Jan Gerritsen (Decker) and Grietjen Hendricks Westercamp
Jan Gerritsen was from Heerde, Gelderland, Netherlands. He married Grietjen Hendricks Westercamp 23 March 1664 in Kingston, Ulster, New York.
Grietjen was baptized 19 Oct 1642 in New Amsterdam, New Netherland, the daughter of Hendrick Jansz Westercamp and Femmetje Alberts. In 1662, she had a child out of wedlock by a miller named Pieter Jacobsen. She sued the miller but he refused to recognize the child as his own.
A little less than a year before Jan and Grietjen married, in June of 1663, the village of Wildwyck was attacked by a group of Native Americans during the Second Esopus War. A list of the prisoners taken shows that a Jan Gerritsen was the only man taken captive [1] and that, in Grietjen's household, one woman (presumably Grietjen herself) and three children [2], were also taken prisoner. In mid-September of that year, one Jan Gerritsen was fined for working in fields without a convoy to protect himself or permission from the Council of War, in violation of an ordinance to protect the residents of Kingston during the war.
Jan and Grietjen appeared in New York City in 1671, where they had a child baptized. However, they mainly appear in the Kingston records both before and after the 1671 baptism. In the court records, Jan is mentioned as having stolen reeds from Thomas Chambers' land with Henerick Hendricksen Van Wye. Both Jan and Grietjen are mentioned in the records one time each for fighting, Jan having fought with the same Hendrick Van Wye before mentioned. [3]
Grietjen's child by Pieter Jacobsen:
- Pieter (Pietersen), baptized 1 Oct 1662 in Kingston, Ulster, New York.
Jan and Grietjen's children:
- Gerret Janz Decker, baptized 14 Feb 1665 in Kingston, Ulster, New York, married Margriet Janz Decker in 1685 in Kingston, Ulster, New York. [4]
- Hendrick Decker, born in Kingston, Ulster, New York, baptized 9 Oct 1667 in Kingston, Ulster, New York, married Antje Quick 18 Dec 1696 in Kingston, Ulster, New York.
- Jacob Decker, baptized 22 May 1671 in New York City, New York, married Annetje Hendricks 2 Sep 1695 in Kingston, Ulster, New York. [5]
- Hermanus Decker, married Rachel de la Montagne 2 Sep 1695 in Kingston, Ulster, New York. [6]
Source:
- Brassard, Theodore (comp.), Baptisms at the Reformed Dutch Church of New Amsterdam (1639-1730), Nottingham, NH: http://www.altlaw.com/edball/dutchbap.htm, 2000.
- 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).
- O'Callaghan, E.B., The Documentary History of the State of New York, Vol. IV, Albany: Charles Van Benthuysen, 1851.
- Versteeg, Dingman (trans.), New York Historical Manuscripts: Dutch, Kingston Papers, 2 vols., original translation 1899, Samuel Oppenheim's pub. 1912, Baltimore, MD: Genealogical Publishing Co., 1976.
Records of Baptisms of the Reformed Church at New Amsterdam.
Baptism Date Parents Child Witnesses 1642 Hendrick Westercamp Backer [7] Margariet Jillis Pieterszen, 19 Oct Mr. Timmer-master, carpenter, Philip Gerritszen, Engel Mans, Tryntie Pieters 1671 Jan Gerritszen Jacob Stytie Abrahams 22 May Grietie Hendricx Source: Brassard, Theodore (comp.), Baptisms at the Reformed Dutch Church of New Amsterdam (1639-1730), Nottingham, NH: http://www.altlaw.com/edball/dutchbap.htm, 2000.
Records of Baptisms of the Reformed Church at Kingston, Ulster, NY.
Page Number Baptism Number Baptism Date Parents Child Witnesses 2 21 1662 Pieter Jacobsen, "miller here" Pieter Saertje Staets. 1 Oct. Grietjen Hendricks Westercam Willempje Jacobs. Pieter Hillebrantsen. 4 51 1665 Jan Gerretsen Gerret Hendrick Vosman. 14 Feb. Grietjen Hendricks Mariken Everingh. Grietjen Hendricks. 6 88 1667 Jan Gerretsen Hendrick (No witnesses named). 9 Oct. Grietjen Hendricks Page 501, Marriage Number 13 Kingston Marriage Register.
