they arrived n safety in the village. He had, however, one killed and six wounded. The dead man was brought in next morning, having been stripped naked, and having had his right hand cut off by the Indians. Some of the Indians were also killed, but the number of these is not known. This skirmishing having been heard in the village, a reinforcement of horse and foot was immediately ordered out, but before they arrived the Indians had been put to flight by the above named Sergeant.
    This, Right Honble Lords, is what we have deemed necessary to communicate to you in the form of a journal as to how and in what manner the Indians have acted towards us and we towards them in the preceding circumstances. And we humbly and respectfully request your Honors to be pleased to send us hither for the wounded by the earliest opportunity, some prunes and linen with some wine to strengthen them, and whatever else not obtainable here your Honors may think proper; also, carabines, cutlasses, and gun flints, and we request that the carabines may be Snaphaunce, as the people here are but little conversant with the use of the arquebuse (vyer roer); also some spurs for the horsemen. In addition to this, also, some reinforcements in men inasmuch as harvest will commence in about 14 days from date. Herewith ending, we commend your Honors to God's fatherly care and protection. Done, Wildwyck this 20th June 1663.
Roelof Swartwout,
the mark of Albert Gybertsen,
Tiereck Classen Dewitt,
Thomas Chambers,
Gysbert Van Imbroch,
Christiaen Nyssen,
Hendrick Jochemsen.
1 Rondout.
Page 32
Taken prisoners:
                                                              Women.     Children.
...Of Albert Heymans,............................                   2

Page 38-39, Aug 1663
    28th ditto...This said Jan Hendricksen, with one Albert Heymans Roose, acted insolently on the 7th July. Whilst we were examining the two Wappinger Indians, in the presence of the Schout and Commissaries, in Thomas Chambers' room. a messenger came in and said that two or three boors were without the door with loaded guns to shoot the Indians when they came forth. Whereupon I stood up and went to the door-found this Albert Heymans Roose and Jan Hendricksen at the door with their guns. Asked them what they were doing there with their guns? They gave me for answer, We will shoot the Indians. I said to them, you must not do that. To which they replied, We will do it though you stand by. I told them in return, to go home and keep quiet or I should send such disturbers to the Manhatans. They then retorted, I might do what I pleased, they would shoot the Savages to the ground, even though they should hang for it; and so I left them. This Albert coming into the Council told the Commissaries that one of them should step out. What his intention with him was I can't say. This by way of memorandum...

Page 59-60, Nov-Dec 1663 [17]
    29th ditto. At day break had notice given that those who were desirous of purchasing venison from the Indians should go along with the escort to the river side. Accompanied the detachment to the shore and conversed with the Sachem in the presence of Capt Thomas Chambers and Sergeant Jan Peersen. He said, he had been to receive the Christian prisoners and should have had them with us before, had he not unfortunately burnt himself in his sleep when lying before the fire; shewed us his buttock with the mark of the burn which was very large; Also said, that six Christian Captives were together at the river side, and gave ten fathom of Sewan to another Indian to look up the seventh Christian who is Albert Heyman's oldest daughter, promising us positively that he should restore all the Christian prisoners to us in the course of three days, provided it did not blow too hard from the North; otherwise, le could not come before the fourth day. We, then, parted after le had, meanwhile, sold his venison. He left immediately in his canoe...
    1st December. The only circumstance that happened to day was the sending away the three Indians with a letter to the Honble Heer Director General and Council of New Netherland, to whom the following was written in haste.
    Noble, Respected, Right honourable, Wise, Prudent and most discreet Lords -
    "To be brief, we could not omit advising Your Honours that three Indians arrived here yesterday, being come; as they said from the Manhatans, with an open letter, being a pass not to commit any hostility against their people to this date. But we cannot determine what sinister design these Indians may have recourse to under cover of this pass. We maintain that such and other Indians resort here with such passes, to spy out this our place. Meanwhile, we being on our guard, placed sentinels every where before them, to prevent them passing through the village to examine and pry into it, as they are strongly inclined to do. In the meantime we inform your Honours that on the day before yesterday the Wappinger Sachem came with venison to the Redoubt, and we have had a talk with him, and he promised us, among other things, to bring us hither all the Christian prisoners, within three or four days, according to the entries in our daily journal which Your Honors shall receive from us by the first Yacht. Done, Wildwyck this first December 1663. (Was subscribed)

Christiaen Niessen, Thomas Chambers...

Page 60-1, Dec 1663
    3d ditto...Also, sent a convoy down in the morning with grain to the river side, which on returning brought up the Wappinger Sachem and his wife, and Splitnose, the Indian last taken by us. Which Sachem brought with him two captive Christian children, stating to us that he could not, pursuant to his previous promise of the 29th November, bring along with him the remainder, being still five Christian captives, because three were at their hunting grounds, and he could not find them, but that another Indian was out looking for them; the two others are in his vicinity, the Squcllaw twho keeps them prisoner will not let them go, because she is very sick and hath no children, and expects soon to die; and when he can get Albert Heymans' oldest daughter, who is also at the hunting ground, and whom he hath already purchased and paid for; then he shall bring the remainder of the Christian captives along. For the two Christian children which he hath brought with him, an Indian child is given him, being a little girl, and three pieces of cloth, with which he was content...

Source: O'Callaghan, E.B., The Documentary History of the State of New York, Vol. IV, Albany: Charles Van Benthuysen, 1851.

The Esopus Mutiny

    Soon after Nicolls left Esopus, in the previous autumn, the ill feeling which had been growing between its inhabitants and the garrison broke out into open hostility. The soldiers, who, as well as their officers, were all Englishmen, did nothing to conciliate and much to offend the Dutch burghers. Disturbances occurred both at the village of Wildwyck and at the redoubt on the creek. When, in obedience to Nicolls's orders, Captain Brodhead was "gathering some of the young burghers together" to go to Albany, Antonio d'Elba, a French refugee, openly said, "Shall we go and fight our friends, and leave our enemies at home?"
    Much of the ill feeling was due to the overbearing conduct of Brodhead, who did not hesitate to commit to the guard any who offended him. He imprisoned a burgher who would keep Christmas according to the Dutch and not the English style. He quarreled with and arrested Cornelis Barentsen Slegt, the village brewer, and a sergeant of its militia. Slegt's wife and children thereupon ran crying through Wildwyck. The excited villagers rushed to arms. Finding some sixty of them drawn up before their lieutenant's door, Captain Brodhead marched thither with a few of his soldiers, and ordered them to disperse. The local magistrates asked Brodhead to release his prisoner and have him tried before them, which he refused, and threatened to resist any attempt at a rescue. The people would not disperse until late at night, and then only with the understanding that the whole matter should be laid before the governor. What added to the bitterness was that Hendrick Cornelissen, the village ropemaker, was killed by William Fisher, one of Brodhead's soldiers. [18]
    Reports were sent down to Nicolls, who issued a special Special commission empowering Counselors Needham and Delavall and Justice Van Ruyven to go to Esopus, and "hear, receive, and determine such and so many complaints as they shall judge necessary or of moment, and to pass sentence of imprisonment, fine, correction, or suspension of office against such who shall be found guilty." [19] At the same time the governor guided the action of his commissioners by private instructions. They were to be attended by a file of soldiers, and were to admit but "very few" into the room in which they might sit. The case of Fisher was "to be the first tried, because a man is killed." But he could only be convicted of manslaughter; and it might turn out that he had acted in self-defense. In regard to the "first occasion" of the mutiny, as Slegt, the brewer, had first assaulted Captain Brodhead, they were "to declare that the king's officer is not of so mean a quality as to be struck by a burgher," and were to enlarge their discourse on this point as they should "find fit." But as the captain had broken his instructions several times, they were to suspend him from his command for "that only fault" of keeping the brewer in prison after the schout and commissaries had asked for his release. A few of the "most notorious" insurgents were to be found guilty of "a treasonable and malicious Riot," and were to be brought to New York for "final sentence of punishment" by the governor. "Discourage not the soldiers too much in public," added Nicolls, "lest the boors insult over them; appear favorable to the most of the boors, but severe against the principal incendiaries; and, in general, you may tell them freely that I will proceed against every man that shall lift arms against His Majestie's garrison, as rebellious subjects and common enemies." [20]
    The commissioners sat three days at Esopus [21]. Captain Brodhead frankly admitted the charges against him, and Brodhead was suspended from his command, which was intrusted to suspend Sergeant Beresford. The burghers excused their being in arms because the soldiers had threatened to burn the town, and because Brodhead had imprisoned their sergeant. Four of the movers of the insurrection, Antonio d'Elba, Albert Heymans, Arent Albertsen, his son, and Cornelius Barentsen, were found guilty of a "rebellious and mutinous Riot," and were carried down to New York for sentence by the governor. Nicolls was of opinion that they deserved death. But, on the petition of the inhabitants and by the advice of his council, he sentenced Heymans to be banished for life out of the government [22], and the others, for shorter terms, out of Esopus, Albany, and New York. These sentences were afterward modified; and Heymans, the chief offender, became a prominent officer at Esopus. [23]

