Mr. Potter, this is a wordy version of what I said except that I limited mine to the area of genealogy and its usage there. Now, please drop it. I certainly intend to do so. "Leslie B. Potter" <lbpotter@comcast.net> wrote: Agnes, I have encountered confusion about "Indentures" among both historians and genealogists. Since I have never met a genealogist who did not need to read a deed or a mortgage from time to time, I felt that trying to explain the whole situation was in order and appropriate. It occurs to me that the problem originates from the fact that the legal instruments that are written in the indenture format start out with the wording "This Indenture". Over time this has lead to these various instruments being called "Indentures" as though they were a specific kind of thing with identical subject matter and properties, which they are not. I feel that it is fair to say that language can be complicated and difficult at times. I also feel that the use of the word "indenture", as it applies to various legal documents and contractual relationships, a prime example to this phenomenon. Thank you but I prefer to err on the side of precision. So I shall to agree to disagree with you. Leslie ----- Original Message ----- From: "Agnes Cloninger" To: Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 1:32 PM Subject: [DUTCH-COLONIES] indenture dust-up > Leslie, > Yup, I have confined my response to genealogical circumstances only - > since this is a genealogical research board, it seemed more > appropriate to do so. Edifying as it might be, debating the > particulars of every circumstance does not strike me as the purpose > of this forum, and I am not equipped to do so, that was my husband's > area of expertise. > > Should historians and lawyers choose to feel my take is too narrow, > so be it, narrow was my intent, and I do apologize if that seems > overly limiting. > > Here's where I bow out of any further debate on this subject. > > Toodles, > > Agnes Cloninger > >> >> Elizabeth, >> >> I disagree with Agness Cloniger's statement. Maybe her statement is >> accurate >> as it pertains to standard operating procedure in genealogical >> circles, but >> it is not accurate for the community of historians and lawyers with >> whom I >> usually hang out. I guess that the point that I am trying to make >> is that >> the root word is used in so many other applications, starting with >> calling >> the instrument itself an "Indenture", that I feel that Agness >> Cloniger's >> statement is confusing because of its narrow focus. However, if you >> are >> writing just for genealogists maybe Agness Cloniger's approach is the >> appropriate one to take. >> >> I am retooling as an historian, not as a genealogist. So please >> excuse me, >> while I continue to disagree with Agness Cloniger. >> >> Sincerely, >> >> Leslie >> > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > DUTCH-COLONIES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to DUTCH-COLONIES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I also bow out. You understood exactly what I was saying. It was appropriate and on the mark. I also checked with a friend who is a lawyer and he understood. I don't understand what the problem is or was, but I'm happy you understood from a genealogical stand point. But if you just run the word on the internet you would see that there are a lot of professionals who use it just as we did. I understand what an indenture is....and all I was saying was that the use of that word does not necessarily constitute the term "indentured servant" as is often seen. As far as I'm concerned its the end of the subject for me too. But thanks for letting me know you knew what I meant. Elizabeth Agnes Cloninger <agnesec@cableone.net> wrote: Leslie, Yup, I have confined my response to genealogical circumstances only - since this is a genealogical research board, it seemed more appropriate to do so. Edifying as it might be, debating the particulars of every circumstance does not strike me as the purpose of this forum, and I am not equipped to do so, that was my husband's area of expertise. Should historians and lawyers choose to feel my take is too narrow, so be it, narrow was my intent, and I do apologize if that seems overly limiting. