"Record of the Reformed Dutch Church in New Amsterdam and New York, Marriages from 11 December. 1639 to 26 August 1801," by Samuel S. Purple, 1890, reprinted in 1997 by Heritage Books.
+ Sept. 24, 1652 – Cornelis Hendrickszen, Van Dort, en Magdaleen Dircks, van N. Amsterd." Page 17.
+ March 3, 1657 – "Hermen Hendrickszen, Van Bergen in Noordwegen, en Magdaleen Dircks, Wedr Van Cornelis Caper." Page 21.

"Minutes of the Orphanmasters of New Amsterdam, 1655 to 1663," by Berthold Fernow, Colonial Dames of the State of New York, 1902.
+ Nov. 9, 1655 – "Whereas Cornelis Hendricksen of Dort has perished in the late disaster and has left besides a widow a small child and whereas as yet no inventory has been taken of his estate, Therefore his widow Madaleen Dircx has been summoned to appear before their Worships, the Burgomasters, as Orphan Masters, and she was asked, whether she knew of any relatives of her husband here in the country; she answered, she knew of none and as their Worships consider it necessary, to appoint, according to the customs of the Fatherland, guardians for the small child, they have chosen and appointed, as they herewith do, Jan Vinje, as being related to the widow and Hendrick Kip, an old Burgher and inhabitant here, who are hereby authorized to take within three days from date in the presence of the Secretary and inventory of the estate of said Cornelis Hendricksen dec’d and to submit the same next Tuesday to the Orphanmasters who will then decide upon the disposition of it. Done as above." Pages 4-5.
+ Nov. 10, 1655 – "Jan Vinje appeared at the Secretary’s office and declared, that he could not attend to the guardianship of the small child of Cornelis Hendricksen of Dort dec’d, as he had too much to do with his own business and had also been refused by the widow Madaleene." Pages 5-6.
+ Nov. 16, 1655 – "Whereas Madaleen Dircksen, widow of Cornelis Hendricksen of Dort, has refused to accept the guardians, appointed by the Orphanmasters and whereas up to date no inventory of the estate has been taken, therefore their Worships have decided, to call said widow before them, that she may give her reasons and state, whom she wishes. Appearing the widow says, she refuses the formerly appointed guardians, because Jan Vinje is her adversary and has never had any conversation with her or her late husband, while Hendrick Kip is in no wise a relative or friend. She requests that the Orphanmasters, if they decide, that guardians are necessary, will please to commission Abraham Verplanck and Andries de Haes. Not knowing any reason, why the named persons should not be made guardians, the Orphanmasters grant the widow’s request and the men are sent for. Having accepted the charge they are commissioned in the manner as the preceding guardians and ordered to bring the inventory of the estate to the next meeting." Pages 7-8.
+ March 22, 1657: "It is learned, that Madaleen Derkx, widow of Cornelis of Dort, whose bans for a new marriage have been published, has not yet made a settlement of the paternal estate upon her infant child; therefore the guardians appointed were called to report, how far they have progressed in the matter, but as neither the guardians nor said Madaleen were at hand or came, nothing has been done; it was only decided, that she should not be allowed to marry, before she had made settlement on her child." Pages 29-30.
+ March 28, 1657: "Whereas Madaleen Dircks, widow of Cornelis Hendricksen from Dort deceased, is now about to marry Harmen Hendricksen from Bergen in Norway, and whereas the Orphanmasters have decided, that first a settlement of the paternal estate on the child must be made, Therefore the guardians, appointed by the Orphanmasters, to-wit Abraham Verplanck and Andries de Haes, were called with said Madaleen and appearing they delivered a statement of the whole estate, debts and credits, means and effects, and declared to have settled with the widow, that she shall assume half of all the present or still to be discovered debts and that she is to give to the child besides an honest bringing up the sum of 500 fl cash for the inheritance from the father, to be paid at the time of coming of age or of marriage, for which she is to mortgage the house, in which she now lives; provided however, that if anything is paid in from unsettled accounts, as of Pieter Jacobsen Luytenant and – Adamsen, then the child is to have a just half.
"Having examined the accounts and the foregoing agreement the Orphanmasters approve the same, thanking the guardians for having so far done their duty and requesting them faithfully to continue in their guardianship and take good care of the interests of said child, as good guardians behooves. Done etc." Pages 30-31.
+ May 23, 1661: "Before us, the Orphanmasters of the City of Amsterdam in N.N., appeared Joost Goderis, Burgher and inhabitant here, who acknowledged, that on behalf of the estate, left by Cornelis Hendricksen van Dort, dec’d. he is justly indebted to the Orphans Chamber here for the six children (of said Cornelis) by Madaleen Dircks in the sun of 500 fl. for the purchase of a house and lot, which sum he promises to pay to this Board on demand with 10 p.c. annual interest, paying the interest in good strung and current wampum yearly from September 1, 1660, when it shall begin until the aforesaid capital has been refunded. He also binds by special mortgage his house and lot North of the Slyc, Stegh (South William St.), bounded West by the lot of Abraham the Carpenter, North by the lot of Jan Rutgersen Moreaen, East by the houses and lots of Evert Duyckingh and South by said alley, and in general, all movable and immovable property, present and future, nothing excepted, subject to all laws and courts, specially this Orphan Court. In witness he has signed this record with the Orphanmasters Oloff Stevensen von Cortlandt and Cornelis Steenwyc, this 23^d of May, 1661, at Amsterdam in N.N." Pages 179-180.
+ Sept. 15, 1661: "Abraham Verplanck asks for the interest on the money of Madaleen Dircks, widow of Cornelis Hendricksen van Dort, for her child or relief from the bailbond. He is told, it cannot be done, and it is promised, to send him a writing." Page 192.

"Council Minutes, 1655-1656," New Netherland Documents Series, Vol. VI, translated and edited by Charles T. Gehring, Syracuse University Press, 1995. Possible references to Magdalena’s first husband.
+ January 1655: "Waernaer Wessels and Cornelis Hendricksen van Dorderecht, farmers of the tapper’s excise of this city, against Willem Pietersen, defendant, tavernkeeper and resident of this city. The plaintiffs complain that the defendant refused them twice to make the proper measurements, therefore punishment is requested. ..." Page 4.
+ Feb. 23, 1655: "Warnaer Wessels and Cornelis van Dordrecht, farmers of the tappers’ excise of this city of Amsterdam, plaintiffs, against Cornelis Schut, defendant, submit their written complaint that the defendant dealt out brandy without demanding an excise permit of the buyer. …" Page 17.

"New York Historical Manuscripts: Dutch; Volume III, Register of the Provincial Secretary, 1648-1660," translated and annotated by Arnold J.F. Van Laer, edited by Kenneth Scott and Kenn Stryker-Rodda, 1974. Possible references to Magdalena’s first husband.
+ Dec. 1, 1654, conditions on which Warnaer Wessels farmed the excise on wine and beer retailed in New Netherland: "farmed to Warnaer Wessels from Dordrecht the excise on wine and beer which will be consumed by the tapsters and tavernkeepers within the jurisdiction of this city of New Amsterdam … He, Warneer Wessels, shall pay for the aforesaid farming for one year form date the sum of twenty-five hundred and fifty guilders in good current pay, one fourt part of the said rent quarterly, commencing this date, the 1^st of December Ao. 1654, and ending the 1^st of December Ao. 1655. For which Cornelis from Dordrecht offers himself as surety in solidum and principal for the whole, and Jacob van Couwenhoven, inhabitant of this city, offers himself as surety for said Cornelis from Dordrecht, so that in case the surety of Warnaer Wessels happen to fail, he, [Couwenhoven,] as counter surety binds himself, his person and property, real and personal, submitting the same to the control of all courts, tribunals and judges, all under [379] binding obligation as by law provided … This is the X mark of Cornelis Hendricksen from Dordrecht, made by himself." Pages 379-380.
+ Dec. 9, 1654, conditions of which Warnaer Wessels farmed the excise on wine and beer retailed in the villages of Breuckelen, Midwout and Amersfoort on Long Island: "… Witnesses: This is the mark of Cornelis Hendricksen from Dort, made by himself. …"

"Year Book of the Holland Society of New York, 1900," Schepens’ Register, Knickerbocker Press, page 162.
+ "1657, March 28. Madalena Dircks, widow of Hendr. Van Dordt, decd, about to marry Harring Hendricksen, of Bergan in Norway. She has one minor child by her deceased husband, named Maria Cornelis, now about three years old. Sets apart for her child 50 Carolus guilders. Mortgages her house and lot at New Amsterdam, where she lives, next to Evert Duyckingh’s."

"Collections of the New York Genealogical and Biographical Society, Vol. 2, Baptisms from 1639 to 1730 in the Reformed Dutch Church, New York," edited by Thomas G. Evans, 1901, reprinted 1968 by The Gregg Press.
+ Herman Hendr. Rosencrans and Magdalena Dircx, son Alexander baptized April 12, 1659. Witnesses were Barent Gerritszen and Sara Dircx. Page 52.
+ Herman Hendrickszen and Magdalena Dircx, child’s name not listed, baptized on April 28, 1674. Witnesses were Volckert Dircxen and Jannetie Dircx. Page 114.

"Baptismal and Marriage Registers of the Old Dutch Church of Kingston, Ulster County, New York, 1660-1809," transcribed and edited by Roswell R. Hoes, 1891.
+ Harmen Hendricksen and Maddeleen Dircks, daughter Annetje baptized Aug. 27, 1662. Witness was Lysbet Jansen. Page 2.
+ Harmen Hendricksen and Maddeleen Dircks, daughter Rachel baptized Oct. 21, 1663. Witness was Aechjen Aariaens. Page 3.
+ Harmen Hendricksen and Maddeleen Dircks, son Harmanus baptized May 2, 1666. Sponsor was Grietjen Hendricks. Page 5.
+Harmen Hendricksen and Maddeleen Dircks, daughter Anna baptized Oct. 9, 1667. No witness listed. Page 6.
+ Magdaleen Rosecrans was witness at the baptism of Harmen, son of Gysbert Aelbertz and Rachel Roosecrans, on Nov. 26, 1682. The other witness was Leendert Cool. Page 18.

"Calendar of Wills," Berthold Fernow, 1896, available on www.ancestry.com as "New York Wills, 1626-1836," page 317.
+ "Rosenkrans, Sarah, of Ulster County, N.Y. Mother Magdalena Rosenkrans, brothers Alexander and his son Hermanus, Derrick and son Harama Rosenkrans, sisters Rachel van Garden and her son Harma, Johanna Devenport and her son John, Christenah Cortright and her son Hendrick, other children of bro. Alexander Rosenkrans viz: Helenah and Johannes; Sara Cole, Christenah van Garden. Real and personal estate. Witnesses Derick Krom, Derck de Witt and Willem Cortrecht. " The will is No. 1393 (R 9), written June 17, 1726 and proved Oct. 27, 1726.

"The Records of New Amsterdam from 1653 to 1674 anno Domini," edited by Berthold Fernow, published under authority of the City of New York.
+ April 12, 1655: "Lysbeth Teysen, pltf. v/s Harmen Hendricksen, Cooper, deft. Both in Default." Vol. 1, page 303. [possibly a different Harmen.]
+ Dec. 13, 1664: "Jan Coo, plft. v/s Abraham Verplanck, deft. Pltf. says, there is due him by obligation from Hermen Hendrickx sixty six guilders in beavers and thirty three guilders in seawant, producing the writing and that the deft. had accepted to pay. Deft. says, he stated if Hermen Hendrickx did not pay in five months, that he then should arrange for the payment, and that Hermen Hendrickx was here in the meantime, to whom the pltf. did not speak; therefore requesting time until next April and if the aforenamed Hermen did not pay then he should pay. Burgomasters and Schepens condemn the deft. to satisfy and pay the pltf. the above written demanded sum in the month of April next, if Hermen Hendrickx meanwhile does not come down and pay the pltf. or make known, that he may have something against the passed obligation." Vol. 5, pages 170-171.
+ July 18, 1665: "Abram Verplanck, pltf. v/s Harmen Hendricx, alias the Portuguese, deft. Pltf. says, that he is bail for deft. to John Coo for the sum of – fl. and whereas the pltf. has been various time spoken to, even unto execution in the stead of the deft. as principal, he demands that deft. shall pay his debt and free the pltf. his bail with costs. Adreaen Van Laer appearing for the deft. and being retained bail for the judgments, promises to make payment within the time of two months. The W: Mayor and Alderman having heard the arguments of parties, order and condemn the deft. to pay the debt within the time of six weeks, besides all the costs incurred herein, on pain of execution. Ady as above." Vol. 5, page 277.
+ March 15, 1657: "The Schout N: deSilla, pltf. v/s Madaleen Dirckx and her bridegroom, defts. The pltf. says that the defts. have presumed to insult the Firewardens of this City on the public highway, and to make a street riot, according to the complaint made to his Worship. Requesting for the maintenance of the aforesaid gentlemen’s quality that the petitioners be publicly punished or fined as their W. shall think proper. Deft. Madaleen Dircx appears alone in Court; admits, that she and her sister passed by the door of the Firewarden Litschoe, and as they always joked, when the firewardens came to their house, she said – ‘there is the chimney sweep in the door; his chimney is well swept; and not another word was said about it.’ And as such cannot, and ought not to be tolerated on account of its bad consequences, the Burgomasters condemn, as they do hereby, the abovementioned Madaleen Dircx in a fine of two pounds Flemish, to be applied, one half for the Church and one half for the Poor, and notify her at the same time to avoid all such and similar faults, or in default thereof other disposition shall be made. Done in the Court at the City Hall, at Amsterdam in N: Netherland." Vol. 7, page 146.
+ Nov. 22, 1658: "… Hermen Hendrickzen van Bergen in Norway … all of whom have taken the Burgher oath, and signed an obligation to pay the Treasurer 20 gl. in beavers, within Eight days for their small Burgher Right." Vol. 7, page 200.

"Correspondence 1654-1658," translated by Charles T. Gehring, Holland Society of New York, Syracuse University Press, 2003.
+ Letter from the directors in Amsterdam to the director general and council in New Netherland, dated May 30, 1658: "We wrote your honors last by the ships St. Jan Baptista and Gulden Otter on the 22^nd of December 1657, since which date the ships the Waegh and the Hoop (which liad in at England the entire winter) arrived here safely on the 15^th of March. We received by them you letter of he 22^nd of October of last year with diverse accompanying enclosures, which we shall now answer agreeably to circumstance and as far as necessary. …
[175] "The two women of bad reputation, Magdalena Dircx and Geertie Jacobs, whom you sent back here on account of their dissolute life, shall not again receive our permission to return to New Netherland, and if they should come there again by deceitful practices or under a false name, you may punish them, as they deserve it." Page 173-175.
+ Recommendation on a petition: "Having read the petition of Harmen Hendricksen and Magdalena Dirxsz who make know that they are inclined to go to New Netherland as free people, but understand that the skipper of the Bruynvis has been given an interdiction from taking them on board; after having explained to those present at the session the reasons why an interdiction was made on the behalf of the Company, and after deliberating thereon, it was resolved that the petitioners should come before this session in order to tell them that as a favor their well-known offense would be overlooked and their return trip allowed, provided that they do not tap, whether it be beer, wine or brandy, and that they are to behave there honestly and otherwise as pious subjects are wont to do, on the penalty that they be punished there as an example according to the gravity and circumstances of the case. All of which the aforesaid petitioners (appearing before this session for themselves and being so instructed and warned) gratefully accepted. Agrees with the aforesaid register, C. van Seventer, 1658." Page 185.
+ Letter from the directors in Amsterdam to the director general and council in New Amsterdam, dated June 19, 1658: "Although we have informed your honors in our letter of the 20^th last past that the person of Magdalena Dircx alias the Flying Angel would not be transported there without our foreknowledge and consent; nevertheless, we have finally allowed the same after her and her husband’s perseverance and promises to lead there a quiet and honest life henceforth, as your honors shall be able to see form the accompanying extract of our resolution. In case they should come to misbehave once again ad go against their promises, your honors have then all the more reason to punish them according to the circumstances of the case, as is appropriate." Page 186.

"New York Historical Manuscripts: Dutch; Kingston Papers," translated by Dingman Versteeg, edited by Peter R. Christoph, Kenneith Scott and Kenn Stryker-Rodda Genealogical Publishing Co., Inc., Baltimore, 1976.
+ Feb. 7, 1662: "Haremen Hendricksen, plaintiff, demands from Pieter Hillebrantsen payment of the amount of eight schepels of wheat, as per obligation assigned to him. The defendant admits owing the quantity demanded. The Commissaries order defendant to pay within three days and one-half schepels of wheat, and the balance within six weeks." Vol. 1, page 17.
+ June 5, 1663: Hermen Hendricksen provided a statement on behalf of Cornelis Barense Slecht, who was sued by Gerrit Voken for the cost of a mare, which was "driven or chased away" and died. "In defense, Cornelis Barense Slecht, the defendant, presents a certificate by Adriaen Gerritsen van Vliet and Hermen Hendricksen who attest, at his request, that they saw him about three hours before nightfall drive six horses away from his land, on an easy trot." The court ordered the plaintiffs to provide further testimony. Vol. 1, page 71.
+ Sept. 18, 1663: Roeloff Swartwout, the Schout, prosecuted a number of cases involving violations of the Aug. 4, 1663, ordinance that prohibited inhabitants from working in the fields without protection from attack by Native Americans. Harmen Hendericks was among the defendants who defaulted. Vol. 1, page 73.
+ Oct. 9, 1663: "Roelof Swartwout, Schout, plaintiff, vs. Harmen Hendricksen, defendants. Second default." Vol. 1, page 80.
+ Oct. 9, 1663: "Roelof Swartwout, Schout, plaintiff, vs. Magdalena, the wife of Harmen Hendericks. Plaintiff complains that he was hindered in his official duty, while apprehending Aeltje Claes. Defendant denies this, saying she is able to furnish better proof of the matter than has been given; that she only said, ‘Swartwout, why do you want to put this woman in prison? Why do you want to disgrace her? She is neither a whore nor a thief, and there is a private place here from which she cannot run away.’ The Court orders defendant at the next session to submit evidence which will clear her." Vol. 1, page 80.
+ Oct. 30, 1663: "Roelof Swartwout, Schout, plaintiff, vs. Harmen Hendericksen, defendant. Plaintiff demands from defendant a fine of seventy-five gldrs., pursuant to the judgment rendered by the Honorable Court 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 adds that he had sufficient means of defense there, and requests the Captain Lieutenant to settle this case for him with plaintiff." Vol. 1, page 96.
+ Dec. 18, 1663: "Echje Gerrets, plaintiff, vs. Christian Niessen romp, defendant. Plaintiff submits proofs against defendant that her pillow is in his hands, the proofs, dated November 20, 1663, being signed by Magdalena Dirricks and Willem van Vredenborg. Defendant says that the certificate signed by Magdalena Dirricks is false, and wants both certificates confirmed under oath. He further says that his wife’s words, uttered while side and delirious, cannot be received. The Honorable Court orders plaintiff to produce the attestants in Court at its next session." Vol. 1, page 110.
+ Oct. 21, 1664: "Magdalena Dirricks, plaintiff, vs. Dirrick Storm, defendant. Plaintiff says that defendant has appropriated the effects of the barber, Marten van der Hage, and that plaintiff claims thereof three schepels of wheat as pay for washing, as her husband was referred by the said barber at the Manhattans to these very goods. Defendant in reply exhibits a letter of attorney from Marten van der Hage regarding the seizure of the chest, and says that he paid said van der Hage, at the Manhattans, about thirty guilders above his claim of the twenty-eight guilders. Defendant, having been asked whether he is willing to accept the truck and to pay plaintiff’s claim, answers, No, and says that he wishes to speak with plaintiff about it, and thereupon stepped out." Vol. 1, page 166.
+ Nov. 18, 1664: "Nicolaes Meyer, Plaintiff, vs. Jan Jansen Van Amersfoort, Defendant. Plaintiff demands from defendant an amount of 142 gldrs. 8 stvrs. in beavers … Nicolaes Meyer shows a judgment against Harmen Hendericks, and requests execution which is granted him, and consequently the officer is directed to attend to the execution." Vol. 1, pages 173-174.
+ Feb. 4, 1665: "Juriaen Westphael and his wife, having been asked when they had given their soldier Eduard French provisions for the redoubt, answer that on last Thursday, Jan. 29, they gave their aforenamed soldier for the redoubt for one week nine lbs. of meat and pork, a loaf of bread weighing eight lbds. and two heads of cabbage in the presence of Femmetje the baker and Magdalena Dirricks, and asked him if he wanted more for one week; he said that he had enough. He further says that his soldier aforenamed, on yesterday, Feb. 3, sent a soldier Tomas Elger to his house for more meat and pork, but he refused him the same. He makes a complaint that the soldier Daniel Botterwout on this day entered his house fully armed and wanted to forcibly take meat and pork if he would not send the same to his soldier Eduard French." Vol. 1, page 207.
+ March 2, 1666: "Harmen Hendericks requests in a petition, whereas in the village account he is charged 20 gldrs. in beavers for the first annual salary of the preacher, and says having promised 20 gldrs. in sewan that said 20 gldrs. in beavers may be reduced to 20 gldrs. in sewan. Also that Francois Le Cheer may also for the last two years assist in contributing towards the preacher’s salary, and also calls the attention of the hon. court to this; further that four days’ wages for labor on the parsonage may be put to his credit on his account. To which is replied: that the 20 gldrs. in beavers shall be reduced to 20 gldrs. in sewan; also that Francois Le Cheer shall assist in contributing one-third of the last two years; the four days’ wages shall be put to petitioner’s credit on the village account." Vol. 1, page 278.
+ March 2, 1666: "Harmen Hendericks complains, saying that he contracted for the cutting of the wood for the watch, and that, in the mean time, Joris Hael, tapster, used said fire wood, and therefore requests to receive on sch. of wheat more per month, because Captain Broodhead promised him the same. The hon. court decides that petitioner is not obliged to chop wood for the tapster Joris Hael, unless he be paid for the same by said Horis Hael, notwithstanding, before this, no attention was paid to Joris Hael’s carting away fire wood." Vol. 1, pages 278-279.
+ May 18, 1666: "Ridsert Cage, Plaintiff, vs. Gerret Fooken, Defendant. Plaintiff, holding a procuration of Michiel Sea, late servant of defendant, demands of defendant 30 gldrs in beavers, or 90 gldrs. in sewan for wages at harvest time in the year 1663. Defendant answers that he and his deceased partner, Jan Gerretsen, have hired said Michiel Sea for one month, in the month of May of the year 1663 for 28 gldrs. in sewan for the purpose of plowing which is known to several people here, and thereupon paid to Harmen Hendricks for said Michiel Sea six gldrs. in sewan for the trouble of getting him out of the woods, when he had lost his way. And whereas his partner, Jan Gerretsen, deceased, was killed in the same year during the troubles with the savages and they were absolutely ruined, therefore defendant maintains that he does not owe more to aforesaid Michiel Sea than one-half, after deduction of the six gldrs. paid to Harmen Hendericks. The hon. court decides whereas defendant, during the troubles with the savages in the year 1663 lost all his effects, and, besides, his partner, Jan Gerretsen, was killed during the same troubles, and Michiel Sea was hired by both of them for 28 gldrs. in sewan which can be proved, and, also, said Michiel Sea has not been able to serve his full month, the hon. court having considered all this, therefore orders defendant to pay plaintiff one-half of the monthly wage, provided he may deduct the six gldrs. in sewan, paid to Harmen Hendericks." Vol. 1, page 296-297.
+ Oct. 19, 1666: "Magdalena Dirricks, Plaintiff, vs. Ridsert Cage, Defendant. Absent. Default." Vol. 1, page 303.
+ Oct. 16, 1666 [actually Oct. 26]: "Magdalena Dirricks, Plaintiff, vs. Ridgert Cage, Defendant. Absent. 2nd Default. Plaintiff demands of defendant wages of ½ year’s washing, being five sch. of wheat." Vol. 1, page 305.
+ Nov. 2, 1666: "Magdalena Dirricks, Plaintiff, vs. Ridsert Cage, Defendant. Absent. 3rd Default. Plaintiff demands of the defendant five sch. of wheat for a half year’s wages for washing with the costs of the same. Defendant is absent. The hon. court orders defendant, because he contemptuously defaulted three times, to satisfy plaintiff’s full demand, with the costs for same." Vol. 1, page 307.
+ Nov. 23, 1666: "Magdalena Dirricks, Plaintiff, vs. Pieter Hillebrants, Defendant. Plaintiff demands of defendant seven sch. of wheat for two pairs of shoes and other [merchandise]. Defendant admits the debt, and says not to be able to pay right away and offers to pay as soon as possible. The hon. court orders the defendant to satisfy plaintiff’s demand." Vol. 1, page 314.
+ Nov. 23, 1666: "Magdalena Dirricks, Plaintiff, vs. Harmen Hey, Defendant. Absent. Default." Vol. 1, page 314.
+ Dec. 14, 1666: "Harmen Hendericks, Plaintiff, vs. Joris Hael, Defendant. Absent. Default." Vol. 1, page 317.
+ Jan. 8/18, 1667: "Harmen Hendericks, Plaintiff, vs. Horis Hael, Defendant. Absent. 2nd Default. Plaintiff demands of defendant eight sch. of wheat." Vol. 1, page 318.
+ Jan. 8/18, 1667: "Harmen Hendericks, Plaintiff, vs. Pieter Hillebrants, Defendant. Absent. Default." Vol. 1, page 318.
+ Jan. 15/25, 1667: "Harmen Hendericks, Plaintiff, vs. Joris Hael, Defendant. Plaintiff demands of defendant seven sch. of wheat for seven months’ wood chopping. Defendant answers not to owe the debt, because with plaintiff he contracted for two sch. of wheat, with Capt. Boodhead’s knowledge, which he has paid plaintiff. The hon. court decides whereas plaintiff contracted with defendant for two sch. of wheat, therefore plaintiff is refused his demand, but out of sympathy with plaintiff the hon. court will pay him 2½ sch. of wheat out of its treasury." Vol. 1, page 323.
+ Jan. 29/Feb. 8, 1667: "Albert Jansen Van Steenwyck and Harmen Hendericks request that they may be granted a written statement by the hon. court of the little island situated on the farm of the hon. Heer Petrus Stuyvesant, for the purpose of getting, in the spring, a deed for the same of the hon Heer Gov. Genl. Petitioners are ordered to prove that said parcel of land has been given and granted them as property by the hon. Heer Petrus Stuyvesant." Vol. 1, page 329.
+ Feb. 12/22, 1667: "Harmen Hendericks requests that the attachments levied against Ridgert Cage for the amount of eight gldrs. with Jan Cornelissen may be declared valid. The hon. court consents to bring the business concerning these attachments before capt. Broodhead." Vol. 1, page 334.
+ Feb. 12/22, 1667: "Harmen Hendericks produces, in regard to his request to take possession of, and to obtain a deed for, the little island situated on the farm of the hon. Heer Petrus Stuyvesant under the fort from the hon. Heer Gov. Genl. Two witnesses, viz., Juriaen Westphael and Henderick Cornelissen, who declare that the hon. Heer Petrus Stuyvesant has granted said little island to Harmen Hendricksen. Petitioner is ordered to prove that the hon. Heer Petrus Stuyvesant granted him the exclusive right or possession to said little island." Vol. 2, page 334.
+ March 26/April 5, 1667: "Ridsert Cage, Plaintiff, vs. Jan Cornelissen Smith, Defendant. Plaintiff demands of defendant 18 gldrs. Defendant answers having paid six gldrs. to Walran DuMont, and says in regard to the 12 gldrs. that Magdalena Dirricks executed an attachment against plaintiff by virtue of a ‘scheepen judgment’ and when the attachment has been released, defendant is ready to satisfy plaintiff. The hon. court orders plaintiff to summon Magdalena Dirricks, for the purpose of giving reasons for the attachment levied." Vol. 1, page 346.
+ March 26/April, 1667: "Ridsert Cage, Plaintiff, vs. Roelof Swartwout, Defendant. Plaintiff demands of defendant eight gldrs. Defendant answers that an attachment was levied against said eight gldrs. by Magdalena Dirricks, by virtue of a ‘scheepen judgment’ against the plaintiff, and is ready to satisfy plaintiff as soon as the attachment shall have been removed. The hon. court orders plaintiff to summon Magdalena Dirricks, for the purpose of giving reasons for the attachment levied." Vol. 1, pages 346/347.
+ May 14/24, 1667: "The hon. scout Willem Beeckman complains about Harmen Hendericks, saying that about five weeks ago said Harmen Hendericks appears at his house with his watch, for the purpose of demanding a fine, and taking the same from his son Hendericus, for neglecting the watch, as Harmen Hendericks said. And whereas his son had not been ordered by the superior officers to take the watch, and Harmen Hendericks has done the same upon his own authority, and has even further insulted and threatened plaintiff, therefore he requests that said Harmen Hendericks shall be disciplined for said insults and threats." Vol. 2, page 350.
+ June 26/July 5, 1667: "Thomas Chambers, Plaintiff, vs. Henderick Palingh, Defendant. Plaintiff accuses defendant of calling him a knave or boef, and asks him for reasons for saying so. Defendant admits and says that plaintiff is a knave because he has caused trouble in his house and that he called his fellow-soldiers ‘rogues.’ Plaintiff takes it upon himself to prove at the next session that he did not molest defendant in his house. Defendant requests that Henderick Jochemsen shall be made to declare under oath whether he did not hear Thomas Chambers say at the house of Harmen Hendericks that the English who are at present here were banished from England and sent to an island, and that the English took their course to the Manhatans without authority of the King of England, and that Stuyvesant has surrendered the country to them. Henderick Jochemsen, having been judicially questioned about the above under oath, says that he did not hear this out of Thomas Chambers’ mouth, out only [says] that a year ago last Shrove-tide he heard from the mouth of Thomas Chambers at the aforesaid house that some English behave in such a manner, cursing, swearing and blustering, as if they were bandits, which he has also confirmed under oath. Harmen Hendericks, having been interrogated under oath at the request of Henderick Palingh, declares under oath having heard at his house (he having forgotten the time) out of the mouth of Thomas Chambers, that these Englishmen who are now here, are a party of bandits, and had been sent to some island, and that they thus came here, and that Stuyvesant has given the land to them. Henderick Palingh further says that he heard from Eduart Wittiger that Thomas Chambers said, ‘I do not esteem my commission, because I did not take the oath of office, and therefore I may say what I please.’ Thomas Chambers denies all of the above declarations saying that Harmen Hendericks cannot be a witness in this case because Henderick Palingh heard out of the mouth of Harmen Hendericks that which Harmen Hendericks has declared above, and that Harmen Hendericks has declared his own case. Henderick Palingh further requests that Harmen Hendericks’ wife shall also be heard as witness in the aforenamed case, and whereas she cannot now be present on account of being confined in child bed, that she shall be examined concerning this affair in her own house. The hon. court besides the commander of the militia here, Christoffel Berrisfort, having heard Henderick Palingh’s complaint, and Hermen Hendericks’s declaration, find that Harmen Hendericks is passionately prejudiced against Thomas Chambers, which he showed before the court here. On this account Henderick Palingh is ordered to produce better proof in this, his case, against Thomas Chambers for the purpose of then the better presenting it to the hon. Ld. Gov. Genl." Vol. 2, pages 352-353.
+ June 26/July 5, 1667: "Willem Beeckman, Schout, Plaintiff, vs. Harmen Hendericks, Defendant. Plaintiff, having on May 14/24 ult. made complaints before the court against defendant Harmen Hendericks, how, about five weeks ago, defendant came to his house with his watch for the purpose of demanding and receiving a fine of his son Henricus on account of neglecting his watch, and whereas plaintiff’s son had not been ordered by the higher officers to mount guard, and defendant did the same by his own authority, and even further insulted and threatened plaintiff, and when plaintiff, later on, on the same day acquainted Capt. Thomas Chambers with this occurrence, defendant in the meanwhile arrived and said, in case plaintiff had come before the door he would have saluted him with the hammer, therefore requests that defendant on account of said insults and threats shall be punished. Defendant answers that he came to plaintiff’s house for the purpose of getting the fine from his son, for neglecting his watch, he having orders form the superior officers to make plaintiff’s son mount guard and that plaintiff said to him and his watch, ‘You buffalo’s, get out of my house,’ and thereupon he departed with his watch. Capt. Thomas Chambers, having been called and questioned whether he had given orders to Harmen Hendericks to have plaintiff’s son mount guard, answers, ‘No,’ and in regard to the above molestation by defendant to plaintiff, defendant asked him, if he would be permitted to keep plaintiff’s on in his watch, and [Chambers] answered no until he should have given orders to defendant. The hon. court, having heard plaintiff’s accusation and defendant’s answer, and also the captain’s answer to the same, decides that defendant, on account of speaking evil to plaintiff and of treating him badly, and further because he had no order from the superior burgher officers to press plaintiff’s son for the watch, but has done the same by his own authority, shall first appear at the next session and in the presence of the court beg plaintiff’s pardon, and, besides, pay a fine of 50 gldrs. for the poor to which he is sentenced, and defendant is also further ordered not to commit any such further act under penalty of a higher fine." Vol. 2, pages 354 and 355.