Source: Brodhead, John Romeyn, History of the State of New York, Vol. II, 1st Ed., New York: Harper & Brothers, 1871, pages 121-3.

    ...Clashes between the Dutch-French settlers and the English garrison had been occurring ever since the occupation of Esopus in the fall of 1664. The idea that the English were there to stay and so had better be put up with somehow did not jell in the settlers' minds; Dutch sea power was rated equal to English and French land power was allied to Dutch. On the other hand, orders not to act like conquerors failed to restrain the English. Complaints from both sides came before the Wiltwyck magistrates and the garrison commandant, Sergeant Berrisford, who sat with them. Albert Roosa had threatened three English soldiers with an axe in a dispute over use of his canoe; Tjerck De Witt had called English soldiers bad names; Roeloff Swartwout had broken an English soldier's sword in a fight. Or English soldiers had forced brewer Sleght to serve his "best bier" gratis to them and their friends; they had extorted extra provisions from Aert Van Wagenen and Juriaen Westphal - to trade off for tobacco, Magdalena Dircks declared in this case. The magistrates, with Berrisford riding herd over them, favored the English when they could not avoid a decision.
    Then, in May 1665, when it was rumored that Roosa, a sergeant in the Burgher Guard, was to be arrested for a second assault on the English when he took away a soldier's gun, the guardsmen armed and assembled. Having learned that their sergeant was merely summoned to court, they dispersed without taking any action; but their Officers' Council felt constrained to investigate the matter. Adelborst Rosecrans played a part in befogging the issue, testifying that only members of the watch had been given the watchword which made presence on the street possible after nightfall and backing up the testimony of Corporal Van Wagenen that the corporal's son, accused of being on the street, had been substituting for the corporal, who was ill. Captain De Laval of the Governor's Council, who happened to be in Wiltwyck, declined an invitation to sit with the Burgher Guard officers in judgment; so the investigation was suspended to await the coming of the Governor himself.
    Governor Nicolls, arriving in September, sought to ease the tension by replacing the garrison commandant with a commissioned officer, Captain Brodhead, who had brought his family with him to America with the intention of settling here. He instructed
Brodhead to "be single and indifferent as to justice between soldiers and burghers" and "not let insinuations beget a prejudice in his mind against the Dutch." But the captain turned out to be the hottest partisan of the English lot, especially after the following
    February (1666), when the Governor ordered him to rush reinforcements to Albany, which might be the objective of a French-Canadian expedition Courcelles was making. Antony D'Elba of the Burgher Guard answered the call for volunteers with the challenge, "Shall we go fight our friends and leave our enemies at home?"
    Even with his neighbors at the New Dorp, where he had rented a farm, Captain Brodhead embroiled himself gratuitously. One day he arrived at the store of Louys Dubois while a fight between the stormy petrel Roosa and five English soldiers was going on. Roosa had entered the store in search of a man to repair his plough-colter and, being badgered by the soldiers, who were in there drinking brandy, he had thrown the colter at one who was drawing his sword, scoring a near miss. Three of the soldiers had chased him outside. Brodhead's presence ended the outside engagement, but Brodhead didn't go inside to stop the beating the other two soldiers were giving the storekeeper and his wife. It was the English soldiers that preferred charges. The Wiltwyck magistrates, with Brodhead sitting as observer, held Roosa for further examination...