1664
23 March
JAN GERRETSEN, j. m., of Heerden [8], and GRIETJEN HENDRICKS WESTERCAMP, of (New) Amsterdam in Nieunederlant (New Netherland), both reside here (in Wiltwyck, now Kingston). "Est nec virgo nec vidua." [9] First publication of Banns, 27 April; second, 4 May; third, 11 May.Page 508, Marriage Number 75
1685
(Date of marriage not given.)
GERARD JANZ DECKER, j. m., from the Esopus, resid. at Mombachus (Mombaccus), and MARGRIET JANZ DECKER, j. d., from the Esopus, resid. at Marmur (Marbletown). First publication of Banns, 20 Jan.Page 513, Marriage Number 126
1696
18 Dec.
HENDRICK DECKER, j. m., born in Kingstouwn, and ANTJE QUICK, j. d., born in Kingstouwn, both resid. in Mombackes (Mombaccus). Banns published, but dates not given.Page 511, Marriage Number 107
1695
2 Sept.
JACOB DECKER, j. m., and ANNETJE HENDRICKS, j. d., both resid. in Mombackes (Mombaccus). Banns published, but dates not given.Page 511, Marriage Number 108
1695
2 Sept.
HERMANUS DECKER, j. m., and RACHEL DE LA MONTAGNE, j. d., both resid. in Mombackes (Mombaccus). Banns published, but dates not given.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).
Pages 29-30 Excerpts from the Journal of the Second Esopus War,
By Capt. Martin Kregier, 1663.
Translated from the original Dutch MSMassacre 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,1 Rondout.
the mark of Albert Gybertsen,
Tiereck Classen Dewitt,
Thomas Chambers,
Gysbert Van Imbroch,
Christiaen Nyssen,
Hendrick Jochemsen.Page 32
Taken prisoners: MEN.
Jan Gerritsen on Volckert's bouwery.Women. Children.
...Of Grietje Westercamp,..................... 1 3...Source: O'Callaghan, E.B., The Documentary History of the State of New York, Vol. IV, Albany: Charles Van Benthuysen, 1851.
Vol. I, Page 35, 4 Oct 1662 From the Court Minutes of Esopus (now Kingston, NY)
Grietjen Westercamp, plaintiff, vs. Pieter Jacobsen, defendant. Default.Vol. I, Page 36-7, 17 Oct 1662
Grietjen Hendricks Westercamp, plaintiff, vs. Pieter Jacobsen, defendant. Plaintiff demands of defendant why he denies his child. Defendant answers , and says, "I have my doubts about it."
Plaintiff says that defendant ruined her, and asks that he restore her to honor.
Defendant denies that her ruined her, and says "she must prove this to me," and also denies that he promised to marry her. He asks her when she brcame pregnant, and when she was delivered.
Plaintiff says that defendant made her pregnant eight days before Christmas, 1661, and that she was delivered eight days before Kermis (the Fair), 1662. Plaintiff says she conceived at the mill-house of Pieter Jacbsen. Defendant requests two weeks' time. The Schout and Commissaries grant the defendant two weeks' time, and order plaintiff to prove at the next session that defendant ruined her.Vol. I, Page 39-40, 1 Nov 1662
Grietjen Hendricks Westercamp, plaintiff, vs. Pieter Jacobse, defendant.
Plaintiff exhibits to the Schout and Commissaries a certificate and deposition by seven women who certify and declare that they were present at the birth of Grietje Westerkamp's child, and that she swore three times that Pieter Jacobse was the father of the child. The Plaintiff asks for a vindication of her honor.
The defendant says plaintiff did not behave as a decent girl should, and produces a certificate of Juriaen Westvael and his wife who declare that Grietjen Westercamp lay under one blanket with Jan van Breemen, with his daughter between them. Defendant, being interrogated, admits having conversed and lain with plaintiff, but did not promise marriage, and, besides, gave her no money for it, and asks if a woman can be thirteen months and four days in the family way.