+ June 28/July 8, 1667, extraordinary session: "Harmen Hendericksen, having been summoned to appear at the session, and having been made acquainted with the previous sentence dated June 25/July 5 ult., answers not to intend to submit to said sentence, with which answer the hon. schout Willem Beeckman is not satisfied, and for the purpose of upholding the authority of hon. local court here intends to himself go before the hon. Heer Gov. Genl. And to inform him of the obstinacy of the aforesaid Harmen Hendricks. On account of said obstinacy of Harmen Hendericks the hon. court resolves to send said Harmen Hendericks to N. York to the hon. Lord Gov. Genl. Ridsert Nicolls, with the yacht of Reyndert Pietersen, at present laying here, for the purpose of there answering the demand which the hon. schourt shall there make against him. The commissary Henderick Jochemsen complains that Harmen Hendericksen has called him and Capt. Thomas Chambers rascals and liars, and in regard to the same shows a declaration signed on June 27/July 7, 1667, by Jacob Burhans and Reynier Van der Coele. Said declaration having been read to Harmen Hendericksen, he answers that plaintiff has also called him names. The hon. schoult Willem Beeckman is advised and requested by the hon. court to show plaintiff’s complaints, with the declaration, to the hon. Ld. Gov. Genl., and to request him to vindicate [plaintiff]." Vol. 2, page 356.
+ June 29/July 9, 1667, extraordinary session: "Harmen Hendericks produces a declaration signed by Tjerck Claesen De Wit, dated June 27/July 7 inst. [containing] that about three months ago (he having forgotten the exact time) he, attestor, being at the house of Mattheus Capito with Capt. Thomas Chambers, he, petitioner, complained to him and Thomas Chambers, that the schout Willem Beeckman had called him, petitioner, ‘a buffalo,’ because whereupon Thomas Chambers answered petitioner, ‘Just remember, for he is not better than any other farmer’s son.’ Capt. Chambers, having been called in on this account, and been acquainted with the foregoing, admits having said the above. The aforenamed Harmen Hendericks produces another declaration signed by Joost Ariaens, dated June 27/July 7, remembered the exact date, being at the house of Henderick Martensen, at his departure, petitioner spoke to Capt. Thomas Chambers about drawing the son of the schout Willem Beeckman in the watch, and heard the aforesaid Capt. order petitioner to draw the said son of Schourt Willem Beeckman in the watch, saying besides, ‘If Willem Beeckman is Schout, his son shall not be any more exempt than had been his, this that he had ordered the lieutenant to draw all the young men, being 16 years of age, in the watch.. Jan Hendericks is also presented by Harmen Hendericks. The declarer, having heard in front of Harmen Hendericks’s house, while Capt. Thomas Chambers was passing said house that Harmen Hendericks spoke to said captain [and told him] that he had warned the son of schout Willem Beeckman twice to mount guard, to which said captain answered him: ‘Just remember,’ and then the captain went on. Captain Thomas Chambers admits the above. Henderick Palingh, as witness for Harmen Hendericks, declares having heard, at the house of Henderick Jochemsen, that Capt. Thomas Chambers ordered his lieutenant Henderick Jochemsen to draw the son of the schout Willem Beeckman in the watch. Capt. Thomas Chambers answers that he ordered his lieutenant to draw all the young men, 16 years of age, in the watch. Henderick Palingh further declares having heard at the house of Harmen Hendericks that Capt. Thomas Chambers ordered his officers to draw the son of schout Willem Beeckman in the watch, and that he the captain was fully responsible for the fine, if he took security therefore from the house. Capt. Thomas Chambers denies the above. Jannetje Hillebrants, wife of Francois LeCheer, declares having heard at the house of Henderick Martensen, he being about to depart, that Henderick Jochemsen should have said, ‘Why should not Beeckman’s son watch as well as my son?’ not knowing to whom Henderick Jochemsen should have said the same. Henderick Jochemsen answers, that it is quite well possible that he should have said the same, but cannot tell to whom. These aforenamed declarations thus having been heard by the hon. court, Harmen Hendericks requests copy of what has been written above. The hon. court, at his request, allows Harmen Hendericks a copy, and the hon. court further rfers to the previous judgment dated June 28/July 8, 1667. This pronounced judgment having now been communicated to Haren Hendericks, Harmen Hendericks requests that Capt. Thomas Chambers and Lieutenant Henderick Jochemsen shall go down with him. This further request of Haremen Hendericks is not granted him by the hon. court, but it adheres to its former decision. The hon. court, having informed Harmen Hendericks about the difficulties which might result from the aforementioned question, the aforenamed Harmen Hendericks admits before it that he was wrong, requesting the schout that the question shall be mutually forgotten, and thus they both, after shaking hands, buried their differences. And in regard to the 50 gldrs. fine for the poor, the hon. court, out of consideration, because Harmen Hendericks himself needs them, for this time remits the same and absolves him [from paying the same}." Vol. 1, pages 356-358.
+ July 25/Aug. 4, 1667: "The commander of the militia here, Christoffel Berrisfort, has shown to the court a letter from the hon. Lord Gov. Genl. Ridsert Nicolls, dated July 5/15 last, wherein his hon., in regard to the difference between Capt. Thomas Chambers and Henderick Palingh, passed upon by the hon. court on June 25/July 5, recommended that the same be erased from the minutes, because he has found out that the declaration of Harmen Hendericks, in favor of Henderick Palingh, is nul and of no value, and that the aforenamed commander shall punish Henderick Palingh, so that he shall never more commit such and similar offences against the bench." Vol. 1, Page 358.
+ Oct. 15/25, 1667: "Madaleen Dircx, Plaintiff, vs. Annetie Adriaens, Defendant. Plaintiff complains that defendant yesterday came to her house with the intention of making trouble, whereupon she was told to leave the house. She not being willing to do so, plaintiff took hold of her sleeve, and said to her that she should go outside, whereupon defendant attacked her, and beat her so that her flesh became discolored in her house. Defendant says that she came to her house for the purpose of paying Jannetie Pels for a sch. of apples, and that then a few words were said which caused the trouble. Jannetie Pels and Henry Palingh declare, at the request of plaintiff, that they were at the house and that they saw and heard that plaintiff did not treat defendant badly, or give her cause for the assault. The hon. court recommends parties to keep the peace, of else it will be obliged to punish according to law." Vol. 2, pages 365-366.
+ Nov. 1, 1667: "Hermen Hend., Plaintiff, vs. Gerrit Aertsen, Defendant. Default." Vol. 1, page 369.
+ Nov. 1, 1667: "Hermen Hendricx, Plaintiff, vs. Hermen Hey, Defendant. Absent." Vol. 1, page 369.
+Dec. 3/13, 1667: "Schout Beeckman, Plaintiff, vs. Jan Joosten, Hermen Hendrics, Jan Cornelis, Roelof Swartwout, Meyndert Jansen, Van Coelen, Lammert Hyberts, Frerick Peters, Jacomine Slecht, and Anders Pers. The Schout complaints that defendants, in obedience to the order of the hon. court, do not attend to their duty in closing their palisades around the village, and on account thereof demands the fine. The hon. court resolves, after adjournment of the session, to go in a body on a tour of inspection, and those being negligent shall be fined." Vol. 1, page 378.
+ Dec. 10/20, 1667: "Hermen Hends., Plaintiff, vs. Francois Le Schier, Defendant. Plaintiff says that three sch. of wheat were coming to him as per assignment by Michiel Verbrugge, and that defendant took away two sch. of the same at Jacomine’s. Defendant says that he did not receive any more than what belonged to him. The hon. court postpones its judgment because Michiel Verbrugge must b e summoned." Vol. 2, page 383.
+ Dec. 10/20, 1667: "Herman 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. 2, pages 383-384.
+ Feb. 25, O.S. 1668: "George Hall, Plaintiff, vs. Hermen Hendrix, Defendant. Plaintiff demands of defendant 14 gldrs. 12 st. Defendant admits the debt, therefore defendant is ordered to pay plaintiff." Vol. 2, page 394.
+ March 3/13, 1667/8: "Magdaleen Dircx, Plaintiff, vs. Catryn Matys, Defendant. Plaintiff says that a few days ago she entered the house of Arent Teunissen, where she and defendant entered into a conversation concerning a certain comet, and about the ideas of astrologers concerning said comet, whereupon defendant said, ‘if he could say who stole your linen, then he must be able to say something else,’ and defendants further said, ‘who should have stolen chickens and boards,’ whereupon I, plaintiff, answered, ‘Your husband has stolen a board of our cool-house and your sister a pocket handkerchief of my husband.’ Defendant answers and says that at the house of Aert Teunissen they had a conversation about astrologers, and the words were uttered, ‘If he was able to say that Wychert had stolen linen, then he was able to say others things,’ whereupon plaintiff answered, ‘Take me for the person,’ with further insinuations about pocket handkerchief and boards, and I deny that I mentioned [or named] plaintiff, but said in a general way: ‘Those stealing chickens and boards, are they not thieves? and those carrying handkerchiefs stolen of Mrs. Blom?’
"Henry Palingh, having been summoned at the request of Magdaleen Dircs, plaintiff requests that he shall be asked whence he got the linen which was stolen last winter out of the garden. Hendk. Palingh answers having found the linen in his own garden, but does not know who took it there. Further says somebody wearing Jan Jansen’s shoes has taken it from plaintiff’s garden. Jan Jansen appearing in the session demands proof of Magdaleen Dircx that he stole a board of her cool-house and made a wheel-barrow of the same, as plaintiff says. The hon. court orders that parties shall mutually prove their assertions and accusations at the next session of the court, as also Hend. Palingh’s assertion concerning Jan Jansen Van Amersfoot." Vol. 2, page 397.
+ March 10/20, 1667/8: "Jan Janssen Amersfoort, Plaintiff, Madaleen Dircx, Defendant. Plaintiff demands sufficient proof in regard to the accusation brought against him at the last session. Defendant produces Hend. Palingh as proof and witness, and Hend. Palingh says that plaintiff may be legally placed in arrest until the affair shall come before the general court, and that then he shall prove what he has said, for hon. court stil orders parties, in conformity with the former decision on 3/13 inst. To prove, besides Henry Palingh, their assertion and accusation at the next session." Vol. 2, page 402.
+ April 21, 1668: "Herman Hend., Plaintiff, vs. Francoys Le Schier, Defendant. Default." Vol. 2, page 408.
+ April 21, 1668: "Herman Hend., Plaintiff, vs. Tomas Quick, Defendant. Default." Vol. 2, page 408.
+ April 21, 1668: "Jan Janssen Amersford, Plaintiff, vs. Magdeleen Dircx and Henry Palingh, Defendants. Plaintiff once more demands proof concerning the accusation made against him on Mar. 3/13 last, in consequence of the order by the magistrates on Mar. 10/20. Defendant Henry Palingh offers to make oath that he has seen in Madaleen Dircx’s garden when the linen had disappeared, traces of Jan Jansen’s foot going in the direction of his house, and on the next day again followed the traces to the house of Louwys Du Boys and found him, Jan Jansen, there. Plaintiff replies and yet demands proof of accusation, and is not obliged to accept his oath. The hon. court still orders Magdaleen Dircx and Hend. Palingh to produce proof at the next session concerning the accusation against Jan Janssen, or by default shall be considers as having unjustly accused Jan Janssen, and to be duly punished for the same." Vol. 2, pages 408-409.