    ...(Harman Rosencrans') friend, Hendrick Cornelissen the rope maker, was murdered by a vicious English soldier, William Fisher, in a soldier-burgher brawl; and his sometime employer, Cornelis Sleght the brewer, was assaulted in his own brewhouse by Captain Brodhead himself and clapped into the guardhouse. This abuse of Sleght, like Roosa, a sergeant in the old Burgher Guard, now the militia, brought about another unlawful assembly of armed burghers. Though Brodhead called out his English garrison, the burghers refused to disperse. Anthony D'Elba leveled a musket at the commander and threatened to shoot him if he advanced one step. The village magistrates intervened with a proposal to try Sleght in their court. Brodhead defied them to take away his prisoner. Only by pledging themselves to make representations to the Governor did they finally induce the burghers to go home.
    Governor Nicolls appointed a commission to investigate the "Esopus mutiny." As he saw it, he could not afford to admit justice was on the burghers' side; so, as was to be disclosed more than a century later when secret colonial files were opened by Revolutionists, he dictated exactly what the commission's findings should be. "Appear favorable to the boors," he wrote, "but severe with the principal Incendiaries. Find that the Dutch rope maker ran upon the soldier Fisher's sword in attempting to assault the soldier; find that the captain Brodhead merely threatened to fling a dish at the Dutch brewer - merely threatened to draw a sword, but neither did nor could have done it - and that the brewer presently ran in upon the captain and made the assault, giving the first blow."
    The Governor directed the commission to employ no jury and to admit only screened burghers to its sessions. It must make the people realize that unlawful assembly of armed men is treason and inexcusable under any circumstances. Some of the ringleaders must be convicted of malicious and treasonable riot and transported to New York for sentence. Pressure for a more thorough investigation could then be met with the statement that the case had passed into the Governor's hands. Examination of complaints not covered in the directive could be avoided by suspending Captain Brodhead for disobedience to orders.
    The "boors" stood their ground in such lines of testimony as were permitted, maintaining that they could not have done otherwise than back up their abused sergeant and defend their homes, which the garrison was threatening to burn. Even their English captain, Thomas Chambers, confirmed Du Mond's account of the garrison commander's conduct at the New Year's party. But there was no gainsaying the fact that an armed assembly had taken place. The commission sat for only three days, and it failed to reach the charges against any of the garrison soldiers except Fisher, which it had the cut-and-dried answer for.
    The commission's report showed not the slightest deviation from the Governor's directive. Soldier Fisher was acquitted of homicide on the grounds of self-defense. Captain Brodhead was relieved of his command. Cornelis Sleght, Antony D'Elba, Albert Roosa and Albert's son Ariaen were convicted of rebellious and mutinous riot and shipped to New York City for sentence. Lieutenant Hendrick Schoonmaker, who had also been arrested, was found to have acted under duress and was released.
    Governor Nicolls sentenced the four convicted "Incendiaries" to banishment, with confiscation of property in the elder Roosa's case. But in the fall of the year, when he learned of the Treaty of Breda, which confirmed English possession of New Netherland, he declared a general amnesty...

Source: Excerpt from Bennett, David Vernooy, "The First American Mrs. Rosencrans", New York Genealogical & Biographical Record, Vol. XC, No. 2, Apr 1959.