The Schout and Commissaries order defendant to bring clearer proof at the Court's next session.Vol. I, Page 52, 9 Jan 1663
Pieter Jacobsen, plaintiff, vs. Grietjen Westercamp. Plaintiff, by petition, asked to be released from defendant, so as to be a free man again and earn his living. Defendant requests fourteen days' time.
The Court again allows fourteen days' time, and if she cannot bring proof, plaintiff shall receive the judgment of the Court which, upon request, will mete out justice.Vol. I, Page 55, 23 Jan 1663
Pieter Jacobsen, plaintiff, vs. Grietjen Westercamp, defendant. Default.Vol. I, Page 57, 6 Feb 1663
Pieter Jacobsen, plaintiff, vs. Grietjen Westercamp, defendant.
Plaintiff asks, by petition, that the Court grant him justice against defendant. Defendant answers that plaintiff is the father of her child. He denies this, says it is not his child, and offers to affirm upon oath. Which he did before the Court, saying, "I am not the father of the child: So truly help me God Almighty!"
Therefore, the Court decides to allow plaintiff to marry any other person he pleases, and it has also thought it proper, in view of several certificates previously shown by both parties to the Court, that plaintiff shall, for the nonce, pay defendant two hundred gldrs., on a former acknowledgement made by him that he did not compensate her for lying with her, and he is therefore bound to pay her for that service.Vol. I, Page 73, 18 Sep 1663
Roeloff Swartwout, the Schout, was prosecuting a number of cases. Same refers to the Schout, the first do. (short for "ditto") refers to the word "defendant" and the second refers to the word "Default":
Same, vs. Jan Gerritsen, do. do.Vol. I, Page 77, 9 Oct 1663
Roeloff Swartwout, Schout, plaintiff, vs. Jan Gerritsen, Antony Crupel, Henderick Hendericksen, Jacob Stoutenborch, defendants.
Plaintiffs demands from the aforesaid defendants fines due for violation of the ordinance dated August 4, that no one should venture out to mow, without consent and a proper convoy, the fines amounting,
For Jan Gerritsen, to 75 gldrs.
" Antoni Crupel, " 75 "
" Henderick Hendericksen, " 75 "
" Jacob Stoutenborch, " 25 "
Juriaen Westphael, representing the above named defendants who were in his employ, says he is not disposed to pay any fine herein, as the promises given him were not fulfilled at mowing time. Plaintiff requests judgment herein.
The Commissaries, having heard plaintiff's demand and the answer of defendants' representative, order the defendants to pay the full fine to plaintiff, because their representative's day had been extended through rain and other causes, and the next day, when the weather was favorable, no work was done, yet at a time when, under the general agreement of the community, he ought to have assisted other farmers with his people, he had, notwithstanding the ordinance, had the work continued without giving notice to the Council of War and this Court.Vol. I, Pages 96-97, 30 Oct 1663
Roeloff Swartwout, Schout, plaintiff, vs. Jan Gerretsen, defendant. Plaintiff demands of plaintiff a fine of seventy-five gldrs., pursuant to the judgment rendered by the Honorable Court on October 9, for violating the ordinance dated August 4, in that he worked in the field without permission and a convoy. Defendant admits he worked in the field without permission and a convoy, but says he was working close by the guard house, and does not owe anything but intends to go higher up.
The Council of War and Commissaries order defendant to pay the full fine, pursuant to the judgment rendered by the Court on October 9.Vol. I, Page 113, 27 Dec 1663
Mattheus Capito, Provisional Schout, vs. Juriaen Westphael, defendant. The Provisional Schout submits his demand in writing. It reads as follows:
Whereas defendant, Juriaen Westphael, on October 9, last, substituted himself, for the below mentioned persons, his workmen, who violated the ordinance proclaimed and published on August 4, last, providing that no one, without permission and a proper convoy, should venture out to mow, cart, or do any other work, and were detected by the former Schout, Roelof Swartwout, my predecessor:
Antoni Crupel, for twice, 75 fl.