+ Oct. 7/17, 1668: "Matthys Blanghan, Plaintiff, vs. Hendrick Jochemsen, Hermon Hendricks and Jacobus Van Elmendorp, Defendants. Plaintiff demands of defendants a sum of 108 gldrs. 6 st., bill of expenses, because on Sept. 30 they had his oxen impounded by the schout. He further demands 4 sch. of wheat for loss of the services of the oxen, while they were being impounded. And further salary for three men he employed for examining the fences. Defendants answer and say that several times they informed plaintiff Matt Blanghan that his oxen caused them loss, and had broken in, and on Sept. 30 they again broke into their garden at night, and on this account impounded them with the schout and make a claim for damage sustained on this account. The fence examiners having been summoned and examined by the bench, declare that on Sept. 29 at the request of the defendants they examined the fences, and then found them to be in a good and efficient condition for said cattle, and also the next day, Sept. 30 in the morning, when the cattle were being impounded, the fence was still found to be in good condition for common cattle, and said examiners confirmed their declaration under oath. The damage sustained by Hend. Jochemsen has been appraised twice by said examiners, viz., in the wheat stack at 10 gldrs. and in the cat stack at 6 gldrs. The damage done at Harmen Henderick’s crop has been appraised at 30 gldrs. The hon. court, having hard parties, as also the examiners of the fences in their declaration under oath, and also the complaints of divers persons made to the hon. schout concerning the breaking in of said oxen, therefore plaintiff Matthys Blanghan is sentenced to pay the sustained damage of the defendants, as also the pound money and expenses of execution, and said plaintiff Blanghan is refused his demand in this case against defendants.
"Oct. 12/22 Matthys Blanghan notifies [the court] that he intends to appear form the sentence pronounced on Oct. 7/17 by the hon. court here [in the case] between him and Hendrick Jochemsen, Hermen Hendricksen and Jacobus Elmendorp, to the hon. Lord Gov. Gen. Francois Lovelace. The hon. magistrates take cognizance of the appeal and are ready, if required, by the said Hon. Gov. Genl., to go and defend their pronounced sentence." Vol. 2, pages 410-411.
+ Oct. 26, 1668: "Tierck Claesen, Plaintiff, vs. Matthys Blanchan, Defendant. Plaintiff Tierck Claesen, happening to come in defendant, Mat’s, house, says that defendant has said that he, plaintiff, does not do justice. Defendant Matthys Blanchan says that in the year 1663 when Roelof Swartwout was schout, and plaintiff Tierck Claesen magistrate, that he stole ½ anker of brandy of Lowies DuBois, and lost on account of the same 120 gldrs. because he, defendant, had furnished wine to Lowies DuBooys, and that plaintiff ever since that time has hated him and that plaintiff Tierck Claesen has complained to Gov. Nickels that defendant would be obliged to grind for him, and that plaintiff has said that if the mill was on fire, he, plaintiff, would not assist in putting it out, and plaintiff has decided that the palisades of Harmen Portugies were in good condition. Plaintiff answers and says that he, besides the schout Swartwout and the commissaries of the hon. court, had been ordered to inspect the new village and that the schout, in his quality of conservator of justice, attacked the same, and refers to the minutes. And absolutely denies that he should always have hated defendant Matthys Blanghan and says that he never made any complaint about defendant to the Lord General, notwithstanding he, defendant Matthys Blanghan, had said to others: ‘If he were starving, he would not grind for him’ which is no Christian love, and defendant’s daughter has even said to plaintiff, ‘If plaintiff should be in want, she would not grind for him.’ Plaintiff Tierck Claesen further says that defendant Matthys Blangan’s son-in-law, viz., Jan Thysen, said sneeringly, ‘I thought you were going to make my father grind,’ whereupon plaintiff answered, ‘I have once assisted in putting out the fire in the guardhouse, which threatened to damage the mill. If it should happen again, I would not even move a hand in assisting to put it out,’ and that he plaintiff and more others have been obliged to take ship to Fort Albany for the purpose of having [their grain] ground there, thorough the obstinacy of defendant Matthys Blanga. And plaintiff answers to regard to the fence of Harman Portugies that he plaintiff examined the same with the other inspectors, and found the same at the time in a good and sufficient state. Jacob Carel, having been summoned before the hon. court, testifies that Matthys Blangan said: ‘If he were master, he would hang Tierck Claesen.’ Defendant replies and says that he appealed to the Manhattans from the sentence in regard to the confiscation of the half-anker of brandy, and that Van Ruyven said that the sentence was to be annulled, and the commissaries have been written to about the same, and further says that three times he was willing to go, and once with the messenger, for the purpose of agreeing about grinding, but nobody was willing, and says that there is sufficient proof to show that he hated him, because he said, ‘if the mill were on fire, he would not assist in putting it out.’ The hon. court, having heard parties, decides that it cannot correct what has been officially done by former schout and commissaries, but should at the time have been rectified by the hon. Lord Genl. Petrus Stuyvesant. Having examined the minutes, it is found that there is written that the schout at the session of commissaries has given the information that Matthys Blangan had not declared his wine which he had transported to the new village which was in violation of the decrees of the Lord General Stuyvesant and brought said Blangan under suspicion of smuggling, on account of which gauging was done at his house, and he then excused himself by saying that he had two or three times distilled in the ashes, and it was resolved by schout and commissaries that an inquiry should be made concerning smuggling at the new village, for which purpose the schout and the commissaries Evert Pels and Tierck Claesen from the bench were deputed. Going with the schout and coming at the new village at the house of Lowies DuBooys, son-in-law of Matthys Blanghan, they found in the said house a half-anker of brandy and took it with them, and the commissaries did this ex officio or by virtue of their office in accordance with the Lord’s decrees, he judging it was his duty, and therefore cannot be deemed or called a thief, as defendant Matt. Blangan has caused it to be written down here expressly and in many words. And said Blanghan is ordered to prove at the next session that plaintiff Tierck Claesen is a thief, or by default he will have to expect such punishment as ought to be justly meted out to a thief." Pages 411-413.
+ Feb. 9/19, 1668/9: "Harmen Hendricksen, Plaintiff, vs. Thomas Teunesen Quick, Defendant. Default." Vol. 2, page 423.
+ March 2, 1668/9: "Cornelis Wynkoop, Plaintiff, vs. Harmen Hendricks and Jacob Jansen, Defendants. Plaintiff says that they contracted to chop all the trees around his land which should be in the way. Defendants admit having taken the contract to chop the trees surrounding his land, but not the ‘strievelle,’ and they agreed about the trees which are thicker than a leg, but not thinner. The hon. court orders parties to prove their assertion, and orders them to continue with the work they contracted for." Vol. 2, page 425.
+ Jan. 11, 1669/70: "Harmen Hend., Plaintiff, vs. Gerrit Cornelis, Defendant. Default." Vol. 2, page 437.
+ May 31, 1670: "Harmon Hendricks, Plaintiff, vs.Jan. Hends., Defendant. Both default." Vol. 2, page 443.
+ May 31, 1670: "Madalena Dircks, Plaintiff, vs. Anna Mattysen, Defendant. Default." Vol. 2, page 443.
+ Jan. 27, 1670/1: "Harmen Hendricks, Plaintiff, vs. Jan Hendrix, Defendant. Plaintiff says that while going along the Lord’s street, even on the Sabbath, defendant has beaten him. Defendant says that plaintiff has beaten the aforesaid defendant’s wife with a stick. Harmen Hendricx says that he did not touch his wife. The hon. court orders parties to prove their assertions." Vol. 2, page 453.
+ Feb. 1, 1670/1: "Madaleen Dirx, Plaintiff, vs. Anna Mattysen, Defendant. Plaintiff says that Anna Mattysen entered her house and said that Sara Kierstede had called her, plaintiff, a whore. And defendant said that Madalena Dirx was a whore and that she had received the fine clothing she wears of Paelden her lover. Anna Mattysen says that Madalena Dirx has called her a thief. The hon. court orders both parties to prove their allegations." Vol. 2, page 454.
+ Feb. 1, 1670/1: "Harmen Hendrix, Plaintiff, vs. Dirck Keyser, Defendant. Plaintiff demands of defendant a sum of 18 sch. of wheat. Defendant admits the debt, but says having contracted with plaintiff to pay only one-half this year and the other half next (year). Plaintiff says it is not so. The hon. court ordered defendant to pay the full amount of 18 sch. of wheat." Vol. 2, page 455.
+ Feb. 1, 1670/1: "Harmen Hendrix, Plaintiff, vs. Claes Tuenessen, Defendant. Plaintiff demands of defendant a sum of 51 sch. of wheat. Defendant admits the debt. The hon. court ordered defendant to pay plaintiff the demanded amounts, as per admission." Vol. 2, page 455.
+ May 15, 1671: "Cornelis Wynkoop, Plaintiff, vs. Harmen Hendrix, Defendant. Cornelis Wynkoop complains that Harmen Hendrix has called him a thick beast and rascal in the presence of many witnesses and requests reparation of honor. Harmen Hendrix says that he has called Cornelis Wyncoop a rascal until the latter shall have proved what he, Wyncoop, has said. Dirck Hendrix says that Harmen Hendrix called Cornelis Wyncoop a thick beast and a rascal, and thereupon Cornelis Wyncoop answered, ‘I have not yet been banished,’ which is also testified to by Hendrick Albertsen and Mr. Roelof … Dirck Hendricksen, Hendrick Alberdtsen and Mr. Roelof took their oath upon the above declaration, and says that it happened thus. Jan Jansen said that Harmen Hendricksen called Cornelis Wyncoop a thick bear, whereupon Wyncoop said, ‘I have not yet been banished,’ thereupon Harmen Hendrix said, ‘I hold you for a rascal until you prove it.’ The hon. schout, ex officio, requests that Herman Hendrix, owing to injury and insult caused to the commissary Cornelis Wyncoop, as is shown by the testimony, without being able to prove his assertion and scandalous words [shall be condemned] to pay a fine of 100 rix dollars to be applied where it belongs. Also to beg him, Wyncoop with bared head, in the presence of the court, forgiveness and [to declare] that he knows nothing about his person but what is honorable and virtuous. The hon. court, having heard the complaint of the commissary Corn. Wyncoop that Harmen Hendricksen has called him a thick beast and a rascal which Wyncoop proves by three witnesses under oath and which Harmen Hendricksen himself does not deny, and after Harmen Hendrix had been asked if he could say anything in his defense which it appeared he could not do, therefore the hon. court sentences Harmen Hendrix in the name of his Royal Majesty, the Duke of York and the very noble Governor Lovelace that Harmen Hendrix shall, in conformity with the demand of the hon. Schout, with uncovered head in the presence of the hon. court beg Cornelis Wyncoop’s forgiveness and admit not to know anything about him but what is honorable and virtuous. Harmen Hendrix has admitted that he knows nothing concerning the person of commissary Cornelis Wyncoop but what is honorable and laudable." Vol. 2, pages 460-461.
+ May 15, 1671: "List of the Inhabitants of This Village, Where Their Portion in the Curtains Is to Be Found: … Harmen Hendrix. [No.] 3 [Rods] 5" Vol. 2, page 461.
+ July 24, 1671: "Lowies DuBooys, Plaintiff, vs. Cornelis Wyncoop, Defendant. Lowies DuBooys says that a Mower form N. York has arrived to mow for him who was hired by the order of DuBooys at N. York, and that defendant is keeping him away from his work. Defendant says that Harmen Hendrix came with the mower outside the gate and recommended the same to Wyncoop, saying that he could not find a better man. Lowies Du Booys produces a declaration [containing] that Barendt Pietersen has been hired at N. York by one Harman Hendricks for Lowies DuBooys. Barendt Pietersen says that Harmen Hendricksen had hired him at N. York, and said he would have to work for a Frenchman. Capt. Chambers says that he heard Barendt Pietersen say that he had come here for Lowies DuBooys. The hon. court, having asked Cornelis Wyncoop whether he was willing to affirm under oath that he did not know that Barendt Pietersen had come hither from New York for Lowies DuBoojs, answers, ‘No.’ The hon. court, having examined both parties, as also the declaration produced by DuBooys, and whereas Cornelis Wyncoop is well acquainted with the fact that Barents Pietersen had been engaged for Lowies DuBooys – as per the admission of Barendt Pietersen himself, where he admits that he had been engaged for Lowies DuBooys – therefore, their honors of the court order Barendt Pietersen to immediately go to work for Lowies DuBooys, and whereas defendant Cornelis Wyncoop is to blame, [therefore] he shall pay the coasts of the present." Vol. 2, pages 465-466.