Ulster County, New York Probate Records

Vol . I, Pages 74-5
Page 442.-Roosa, Hyman, of Hurly.
    Will dated Aug. 23, 1708, and written in Dutch.
    (Long religious preamble.)
    "Myn drie Soonen met namen Allert Nicolas en de Gysbert Sall heben" "gelyk" "myn geheele vaste en onroende staat" "op Conditie dat sy daar voor betalen" "aan myn vier dogters met naamen Jannetie huysvrouw van Philip Hooghtyling Wyntie huysvrouw van Willem Crom, Ragel ende Lea de Somme van Een hondert vyftigh pondt." (My three sons, A. N. and G., to have my whole real and personal estate, on condition that they pay to my four daughters, J., wife of P. H., W., wife of W. C., R. and L., the sum of 150).
    "Aan myn viervoors. dogters de bovege melde Somma van Een honder en vyftigh pondt" "in twe Jaaren na myn overlyden" (to my four daughters said sum of 150, to be paid within four years after my decease).
    "Myn twe Jongste dogters Ragel en Lea Sal drie Jaaren na myn overlyden" "of myn staat Wel gekleet en de gereet Werden na behooren" (my youngest daughters, R. and L., shall be well clothed for three years after my decease).
    "Aan myn Oudste Soon Allert voor uyt van myn Losse en Roerende Staat Een paart of een koe de keur van myn stat (my oldest son, A., shall have the choice of a horse or a cow in advance out of my estate).
    Sons Allert Rosa, Nicolaes Rosa and Gysbert Rosa appointed executors. Signed by the testator.
        Jan Roosa                             (Mr. William Nottingham and Jacobus
        Mattys Louw                         Van Etten, on Sept. 9, 1708, appeared
        Jacobus Van Netten               before the Court: Mr. William Legg,
                                                     Wm. Nottingham Esq., Judge, Capt. Dirck Schepmoes,
                                                     Mr. John Cock and Capt. Charles
                                                     Brodhead, Esq., Justices, proving the will.)

Vol. II, Pages 126-7
Liber 14, p 255.-Ten Eyck, Mathys, of Hurley.
    Will dated Aug. 3, 1734.
    "To my granddaughter Janneke, daughter of my eldest son, Aldert Ten Eyck, deceased, 30.-I have this day conveyed by lease and release to my youngest son, Abraham Ten Eyck, my messuage and tenement in Hurley, with the pastures, orchards, gardens, meadows, Barns, Barghs now occupied by me, and the land lying on the north side of the Esopus Creek, called Premakers, between the land formerly belonging to Arie Rosa and the land now in possession of Cornelis Wynkoop, also four lots of land on the south side of said Esopus Creek, being part of the land called Wassemaker's Land, bounded north by Esopus Creek, east by a lot of the said Abraham Ten Eyck, south and west by the land of Peter Peterse; also the the estate I have in two parcels of land lying near a place called Clykuyle, which I hold by two conveyances made to me and Gerrit Newkirk; also another small tract of land near the same, which was conveyed to me and Grietie Newkirk; also my right to a certain tract lying in Ulster Co., granted by patent to Cornelis Cool and Company, of which I am one of the Patentees; also my right in a tract of land lying on the north side of Esopus Creek, which Cornelis Cool and Company bought of Johanes Hardenburgh and Company, of which I am one of the purchasers; also a lot in Hurley, which was part of what was allotted to my wife, and lies between the lot of Jan Rosa and the lot of Aldert Rosa and between the street and the mill dam; also two Negroes the choice of all the Negroes, the choice of one Plow with the Grass, one wagon one Harrow, one Iron Wood slay, one Wood slay, one pleasure slay, one bergh screw with the utensils, one Log chain, 2 ladders, 1 dung fork, 1 break, 2 corn fans, 2 corn seifs, 1 schepls, tools of the rope yard, 1 long saw, 1 hand saw, coopers tools, 2 Troafs, 1 spade, 1 Howe, 1 Axe, 1 grubbing Howe, 3 Beer Barrells, 2 Beef Barrells, 1 Nail Hetchel, 3 siths with the Handle, 2 horses choice of a Cow, 1 ox, 1 sheep, 3 Hoggs, 1 Syth, 1 Windlass, 1 Hammer and stands to sharpen Siths, 1 Grindstone; I do hereby confirm the same, and he has given 11 bonds each for 200 conditioned for the payment of 100, he is to pay the same deducting 1/9. To my son Andries my waevver's loom and reeds. Residue of my estate to my children, Coenradt, Andries, Jacob, Abraham Wyntie, wife of Jan Hendrickse, Maritie, wife of Tjerck Van Keuren, Gritie, wife of William Burhans, Sarah, wife of Laurence Cortright, and Ragl, wife of Cornelis Newkirk. My children are to pay what they are indebted to me, and the money to be divided among them all. Sons appointed executors. Witnessed by A. Gaasbeck Chambers, W. Ten Broeck, Gilbert Livingston. Proved May 1, 1742.