Henderick Hendericksen, having twice, and 75 fl.
Jan Gerretsen, violated twice, having 75 fl.
Jacob Stoutenborch, the once, been 25 fl.
Jan Broersen, aforesaid twice, fined 75 fl.
Jacob Barents Cool, ordin- once, 25 fl.
Jan Jansen van Oosterhout, ance twice, 75 fl.
Amounting to a total of...................................................425 fl.
say four hundred and twenty-five guilders, which the defendant was condemned to pay...Vol. I, Page 179, 25 Nov 1664
Willem Beeckman, Plaintiff vs. Jan Gerretsen, Defendant
Plaintiff demnds, for himself personally, from defendant 43 gldrs. 10 st. in sewan, and further 162 gldrs.15 st. in sewan or wheat, as per vendue of the effects of Frederick Claesen upon which have been paid as per bill produced, 50 gldrs., balance in all amounting to 156 gldrs. 5 st., and requests payment of the same with costs, because already more than six weeks have passed since said vendue. Defendant admits the debt, but says at present not being able to pay. The hon. court sentences defendant to satisfy plaintiff's aforenamed demand with the costs.Vol. I, Page 258, 3 Nov 1665
Thomas Chambers, Plaintiff vs. Teunis Jacobsen and Andries Pietersen, Defendants.
Plaintiff complains about defendants' having taken the reed off plaintiff's land without his knowledge, and which he himself needed, and requests justice about the same. Defendants admit having taken the reed off plaintiff's land, and that said reed was mowed by Jan Gerretsen and Henderick Hendericks Van Wye, which these owed to defendants, and that they ordered defendants to punctually on the following day take the aforenamed reed away. Plaintiff further says that, on the day before, he spoke to the aforenamed persons, Jan Gerretsen and Henderick Hendericksen about mowing the reed on the land for himself, which they refused him to do, saying that they had other work, but notwithstanding they asked plaintiff where they should mow the reed and (he) answered them, "I shall drive to Pisseman's Corner to see whether there is reed there," and upon his return told them there was reed there, and they nevertheless refused to mow the same, and shortly afterward mowed the reed for themselves, and had it carted away by defendants, on account of which plaintiff enters a complaint against the aforesaid persons as thieves, and requests justice for the same.Vol. I, Page 261, 1 Dec 1665
Willem Beeckman, Schout, Plaintiff vs. Jan Gerretsen and Henderick Hendericks Van Wye, Defendants
Plaintiff says that on Nov. 3 last Thomas Chambers made a complaint against defendants on account of theft, and that they mowed the reed off his land without his knowledge, and as soon as it had been mowed, had it removed b others, on which account the schout, as per aforesaid complaint, prosecutes defendants before the court, to punish the same as the case may be found. Defendants answer, saying not having stolen the reed, because Thomas Chambers had not fenced in the said piece of land where they mowed the reed, and also that Thomas Chambers had already had his reed mowed, before they mowed the reed for themselves.
Thomas Chambers, having further been heard on this account, denies defendants' answers in their presence, saying , that they, defendants, have knowingly and with intent to steal, mowed the reed from his land, because, forsooth, they knew he had put a mower on the said land for the purpose of mowing the reed for him, and while he needed said mower at home, they, defendants, in the meanwhile, took the liberty of mowing the reed off his land and to have it removed.