+ Sept. 8, 1671: A number of witnesses testified about a fight between Tierck Claesen and Henry Palingh. "On this September 8, testimony was taken at the request of the schout and the justice of the peace, because there had been a quarrel between Tierck Claesen and Hendry Pawlin, and they had fought each other with knives, and Tierck Claesen had been badly wounded by said Palin with a knife, so that Tierck Claesen is confined to his bed, and makes the following declaration.
"Says that Palingh had shot dead a pig of his on Wassemaker’s land which was denied by Palingh, and says that Palingh first drew his knife, and cut at Tierck Claesen, whereupon Tierck Claesen again drew his knife, and they then commence to fight. On the above date, at Tierck’s house.
"Hendry Palingh says that he came on his land for the purpose of carting grain, that Tierck Claesen said, ‘Kill me as you have done to the pig,’ which he denied, and said, ‘If you are right, prosecute me according to law,’ and [Tierck] said that he would avenge it upon some Englishman or another, and further said: ‘If you are a man, stand firm,’ and drew his knife and cut at him so that his trousers came down and then drew out his knife and intended to cut him, but received a stab-wound because the knife touched upon the ribs. It is ordered that Hendry Palingh shall remain under bail [or confinement]. Jorge Hal and Willem Montagne are surety that Mr. Palings shall again appear when wanted.
"On this September 8, 1671, Harmen Hendricks says that he did not see them fight, but heard Tierck say, ‘Kill me as you did the pig,’ but Tierck said, ‘Will you take me home?’ Dated as above." Vol. 2, page 466.
+ Nov. 21, 1671: "Madalena Dirckx, Plaintiff, vs. Jeremia Kettel, Defendant. Plaintiff demands of defendant a sum of 3 sch. of wheat, and the costs of the present. Defendant admits the debt, but says having assigned her to Jan Pound. The hon. court orders defendant to pay plaintiff the 3 sch. of wheat with costs." Vol. 2, page 469.
+ Jan. 16, 1671/2: "The hon. Schout Grevenraedt, Plaintiff, vs. Harmen Hendrix and Madalena Dirx, Defendants. Default." Vol. 2, page 473.
+ Jan. 16, 1671/2: "The Heer Schout Grevenraedt, Plaintiff, vs. Harmen Hendricx and Madalena Dirx, Defendants. Plaintiff complains that he has been very badly treated by one Harmen Hendrix who threatened him and called him a rascal and a buck and more other bad names, which cannot very well be tolerated in a place where justice is supreme, and he cannot attend to the duties of his office if their honors do not provide against similar conduct, as is shown by the complaint produced by him which he proves by three trustworthy witnesses. Harmen Hendricx says that he had reasons for the same, and challenges the schout to a duel with swords, and says that the scout will not ‘parenen’ (?) the King’s commands. The hon. Heer plaintiff further complains that Madalena Dirx threatened to break his head, as is shown by the relation of plaintiff, [the same being said] in the presence of Mr. Gorge Hall. Madalena Dirx said not to have said so, but said that she had been standing in the presence of grayer heads and that plaintiff said that he could show what kind of a woman she was with the documents in his house. Mr. Paeldin, as attorney for Madalena Dirx, says that this court has nothing more to do with said case, and further says that he, plaintiff, had no business to tax her with the same, because she had served her sentence. The hon. court adjourns the case till the next session of the court for the purpose of considering the case." Vol. 2, page 474.
+ Feb. 27, 1671/2: "Schout Grevenraedt, Plaintiff, vs. Harmen Hendricx, Defendant. Plaintiff demands of defendant an amount of 22 gldrs. 17 st. as per account; further 25 gldrs. for fines as per previous sentence and 60 gldrs. for violating arrest (wegens het violeren van arroot). (This may also mean that he disregarded a levied attachment.) Harmon Hendrix says that he offered him payment of linen, bought of him, but plaintiff would not accept it. The hon. court orders Harmen Hendrix to pay the hon. Schout Grevenraedt as per previous sentence, and further as per account 22 gldrs. for received goods, and ofr violating the arrest of attachment 30 gldrs., with the cost of the present." Vol. 2, page 476.
+ Feb. 27, 1671/2: Wildwyck’s official sent a letter to New York’s Lord Governor General Francis Lovelace because a number of potentially violent disputes had arisen in the village. "Therefore, we humbly request of your honor that we may receive full instruction, in accordance with which we shall have to act. … One Harmen Hendrix having been summoned before the meeting here, on account of some difficulty, challenged the Schout Grevenraedt to the sword, outside the meeting, and Mr. [left out] also took hold of the handle of his sword, which it is hard to stand, as our honor will see from the document existing in regard to the same. We have, for this purpose, delegated from our midst Schout Grevenraedt and Willem Montagne, in orders to humbly request your honor very reverentially to take measure in regard to the same as soon as possible, because, under existing condition, justice cannot be maintained." Vol. 2, page 478.
+ July 27, 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 of the fort: … W. Montaigne, 10 sch. … Harmen Hendrix, 6 sch. … Roelof Swartwout, 8 sch. … Jan Gerritsen, 8 sch." Vol. 2, page 483.
+ July 27, 1672: "The hon. court orders Harmen Hendrix to pay to the Heer Grevenraedt the first judgment for slandering Corn. Wyncoop, and also for violating the attachment, with costs." Vol. 2, page 484.
+ "Madalena Dirx, Plaintiff, vs. Jan Pietersen, Defendant. Madalene Dirx says that Jan Pietersen has, without reasons, called her names and beaten her on the public street. Defendant does not deny the same, but says having had reasons for the same, and has kicked her under her behind, and says that she called him a rascal, whereupon Jan Pietersen said, ‘If I am a rascal, you are a whore.’ Thereupon she flew in his face, and he kicked her. Gommert Poulussen says having heard Jan Pietersen say to Madalena Dirx, ‘Why does not your daughter ride along?’ And then Jan Pietersen talked about a note. Annetie says having heard and declares that Jan Pietersen said, ‘You have also had daughters. Why don’t they also drive about?’ So said Gommert who at the time had come form across the dam, and that Jan Pietersen said, ‘I have not been sent away with a ticket.’ Also declares having seen that Madalena Dirx threw something at him." Vol. 2, page 492.
+ Feb. 18, 1672/3: "In regard to Jan Pietersen and Madalena Dirx, Jan Pietersen is sentenced to pay a fine of 6 sch. of wheat or its value, because he has behaved disorderly on the public street, and also shall pay the costs. Two-thirds of said fine shall go to the officer, one-third to the poor." Vol. 2, page 494.
+ Dec. 11, 1673: "Harmon Hendrix becomes security for young Davit [?] Bisschop to again surrender him in the spring if it should be required." Vol. 2, page 507.
+ Feb. 27, 1673/4: "Harmon Hendrix requests payment of 82 gldrs. for expenses at the court of sessions whereof Horly has paid 24 gldrs." Vol. 2 page 512.
+ Jan. 12, 1674/5: "W. Montagne as Vendue Master, Plaintiff, vs. Madalena Dirx, Defendant. Plaintiff says that when he came to remind her of the debt contracted at the vendue for the Lord Governor Anthony Colve on account of a cow she had bought, she hit him with her first on his chest and said that she did not intend to pay. Harmon Hendrix says that he does not intend to pay until further orders. The hon. court orders defendant to pay, besides the expenses." Vol. 2, page 523.
+ Feb. 9, 1674/5: "Madalena Dirx, Plaintiff, vs. Jacob Elbertsen, Defendant, Default." Vol. 2, page 526.
+ Feb. 9, 1674/5: "Madalena Dirx, Plaintiff, vs. Cornelis Fynhoudt, Defendant. Plaintiff demands of defendant two sch. of wheat. Defedant admits owing two sch. of wheat. The hon. court orderes defendant to pay plaintiff two sch. of wheat." Vol. 2, page 526.
+ March 9, 1674/5: "Harmon Hendrix, Plaintiff, vs. Jacob Elbertsen, Defendant. Plaintiff demands 16 sch. of wheat. Defendant admits the debt. The hon. Court orders defendant to pay." Vol. 2, page 529.
+ March 15, 1674/5: "Harmon Hendrix, Plaintiff, vs. Pieter Hillebrants, Defendant. Plaintiff demands of defendant five sch. of wheat. Defendant admits the debt. The hon. court orders defendant to pay." Vol. 2, page 530.
+ April 17, 1675: " Harmon Hendrix, Plaintiff, vs. Jacob Govertsen, Defendant. Plaintiff says that he got into difficulty with plaintiff concerning some manure which he had carted away by Hendrick Jochemsen. Says that he was in his garden and he heard much angry talk between Jacob Govertsen and Jan Lootman concerning said manure which plaintiff had given to Jan Lootman. Then Jannetien Hillebrants came and said, ‘I shall have the manure removed from Harmon Hendrix’ as he has given the same to me,’ whereupon Jacob Govertsen’s wife said, ‘I have spread it all over the garden.’ Plaintiff asked why she had done it, ‘you will have to get it together again,’ she laughed at plaintiff. Then Harmon Hendrix said, ‘If I was near you, I would kick your behind.’ Then Jacob Govertsen said, ‘What does that whore-monger say there?’ Requested defendant to prove the same, and Harmon Hendrix approached Jacob Goverts and said, ‘You old rascal,’ and took hold of his shoulder, and defendant’s wife beat a hole in his head." Vol. 2, page 531.
+ May 4, 1675: "The hon. Schout Gorge Hall, Plaintiff, vs. Harmon Hendrix, Madalena Dirx, Jacob Goverts, Gertruy Jansen, Defendants. Plaintiff demands of defendants the amount of 300 gldrs. because they have injured and beaten each other. Defendants produce their written replies. The court, having seen the written answers of parties, orders parties to live together as neighbors and because they have, on both sides, called each other names, the one is put up against the other but whereas Harmon Hendrix was the originator of the quarrel, he coming on "Jacob Goverts’ lot with a stick and beating him on his own ground, which is an affair of evil consequences, therefore the hon. court sentences Harmon Hendrix to pay a fine of 100 gldrs., and Jacob Goverts’ wife shall pay 20 gldrs. and each the costs of the suit." Vol. 2, page 533.
+ Dec. 12/22, 1666: "Conditions and terms whereupon Henderick Martensen intends to publicly sell to the highest bidder his house and lot situated at Wildwyck, and also a cow. The aforesaid Henderick Martensen intends to sell his house, and what is fixed in the ground and fastened by nail, together with the lot of the same in such a condition as the same is fenced in, situated between the lots of Henderick Jochemsen and Harmen Hendericksen with such obligations and privileges as it is at present possessed by the seller. …" Vol. 2, pages 630-631.
+ Dec. 23, N.S., 1666: "On this December 23, N.S., 1666, appeared before me, Mattheus Capito, secretary of the village of Wildwyck, and the below-named witnesses Henderick Martensen, of the fist part, and Henderick Cornelissen, Lyndraejer, and Gerrit Fooken, co-partners, of the second part, who declare having contracted upon the following conditions: Henderick Martensen declares having osld and Henderick Cornelissen and Gerret Fooken declare having, in partnership, bought of said seller a house and lot, situated in the village of Wildwyck, between the lots of Henderick Jochemsen and Harmen Hendericks with such servitudes and privileges as the seller has possessed up to the presents …" Vol. 2, page 632.