Vol. II, Page 104
Liber 5-6, p. 117.-Pawling, Henry, of Marbletown.
    Will Dated Jan. 20, 1691.
    "All the estate shall Continue in ye trust of my well beloved wife during her life. If she remarry, an inventory to be taken by her brother Ariaen Rose and Gysbert Crum, or any faithful Townsman. After her death 'to my six children, Jane, Wyntie, John, Alberts, Ann, and Henry.' But if my wife Should be now with Child and beare a seventh and live it shall have Equall share with ye other six of my children."

Source: Anjou, Gustave, Ulster County, New York, Probate Records, 2 vols.


[1] Albert's name can also be spelled Aldert, Allert, etc. MB
[2] The Herwijnen Through the Ages website cites Van Maanen, R.H.C., "Bestuurders en dienaren binnen de heerlijkheid Herwijnen (1616) 1700-1800 (1809)", Gens Nostra, pgs. 33-36.
[3] Not necessarily in order according to age, except for the youngest, Guert. The first eight children would have been born in the Netherlands, most likely in Herwijnen, Gelderland, as this is where their parents came from and where marriage records list as the origin of Jannetje Roosa.
[4] Reasons for including Arien as the son of Albert and Wyntje: Arien is listed in the court records as Allertsen and in the church records as Albertszen and Alberson. He and Maria Pels had children named Aldert and Weyntie. MB
[5] Reasons for including Heiman as the son of Albert and Wyntje: Heiman Aldertse Rosa and Margriet Rosevelt had as their eldest son, Aldert, baptized in 1679 in Kingston, Ulster, New York (#175). The use of the patronym Aldertse and the naming of the eldest son indicate that Heyman is the son of Aldert. MB
[6] Heiman's wife's first name is recorded as both Margriet and Anna Margriet in the Kingston baptismal records. MB
[7] Reasons for including Jan as the son of Albert and Wyntje: Jan Aldertsse Rosa and Hillegont Willems had as their eldest daughter, Weintie, baptized in 1679 in Kingston (#204). The use of Aldertsse as a patronym indicates Jan was the son of Aldert. The naming of the eldest daughter indicates that one of the parents had a mother named, Weintie. MB
[8] In the 1698 Kingston baptism of Hillegond (#1045), the parents are listed as Jan Roos and Hillegond Willems van Burren. This is the only reference to the name van Burren that I have seen. MB
[9] Reasons for including Eyke as the daughter of Albert and Wyntje: Roelof Kierstede and Eike Alberts Rosa had a son, Lucas, baptized in 1679 in Kingston, Ulster, New York (#205); Roelof Giersteeden and Eike Aelbertz Rosa had daughter, Blandina, baptized in 1682 in Kingston (#248); Roelof Kierstede and Eyke Rosa had a son, Aldert (probably died young), baptized in 1684 in Kingston (#380); and Roelof Kierstede and Eike Rosa had a son, Aldert, baptized in 1685 in Kingston (#436). The use of the patronym Alberts/Aelbertz in the first two baptisms indicates that Eyke was the daughter of Albert. The naming of the second eldest son (and the third son, probably named Aldert because the second son had probably died) supports that indication. MB
[10] Reasons for including Marritje as the daughter of Albert and Wyntje: Laurens Janszen and Marritie Aldrichs had their eldest son, Albert, baptized in 1676 in New York City, New York and Laurens Janszen and Marritje Aldricx had their second eldest daughter, Wyntie, baptized in 1679 in New York City, New York. The use of Albert and Wyntie as the names of the eldest son and second eldest daughter indicate, according to the Dutch naming tradition, that two of the grandparents were named Albert and Wyntie. Marritje's patronym, Aldrichs/Aldricx, shows that her father was Aldrich, a variation on Aldert. She was called Maritje Roos twice in the New York City baptismal records-once, when she and Laurens Janszen had their youngest child, Belitje, baptized in 1693 in New York and once, when she appeared as a witness to the baptism of Jan, the son of Albert Louwe and Susanna Lamatre, in 1707 in New York City and was called "Maritje Roos wife of Lourens Janse". MB