The hon. schout replies, because it is plain the defendants as per Thomas Chambers' complaint, have thievishly taken the reed off his land, therefore he demands, that in the future everyone may more securely possess his property, and similar deeds may not be further committed, that they shall be obliged to indemnify Thomas Chambers for the damage or injury caused on account of said reed, and (be sentenced to pay) a fine of 100 gldrs. each. The hon. court, having considered the aforesaid case, decides that defendants have misbehaved, and appropriated another's property in mowing the reed without the owner's knowledge. Wherefore, for the purpose of preventing similar (actions) the defendants are condemned to return to said Thomas Chambers the reed they mowed off Thomas Chambers' land and therebesides are sentenced each to pay in behalf of the hon. schout a fine of 25 gldrs.Vol. I, Pages 267-268, 8 Dec 1665
Grietie Henderiks Westercamp, Plaintiff vs. Pieter Cornelissen, Defendant
Plaintiff demands of defendant a sum of 200 gldrs., as per copy from the minutes dated Feb. 6, 1663, against Pieter Jacobsen, defendant's partner. Defendant answers that plaintiff ought to have attended to said claim during the life-time of his partner, Pieter Jacobsen, and therefore concludes not to owe her anything. Plaintiff answers whereas defendant possesses deceased Pieter Jacobsen's goods and effects, he is also obliged to pay his debts. Defendant answers that he did not agree with his partner concerning this affair, and further says that plaintiff kept his partner from working, so that (he) was very much inconvenienced through the same. The hon. court decides, whereas plaintiff has been negligent in attending to said business during Pieter Jacobsen's life-time, therefore she is referred with her claim to the left own estate [10] of the deceased Pieter Jacobsen.Page 268, 29 Dec 1665
Femmetie Alberts, Plaintiff vs. Willemtie Alberts, Defendant
Plaintiff says that some time ago she bought a hood of her daughter Grietje and did not receive the same of her daughter, and in the meantime her aforesaid daughter again sold and delivered said hood to Willemtje Alberts, and requests that Willemtie Alberts shall return said hood to her, plaintiff. Defendant answers having bought said hood of plaintiff's daughter Grietje, and (that she) partially paid for the same, the balance of the purchase money is ready with her. Plaintiff replies not being satisfied, but desires to have said hood for herself because she bought it first. The hon. court refers plaintiff to her daughter, to look to her for securing the hood and denies plaintiff's claim against defendant.Vol. I, Page 285, 16 Mar 1666
Grietje Hendericks, Plaintiff vs. Arent Jacobsen, Defendant
Plaintiff demands of defendant three sch. of wheat on account of assigned money of the smith, and costs. Defendant admits the debt, and says not to be able to pay just now. The hon. court orders defendant to satisfy plaintiff's claim and costs.Vol. I, Page 337, 26 Feb/8 Mar 1667
Reyndert Pietersen, Plaintiff vs. Jan Gerretsen, Defendant
Plaintiff demands of defendant 101 gldrs. for received goods, as per obligation. Defendant admits the debt. The hon. court orders defendant to satisfy plaintiff's demand.Vol. I, Page 340, 26 Feb/8 Mar 1667
Jan Gerretsen, Plaintiff vs. Juriaen Westphael, Defendant
Plaintiff demands of defendant 25 sch. of wheat and one sch. of oats for wages, with costs. Defendant admits the debt. The hon. court orders defendant to satisfy plaintiff's demand with costs.Vol. II, Page 387, 7 Feb 1667/8
Roelof Kierste, Plaintiff vs. Jan Gerrits, DefendantVol. II, Page 390, 4/14 Feb 1667/8
Roelof Kierste, Plaintiff vs. Jan Gerrits, Defendant
Plaintiff demands of defendant three sch. of wheat for services rendered as surgeon. Defendant admits the debt and says that plaintiff has not yet served his time. After he has done so, defendant will gladly pay. Plaintiff says that he served him beside others, and the time has already expired. The hon. court decide that plaintiff shall serve the claimed time or else allow one sch. of wheat to be deducted.Vol. II, Page 429, 22 Mar 1668/9
Jan Gerritsen, Plaintiff vs. Aert Otterspoor, Defendant. Default.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
...Jan Gerridtsen 18 7...Vol. II, Page 480, 20 Mar 1671/2
Jan Gerritsen, Plaintiff vs. Jacob Jansen, Defendant
Plaintiff demands of defendant a quantity of 24 sch. of wheat, and four gldrs. Defendant says not ot owe more than 17 sch. of wheat. The hon. court orders defendant to pay 17 sch. of wheat, and plaintiff is required to prove the balance.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 there is a great scarcity of money, therefore their honors are requested to voluntarily subscribe like all other villages. List of those who have voluntarily subscribed toward repairing the fort:...Jan Gerritsen, 8 sch.Vol. II, Page 485, 21 Sep 1672
This September 21, 1672, Barbara Jans says that Grietie Westercamp has attacked her and took hold of her skirt, and said, "Let me go, your attack will cost you dear." Whereupon Grietie Westercamp called her a "Carouje" or "Caronje." [11] Annetetie, the wife of Cornelis Vernooy, says that she left the fort with Grietie Westercamp. Grietie Westercamp says that her husband, coming on the land, found some pigs in the corn and told his wife about it and said some words in a passion, whereupon Barbara Jans said, "Let your thieving boy come here on the land." Then Grietie Westercamp came and asked Barbara Jans what she had to say against her boy, whereupon Barbara Jans said, "Your boy has taken a knife of me," whereupon she answered that she would have to prove her accusation, whereupon Barbara Jans said, "Fatted pig." Then Grietie said, "Black devil" and more other words, and they commenced to fight.Vol. II, Page 486, 21 Sep 1672?