+ April 2, N.S., 1667: Evert Pels sells farming implements and other effects at a public auction. "I become surety for Henderick Jochemsen (Signed) Harman Hyndrychsen." Jochemsen purchased six sieves for 43 guilders and eight half barrels for 25 guilders. Vol. 2, pages 646-648.
+ July 23, 1667: Jacob Burhans and Tjerck Claesen De Wit, administrators of the estate of Barent Holst, hold a public auction. Among the purchasers: "Harmen Hendericks, an earthenware pot and two wooden basins, 10 gldrs., 5 st." and "Harmen Hendr., a chair and a strainer, 5 gldrs." Vol. 2, pages 667-668.
+ Feb. 6, 1671: Michiel Modt buys a property "between the Miller’s and Jan Gerritsen’s" from Mrs. Anna Broadheds. "Harmen Hendrix" is listed as a witness to the transaction and he signed his name "Harmen Hyndryx." Vol. 2, page 713.
+ Jannetie Crafford declared to owe Robbert Buggerstaf 120 sch. of wheat for a house and lot "standing in this village, next to Harmen Hendrick’s and Michiel Modt’s." Vol. 2, pages 271-272.
+ Nov. 6, 1672: Jacob Jansen bought the land named "Jacob-Hoeck" from Eduward Wittikar. Among the signatures of the witnesses is "Harmen Hyn." Vol. 2, page 725.
+ Dec. 7, 1672: "Jacob Jansen must pay for rent of the farm for this year 200 sch. of wheat, and next year 223. Is a final settlement, this December 7, 1672. (Signed) the mark + of Jacob Jansen, Harmen Hyndryksen. (Signed) Albert Jansen, Gerechts Boode. To which testifies, (Signed) W. LaMontagne." Vol. 2, page 727.
+ April 5, 1673: "Appeared before us commissaries Cornelis Barents and Joost Adriaensen, commissaries of the hon. court at Kingston, Gorge Hall and Robbert Biggerstaf who declare to convey and cede as they are conveying and ceding to and in behalf of William Fissjer certain house and lot in this village next to Harmen Hendrix’s and Michiel Groodt’s, and confined as the same lies in its fence …" Vol. 2, pages 735-736.
"The Annual Report of the State Historian of the State of New York 1897," Wynkoop Hallenbeck Crawford Co., New York, 1898. Reprinted by Genealogical Publishing Co. Inc., Baltimore, 2000, page 449.
+ "1687. List of Soldiers in Esopus. A list of the Fottman of Capten Tomas Cersones Company. … herman henderiexson."
"Scandinavian Immigrants in New York 1630-1674," John O. Evjen, 1916, pages 64-69.
"Herman Hendricksen (Rosenkranz) was from Bergen, Norway. It is not known when he came to New Amsterdam, where he, on March 3, 1657, married Magdalene Dircks (Madalena Dirx), widow of Cornelius Caper, or Cornelius Hendricksen from Dort.
"She had been married to her first husband on October 24, 1652. [Footnote: The New York Genealogical and Biographical Report, vol. VI, p. 85.] At her marriage with Herman she had a minor child named Mara Cornelis, for whom she set apart 500 guilders, mortgaging her house and lot at New Amsterdam, next to Evert Duyckingh’s. [Footnote: Year Book of the Holland Society of New York, 1900, p. 162.] She had become a widow in 1655, and as her deceased husband had no relations in New Netherland, and Jan Vinje was related to her, she requested, on November 9, 1655, the orphanmasters that Jan Vinje and Hendrick Kip be appointed guardians for the child. The request was granted, but Vinje refused to serve. A week later the orphan-masters appointed as guardians of her child Abraham Verplanck and Andries de Haas. [Footnote: ibid., p. 112. Jan Vinje was not, as has been supposed, a Scandinavian.]
"Only a few days after the wedding of Herman and Magdalena, the court records of New Amsterdam registered the following: [The following is a transcript of Magdalena’s trial for insulting the fire warden from "The Records of New Amsterdam."]
"On August 13, 1657, ‘Herman Hendricksen conveyed to Joost Goderus a house and lot between Evert Duyckingh and Myndert Barents; width on the street 2 rods, and 7 feet, and in the rear 1 rods, 8 feet, being premises patented to Adrian Dircksen Coen, October, 1655.’ This seems to have been the house Herman got by his marriage. It is situated at the present South William Street.
"On November 12 1658, Herman received the small burgher’s [66] right in New Amsterdam, for which he signed an obligation to pay to the treasurer twenty gulden in beavers within eight days. [Footnote: The Records of New Amsterdam, 1653-1674, vol. VII, p.200.]
"On April 12, 1659, he had his child, Alexander baptized in the Dutch Reformed Church at New Amsterdam. The sponsors were Barent Gerritsen and Sarah Dircx, referred to above as the sister of Magdalene. [Footnote: Collections of the New York Genealogical and Biographical Society, vol. II, p. 52. Sara Dircks is called Sara Dircks de Noorman. Cf. Ibid., II, p. 55.]
"After the birth of this child the parents seem to have moved to Esopus. On September 29, 1659, Herman Hendricksen escaped from the Indians at Esopus, by whom he had been kept a prisoner. On regaining his liberty he informed Ensign Dirck Smith of their strength. [Footnote: New York Colonial Documents, XIII, p. 115.]
"Other children were born to Herman and Magdalene: Annetje, who was baptized August 27, 1662, the sponsor being Lysbet Jans; Rachel, who was baptized October 21, 1663, at whose baptism Aechjen Ariaens acted sponsor; Hermanus, baptized May 2, 1666, the sponsor being Greetje Hendricks; Anna, who was baptized October 9, 1667, no name of any sponsor being given. All these children were baptized in the church at Esopus. [Footnote: Hoes, Baptismal and Marriage Registers of the old Dutch Church of Kingston (Esopus).] One of their children (no name given) was baptized April 28, 1674, in New Amsterdam.
"It seem salso that some other children were born in this marriage. For on January 17, 1726, Sarah Rosenkranz, who was perhaps the child above referred to as baptized in 1674, made a will which reads as follows:
" ‘I, Sarah Rosenkrans, being in perfect health. I leave to my dear mother, Magdalena Rosenkrans, all my estate, real and personal, during her life, and after her decease as follows: To my brother, Alexander Rosenkrans, 6 shillings. All the rest to be divided into five parts; One part to my brother Hendrick, and after his decease to his son Hermanus; One part to my brother Dirck, and after his decease to his son Harsama; One part to my sister, Rachel Van Gorden, and fater her decease to Harma Van Gorden; One part to my sister, Johanna Davenport, and after he decease to her son John; One part to my sister, Christina Cortright, and after her decease to her son Hendrick Cortright. I [67] leave to the children of Alexander Rosenkrans [pounds] 30, viz: Harma, Helena, and Johanes. I leave to Helena Davenport, 1 shilling or 12 pence, New York currency. To Sarah Cole and Christian Van Gorden, each 1 shilling. I make my brothers Hendrick and Dirck executors.
" ‘Witness, Dirck Krans, Dirck De Witt, William Cortright. Proved in Ulster County, October 21, 1726’ (See Collections New York Historical Society, for the Year 1893, p. 372.)
"Under date of May 19, 1700, Magdalena Rosenkranz was sponsor at a baptism in Kingston. [Footnote: Ibid. Reference 39.]
"Herman must have had considerable property, for under date of January 19, 1681, a document, signed by five Indians, states:
" ‘This day all the Indians have acknowledged that the land called Easineh, which Kentkamin has given to Harmen Hendricksen and Hendricus Beckman, shall belong to them and they may dispose of it at their pleasure.’ This and other papers were recevied in Court of Sessions of Sarah Rosenkranz, October 3, 1732. [Footnote: New York Colonial History, vol. XIII, p. 402. Harmen Hendricksen Rosenkranz must not be confounded with Harmen Hendricksen, mentioned in Innes’, New Amsterdam and Its People, p. 168.]
"Herman Hendricksen died at Rochester, N.Y., about 1697. His descendants are known as the Rosenkrans family. The best known member of this family is General William Stark Rosecrans, born in Ohio, 1819. He was a graduate of West Point Academy. In the civil war he was commissioned as a Brigadier General of the Regular Army. …
"In 1890, a genealogy of the Rosenkrans family was published, the author being Allen Rosenkrans. It gives the history o the family, and makes public much of the correspondence passed between the author and various archives and legations in Europe, for the purpose of ascertaining whence Herman Hendricksen originally came. ‘Rosenkrans’ may be German, Dutch, Danish, [68] Norwegian. There is a possibility that Herman was related to Henrick Rosendrans who between 1617 and 1629 obtained permission to the fisherey of herring and whales at the coast of Greenland and Norway. This Henrick was likely an immigrated Hollanders, not, however, of the nobility.
"Herman Hendricksen was in all probability a plain born Norwegian, without title, and without Dutch pedigree. There were many Herman Hendricksens in New Netherland, and still more in Scandinavia. Why should Herman, in order to avoid a confusion of names, not add a new surname, taking the name of one, for whom he, perhaps, had worked in Bergen. There would be no objection to doing this in the New World."

"The Rosenkrans Family in Europe and America," by Allen Rosenkrans, 1900, pages 48-50.
"Harmon Hendrick Rosenkrans, the progenitor of the most numerous branch of the Rosenkrans Family in the United States of America, from whom were descended Col. John Rosenkrans, of the Revoluion, and General William Stark Rosecrans, of the Civil War, was of Holland descent, but came from Bergen, Norway, to New Amsterdam about the middle of the seventeenth century where he was married in 1657. His marriage record copied from the Genealogical and Biographical records of New York taken form the First Reformed Dutch Church of the city is as follows: Married: ‘March 3, 1657, Herman Hendrickson, from Bergen, in Norway, to Magdalena Dircks, widow of Cornelius Caper.
"This form of our ancestor’s name denotes that he was the son of Hendrick or Henrick, and as it is nowhere else found so written, but is usually written Harmon Hendrick, we shall thus write it when speaking of him. Herman and Harmon were interchangeably used in Holland and among the early settlers, as were Jacobus and James, Johannis and John. But one instance is found where he wrote his own name, that being in 1683, when he signed his name to a petition, writing it ‘Harmoun Hyndryx.’ As family names were then but little used he did not write the name Rosenkrans. After his marriage in New York, 1657, we next find him in Kingston where he settled about 1660. His son Alexander was born in Kingston, as his marriage record shows, and he was baptized in New York April, 1661. That he was living in Kingston in 1661 is evident from the fact also that according to the [49] Kingston records Magdalena, wife of ‘Harmon Hendricx Rosenkrans’ was baptized and received into the Reformed Dutch Church of Kingston, June 24, 1661, and he was taxed that year twelve guilders toward building a parsonage for the ‘Domane Harmanus Blom.’ The above record in 1661 is the first one found where his surname is written, it being Rosenkrans as we now write it, though not written by himself.