[11] Reasons for including Jannetje as the daughter of Albert and Wyntje: Matys ten Eyck, as both the Kingston and New York City marriage records state, married Jannetie Rosa. Mathys ten Eyck of Hurley named as an heir, in his will dated 3 Aug 1734, "Janneke, daughter of my eldest son, Aldert Ten Eyck". He also names as one of his living children "Wyntie, wife of Jan Hendrickse". MB
[12] Reasons for including Neeltje as the daughter of Albert and Wyntje: Hendrick Paelingh and Neeltie Rosa's eldest daughter, baptized 1679 in Kingston (#190) was named Weyntie, probably named after a grandmother. They also had a son, baptized in 1685 in Kingston (#412), named Aldert. Even though Aldert was the third son, this still is a good clue in linking Neeltje as the daughter of Albert and Wyntje. MB
[13] There were eight children that came with Albert on the ship from Amsterdam. Since Guert would have been born in the Kingston area, this leaves one more child. Other researchers list this child's name as Aert. I have not found him in the Kingston records and am unsure what the source is for this name.
[14] Note from R.R. Hoes: "This son died before baptism." All the arrangements seem to have been made for the baptism of this child, including the presence of the Domine's wife, Anna Blom, as sponsor; the child, however, was doubtless dangerously ill, and died just before the rite of baptism was administered.
[15] Note from R.R. Hoes: It is uncertain whether this is the date of the Marriage, or of first publication of Banns, probably the latter.
[16] Note from R.R. Hoes: The present Herwynen, also now spelled Herwyen, a village in the province of Gelderland, in Holland, on the Waal River, 5 miles W. of Bommel; spelled Herwyn and Herwynen by van Leeuwen, and Herwyn by Blaeu. Or it may be the present Herwenen, a short distance E. of Bommel, in Gelderland; spelled Herwyn and Herwyen by Blaeu, and Herwyen by van Leeuwen. Or, again, it may be the present Herwen in Gelderland, 12 miles S. E. of Arnhem; spelled Herwyn by Blaeu, but not mentioned by van Leeuwen.
[17] Written by Christian Niessen in Capt. Kreiger's absence, Nov 1663.
[18] Note from Brodhead: Col. MSS., xxii., 14, 21-32; Alb. Rec., xviii., 327-330, 470; Esopus Eecords; Col. Doc., iii., 144, 149;
[19] Brodhead, in the margin, gives the dates as 16 Apr 1667.
[20] Note from Brodhead: Patents, i., 145; Col. Doc., iii., 149, 150.
[21] Brodhead, in the margin, gives the dates as 25-27 Apr 1667. MB
[22] Brodhead, in the margin, gives the dates as 3 May 1667. MB
[23] Note from Brodhead: Col. MSS., xxii., 24, 28, 31, 32, 99; N. Y. Surr. Rec. Wills, i., 22-25; Val. Man., 1847, 357, 358; Col. Doc., ii., 627; iii., 150; Ulster Hist. Coll., i., 50, 51; Esopus Records. Fisher, the soldier who killed Cornelissen, appears to have been acquitted, and afterward obtained a lot of land at Marbletown: Val. Man., 1847, 361; Patents, iii., 43. Captain Brodhead died at Esopus on the 14th of July, 1667, about two months after his suspension from command, leaving his widow, Ann, and three sons, Daniel, Charles, and Richard.

2015 by Michelle Boyd, All rights reserved.

Return: Home > Ennis > Roosa
Last updated 19 June 2015.