The hon. court orders that Barbara Jans and Grietie Westercamp shall pay the hon. schout...(this is all).Vol. II, Page 503, 25 Nov 1673
Grietie Westercamp, Plaintiff vs. Hendrick Van Wyen, Defendant
Plaintiff says that defendant cut her head when she separated him and her husband. Defendant denies having done so and requests proof. The hon. court orders plaintiff to prove her assertion.Vol. II, Page 503, 25 Nov 1673
Robberdt Biggerstaf, Plaintiff vs. Jan Gerritsen, Defendant
Plaintiff says that defendant has run over a pig of his. Defendant says that when passing with his wagon he heard a pig squeal. His wife going to the spot found no pig. Requests proof, and if he had done so, the pig ought to have been right away appraised. The hon. court orders plaintiff to prove his assertion.Vol. II, Pages 503-504, 22 (sic!) Nov 1673
Grietie Wistercam appeared at the session and requested that the witnesses between her and Hendrick Van Wyen shall be heard. Aerdt Otterspoor declares that at evening he heard the cry of "murder" in the barn of Jan Gerritsen. When arriving there, he found that Jan Gerritsen and Hendrick Van Wyen were fighting and saw that Grietie Westercamp separated them and that she had a hole in the head, but says not having seen a knife. Grietie Westercamp requests that Hendrick Van Wyen shall declare under oath that he has not cut her, or else she offers to affirm the same under oath. Defendant refuses to clear himself under oath. Plaintiff is ready to affirm it under oath. The hon. Schout ex officio demands of defendant Van Wyen for his committed offence a fine of 300 gldrs. as per the decree. The hon. court sentences defendant to pay a fine of 100 gldrs. to be applied as follows: one-fourth for the poor, one-fourth for the village, and one-half for the officer, and besides to pay the doctor's fee and expenses.Vol. II, Page 504, 28 Nov 1673
Schout Grevenraedt, Plaintiff vs. Jan Gerritsen, Defendant
Plaintiff demands of defendant a fine of 25 gldrs. because he, defendant, has been fighting with Hendrick Van Wyen. Defendant says that Hendrick Van Wyen beat him first. He agrees to prove the same under oath.Vol. II, Pages 509-510, 27 Feb 1673/4
Schout Grevenraedt, Plaintiff vs. Jan Gerritsen, Defendant
Plaintiff demands of defendant a sum of 23 gldrs. for the purchase of a bed at vendue, still a balance, an obligation of 46 gldrs. and the costs of the present. Plaintiff admits the debt except three gldrs. which he earned for carting freight. He also says that he has sold the horse of Barendt the Negro by execution. Requests payment for feeding it. The hon. court decides that Jan Gerritsen shall receive payment for feeding the horse since the time of the execution against Barendt the Negro. But the judgement of the hon. court must first be satisfied and all the expenses of Barendt the Negro's execution must first be paid. And Jan Gerritsen ought to have nothing to do with anybody else's slave without the knowledge of his master.Vol. II, Page 516, 21 May 1674
The hon. court authorizes the officer to judicially enforce the judgment against Jan Gerritsen in behalf of the Schout.Vol. II, Page 523, 12 Jan 1674/5
Jacob Elbertsen, Plaintiff vs. Jan Gerritsen, Defendant
Plaintiff demands of defendant seven sch. of wheat for taking care of his cows. Defendant demands of plaintiff 28 lbs. of butter because his cows stayed out 28 days. Plaintiff says that he delivered the cows in the fort. The hon. court orders defendant to pay five sch. of wheat.Vol. II, Page 527, 9 Feb 1674/5
Dirck Jansen Schepmoes, Plaintiff vs. Cornelis Fynhoudt, Defendant
Dirck Jansen says that Cornelis Fynhoudt last year received of Jan Gerritsen 15 sch of wheat which ought to go to Dirck Jansen as his share of the sold house and lot. Defendant admits the debt. The hon. court orders defendant to pay the demanded amount.Vol. II, Page 527, 8 Mar 1674/5