"Harmon Hendrick must have had nine children at least, as the Kingston records show seven after Alexander between the dates 1661-75, and the ninth one is found in a will recorded in Albany, dated 1726, made by his daughter Sarah not found elsewhere. Eventually he left Kingston and purchased a large tract of land on the Peterskill, in Mombaccus township, now Rochester, Ulster County, New York, where he settled prior to 1683, as at that date he signed a Rochester petition spoken of, praying for the election rather than the appointment of a certain official. The date of his purchase in Mombaccus cannot be ascertained as the early Kingston land records were lost. It was located on the Peterskill, near Alligerville, and contained a mill property, subsequently owned in part by his son Alexander. The Peterskill empties into the Rondout near Alligerville, whose post-office is Kiserike. In 1896 Mrs. Schoonmaker, widow of Judge Augustus Schoonmaker, of Kingston, who formerly lived near Alligerville, in answer to a letter of inquiry informed me that there was still an old mill standing on the Peterskill near
Alligerville, and that this old mill probably stands on the site of Alexanders’s mill, once owned by his father.
"Harmon Hendrick died in Rochester about 1697, as the Kingston records show that Magdalena, his wife, and Alexander his son, Executors of Harmon Hendrick Rosenkrans, sold land to Moses DuPuy, September 14, 1697. (Book A.A. p. 185). September 21, 1703, Alexander Rosenkrans and other heirs sold 150 acres more to Moses DuPuy. This change of administrators and disappearance of the widow’s name indicate that Magdalena had died between the dates 1697 and 1703. Harmon Hendrick’s occupation in Kingston is not mentioned in the records, but Kingston was only a village at the time of his living there and he was undoubtedly a farmer or ‘yeoman’ as in after years. In 1663, soon after his settlement there, Kingston was raided by the Indians, and the church and some dwellings were burned; some of the inhabitants were killed and a few of the children were carried off, but as far as known Harmon and his family were Providentially left uninjured.
[50] "Kingston was then the nucleus of a great settlement which extended westward along the Rondout to the Neversink and the Delaware, and along this route Harmon Hendrick’s family mainly settled. As previously stated, though from Norway he was of Holland descent, but whether born in Holland or Norway has not been definitely determined. The probability is that he was born in Norway. As we learn form the Bendixen letter several of the Rosenkrans family named Herman and Hendrick, and Herman Hendrick went from Holland to Bergen between 1593-1652, and it is possible that he was one of them. But Mr. Thiset, the Royal Archivist of Denmark, thinks that Herman Hendrickszen was the son of the two ‘Dutchmen,’ as he calls them, Herman, the Merchant Fisherman, and Henrick, the Burgesell, the former probably a son of Captain Dirk, who obtained rights in Norway as early as 1617. He was evidently the son of Henrick, as the name indicates, and born in Bergen, but as the early records there were burned, the date and place of his birth cannot be positively determined. This, however, is evident, that he was of the Holland family of the Rose-wreath, which came from the early Germany family, descended from Erik, the Knight, who was presented with the Rosewreath, added it to his coast of arms, and 1325 took the name of Rosenkrantz.
"Of Magdalena Dircks, wife of Harmon Hendrick, nothing is known prior to her marriage, in 1657, but from that we learn that she was the widow of Cornelis Caper. She, like her husband, was undoubtedly of Holland extraction, and perhaps born in Amsterdam. The name, Dircks, was apparently a common one in the Rosenkrantz family, and the two families were probably associated prior to this marriage, 1657. In early life Magdalena, like Mary, had ‘chosen the better part,’ she had accepted the Saviour. As Mary Magdalena was the first to find and to recognize the Saviour after His resurrection, so Magdalena Rosenkrans was apparently the first of the family to find Him in the new world, and to confess Him before men. In doing so she fulfilled as important duty and set an example of love and loyalty to the Saviour worthy of imitation by all her descendants. Harmon Hendrick’s children were Alexander, Annatje, Rachel, Harmanus, Anna, Hendrick, Christiana, Dirk and Sarah."

"Early Settlers of Bushwick, Long Island, New York," Vol. 1, by Andrew J. Provost Jr., 1949, pages 98-102.
"Magdalena (2) Dircks, (93), born in New Amsterdam about 1635; died after Jan. 17, 1726; when named as living in her daughter Sarah’s Will.
"m. 1^st. Oct. 24, 1652 Cornelis Hendrickszen Van Dort who was killed by the Indians in the Bushwick attack of Sept. 15, 1655 leaving an infant daughter named in a record of 1657 as being then about 3 years old.
"m. 2^nd. Mar. 3, 1657 Harman Hendricksen from Berga, Norway.
"Several recorded episodes of Magdalena’s early and more mature life tend to indicate she inherited from her father something of his independent and turbulent spirit. Her second husband [Harmen] seems to have been endowed with somewhat similar characteristics, to the end that for a number of years the tendency to dissent from vested authority kept them in occasional turmoil.
"Whether the unruly spirit, that seems to have been Magdalena’s, as her natural inherited disposition, or was due to imbalance resulting from her experiences during the Indian attack on Bushwick, that took her [99] husband’s life, and her later experience in the Indian massacre at Esopus in 1663, should be carefully considered before attempt is made to pass judgment upon her apparent somewhat erratic career. Whatever its source, the years appear to have mollified such spirit. Among Magdalena’s descendants there have been many who achieved honor in their communities, and in the wider fields of their activities.
"Magdalena Dircks, as widow of Cornelis Hendricksen of Dort, appeared before the Orphan’s Court in New Amsterdam, November 10, 1655. She told the Court she knew of no relations of her late husband in this country, and requested the appointment of guardians for her infant child. Upon the naming of Jan Vigne, her mother’s brother, and Hendrick Kip, as such guardians, she refused to accept them on the grounds that ‘jan Vigne was her adversary and never had any conversation with her or her husband, while Hendrick Kip was no relative or friend.’ To replace them as guardians, she nominated Abraham VerPlanck (husband of her mother’s sister), and Andries de Haes, who thereupon were confirmed by the Court.
"Very soon after her second marriage, Magdalena and her husband appear to have been banished for violation of the excise laws. A resolution of the Council in 1658 permitted Harman Hendricksen and his wife Magdalena Dircks alias the ‘Flying Angel’, to return to New Amsterdam on condition ‘they do not keep a tavern, nor sell beer or other liquors.’
"Wherever they may have lived during the exile, Magdalena and her husband returned to New Amsterdam before April 12, 1659 when, in the Dutch Church there, their first recorded child was baptised as the son of Harman Hendricksen Rosencrans.
"They were living at Esopus August 27, 1662 when, on that date, their next recorded child was baptised and in which year Harman Hendricksen was recorded as owner of Lot No. 13 in the new village of Wildwyck, later called Kingston. Their experiences in the Esopus massacre of June 7, 1663 are not found of record. Soon thereafter, they were back at New Amsterdam, but returned to Esopus where, in 1665-1667, Harman Hendricksen was corporal of the militia, and in which vicinity they, and their children, appear to have made permanent homes; some of them being found of record at Deer Park, Rochester etc. Ulster County, N.Y.
"A record of May 1, 1671 states: ‘Harman Hendricksen at Esopus called Cornelis Wynkoop a rogue and a villain; the latter retorted he never had been banished; Hendrix replied in a vulgar way, and was obliged to do penance with uncovered head in the presence of Wynkoop.’ (Wynkoop Genealogy (1904), p. 13)
[100] "It is considered probable that Magdalena became a widow before December 9, 1694, when, as Maddalena Rosekrans she appeared at Brooklyn Dutch Church as baptismal co-sponsor with Willem Lequier, her nephew, for a child of her niece Christina Nagel. (See page 97)
"Magdalena Dircks lived to a great age. On January 17, 1726, when she would have been at least ninety years old, as Maddalena Rosenkrans, she was named legatee of a life trust of her daughter Sarah’s entire estate. (See page 102)"

"The First American Mrs. Rosencrans," by David V. Bennett, in "The New York Genealogical and Biographical Record," vol. XC, January, April and July 1959.
+ "Judged by the known facts of his brief career, young Van Dort had been an up-and-coming burgher – a doer and darer. Boat building was his business, and his standing in it was already such that he was employed as an expert, to advise the city court as well as various individuals. He was one of the contractors for construction of cannon mounts and the repair of a scow for the provincial government when an attack by the English seemed imminent. He it was, "Kees De Capter" (Kees the Sailor), who retrieved Thomas Young’s ketch from the Hell Gate whirlpool when nobody else would take the chance for the sake of the reward. From a financial condition so poor that he was defaulting in rent payments to Evert Duyckingh the glassmaker, he worked up to buying the house and log, and acquiring a tailor-made cloak forsooth." Page 3.
+ "Magdalena’s new husband was a soldier, Harmen Hendricksen Rosencrans from Bergen, Norway, sometimes called ‘Harmen the Portuguese’ – an indication of service as a Company solider in Brazil, from which reinforcements had been brought in 1655." Page 8.
+ "Eighteen armed men, partly soldiers and partly burghers, the veteran Harman Hendricksen Rosecrans among the latter, escorted Kit [Davis] to his canoe. While returning to the stockade, the group ran into an ambuscade. Four of the number made a break for freedom and succeeded; the other fourteen, including the leader, Sergeant Louwrens, surrendered without firing a shot. Soon a host of whooping savages was investing the stockade, their flaming arrows pelting the roofs of the buildings within and keeping bucket brigades busy at all hours. Sheds and stacks in the outside field went up in smoke, and farm animals which had not been brought behind the palisades, became food for heathen.
"Of the fourteen captives taken by the Indians, five were forced to run the gauntlet and then tortured to death by slow fire – among these Jacob Stol and Jan Sleght the brewer’s son – and seven were held for ransom. The thirteenth, a son of Evert Pels, was lucky enough to strike the fancy of some Pocahontas and be adopted into her tribe. Just one contrived somehow to elude his captors. In a letter to [New Netherland director Peter] Stuyvesant eight days after the ambuscade, Ensign Smith wrote: ‘At the date of this letter we have back one prisoner, who ran away from them. I have asked this returned captive, Harmen Hendricksen, how strong they may have been; he said in answer to me that they must have counted over four hundred, and thought our prisoners were all still alive.’ " Pages 10-11.
+ "Harman received at this time Lot No. 3 in a distribution of additional sites for a home and garden within the stockade. On June 24^th, 1661, Madgalena joined the church, to be among the first thirty members. Harman, working as a day laborer and trading on the side, was having a hard time to make the ends meet. Even the 10 percent in ‘good-strung and current sewan’ due his stepchild on the 500-guilder mortgage on 10 Slyck Steght, New Amsterdam, was not coming in, as uncle Verplanck notified the New Amsterdam court on September 15^th, 1661, asking release from his bond at trustee for the child. With so many other colonists in the same straits, Harman couldn’t collect what was owed him from work for Pieter Hillebrantsen, he had to appeal to the courts for an order on Pieter to pay 8 schepels of wheat which Pieter admitted owing, and had to be satisfied with an order requiring a payment of 3½ schepels within three days and the balance within six weeks. Harman, in turn was among those in arrears with the dues for the dominies’s salary – 10 guilders in ‘heavy money’ (Holland coin) per lot per year." Page 12.
+ "By January 1666, Harmen evidently was seeing daylight through his obligations, for he was offering to settler his church dues if he could get a concession. Would the court accept sewan instead of beavers on the first year’s assessment, and would it transfer half of the next two years’ assessments to the account of Francis La Cheer, who had apparently been occupying half of Harman’s double lot, and would it make an allowance of four days’ pay for work on the parsonage? The court granted the petition, inasmuch as the first year’s assessment was based on a pledge and the other years’ on the number of lots occupied." Page 94.