This March 8, 1674/5, the hon. court authorizes the officer to execute the judgment against Jan Gerritsen in favor of Jacob Elbersen.Vol. II, Page 577, 29 Oct 1665 From the Secretary's Minutes
On this October 29, 1665, appeared before me, Mattheus Capito, Secretary of the village of Wildwyck, Mattheu Blanchan and Jan Gerretsen Van Heerden, both residents of Wildwyck, who, in the presence of the below-named witnesses declare having agreed upon the following conditions:
Mattheu Blanshan declares having sold and Jan Gerretsen having bought of the aforesaid Mattheu Blanchan a cow, said cow having been delivered on the above date to him, the purchaser, by the seller, for which cow the purchaser promises to pay the seller an amount of 190 gldrs. in sewan to be delivered in grain, viz., the sch. of wheat at five gldrs., the sch. of rye at four gldrs., the sch. of white peas at four gldrs., and the oats three sch. at five gldrs., and the buckwheat two sch. at five gldrs. The purchaser agrees to deliver the aforenamed amount of 190 gldrs. to the seller in the grains specified above from now on till Mar. 31, precisely of the coming year 1666, under the following condition: If the purchaser shall not have fully paid the seller in March of the coming year 1666, the seller shall be at liberty to again attach the aforesaid sold cow between the aforesaid period, without, afterward, going to law about the same. With which the aforesaid appearers declare to be satisfied. And in consequence said appearers, besides Lambert Huybertsen and Henderick Hendericksen Van Wye as witnesses called in and requested for the purpose have signedthe present with their own hand, at Wildwyck on the day and in the year named above.
(Signed) Mattheu Blanchan, the markof Jan Gerritsen Van Heerden, the mark
of Lambert Huybertsen, the mark * of Henderick Hendericksen Van Wye. In my presence (signed) Mattheus Capito, Secretary.
Vol. II, Page 690, 13 Dec 1670
Conditions and terms whereupon the collective householders, whose lands are situated across the great kil, intend to contract with the lowest bidder to make a bridge which to be fit to bear horses and wagon and sleighs, and to keep the same in good repairs, passable for vehicles, for the time of six consecutive years which shall commence on this date. But if, during harvest time, the water should rise high, on account of which some repairs to the bridge should be necessary, then all the principals shall assist him, the contractor, each with one man, provided the contractor shall pay one sch. of wheat a day for each man, viz., if the contractor should need any help. The bridge is to be delivered passable and fit for horses and wagons at the end of the time. The contractor shall be obliged, during the period of the six years named above, to maintain a serviceable gate with a lock, but all the principals shall, at their own expense, have a key made which they shall not give to anybody not having land across the kil, under penalty of 25 gldrs. fine in behalf of the contractor. The payment shall come from, and be paid out of, the number of morgens, in proportion, and each one will have to pay his share every year to the contractor, in wheat at six gldrs. and other grain in proportion. And if anybody shall be a year in arrears, the same shall pay double his share to the contractor for the year he is in arrears. (signed) Jan Willemsen, Cornelis Wynckoop, Hendrick Jochems, the mark of Jacob Jansen +, the markof Michiel Mot, the mark
of Cornelis Vernooy, the mark
of Thomas Matthys, the mark + of Dirck Hend., George Hall, Ann Brodhead, the mark
of Jan Gerritsz, Tomys Hermans Brouwer.
Contractors under the above conditions are Corne Wynkoop, Jan Willem, Jacob Jansz Stout. and Hendr. Jochemsz for one sch. of wheat or other grain in proportion for every morgen per year for the period named above. And in case, owing to negligence on their part, anyone should suffer loss on account of the bridge, they, the contractors, shall make good the same. But in case high floods (should cause damage) they shall be required to repair the same as quickly as possible. For the purpose of complying with the above they pledge their persons and their estates, under obligations as per law, this December 13, 1670, at Kingston. (Signed) Cornelis Wynckoop, Jan Willemsen, Hendrick Jochems. (Jacob Jansz. did not sign.)Source: Versteeg, Dingman (trans.), New York Historical Manuscripts: Dutch, Kingston Papers, 2 vols., original translation 1899, Samuel Oppenheim's pub. 1912, Baltimore, MD: Genealogical Publishing Co., 1976.
[1] Whether or not this Jan Gerritsen was the one who later married Grietjen Westercamp is unclear. The Kingston Court Records record that one Gerrit Fooken was sued by Gysbert van Imborch for debts incurred by Gerrit and his partner Jan Gerretsen. It states: "Defendant...says that he cannot pay for his partner who was killed by the savages during the late troubles." Footnotes
[2] I am unsure who the children were. It may be possible that one of these children was her son, Pieter, unless he died in the months between his baptism and the attack. I have found no indications to show whether or not he lived to adulthood. MB
[3] Before the fight, Hendrick was mentioned not only as having stolen the reeds with Jan, but also as working for Juriaen Westphael with Jan Gerritsen and once as a witness when Jan bought a cow.
[4] There are two Gerrit Jans Deckers in this generation. Jan Gerritsen's son Gerrit was the one who married Grietje Jans Decker, while Jan Broersen's son Gerrit married Magdalena Willemz Schut. See the section on Gerrit Jans Decker to see my argument in support of these facts. MB
[5] Both Jan Gerritsen and Jan Broersen had sons named Jacob. Likewise, there are two contemporary Jacobs marrying in Kingston. The first married Belitje Bastiansse Cortregt and, after becoming a widower, married Sara Minteren. The second married Annetje Hendricks. The marriage of Jacob and Belitje took place in 1678. Jacob, the son of Jan Gerritsen was baptized in 1671 and it can be safely assumed that he was an infant at the time. As Jacob, the son of Jan Gerritsen, would only have been about seven in 1671, he could not have been the first Jacob who married Belitje and Sara. In addition, Jacob and Annetje had a daughter named Margriet while Jacob and Belitje had a daughter named Heltje. These clues indicate that Jacob, the son of Jan Gerritsen, was the Jacob Decker who married Annetje Hendricks. MB
[6] According to the Kingston baptismal record, Hermanus and Rachel's oldest daughter was Margriet and second oldest son was Jan. There were no children named either Heyltje or Willempje. This indicates that Hermanus was the son of Jan Gerritsen Decker and not Jan Broersen Decker. Witnesses to the baptisms of their children included Jan Gerritsen Decker and Grietje Westercamp. Also, note that Hermanus and Jacob Decker had a double wedding, thus increasing the likelihood that the two were brothers. MB
[7] Dutch for "baker", indicating his occupation. MB
[8] R.R. Hoes: "The present Heerde, in Province of Gelderland, Holland, 30 miles N. N. E. of Arnhem."
[9] Hoes did not translate this passage. It is Latin for "Neither a virgin nor a widow." This refers to the fact that Grietjen was the mother of an illegitimate child. MB
[10] Note from editor: "A literal translation of naegelatene eygene goederen. A better reading, suggested by Versteeg, is 'the personal estate left by the deceased Pieter Jacobsen.'"
[11] Note from editor: "Caronje, meaning 'whore,' is the correct spelling."
© 2015 by Michelle Boyd, All rights reserved.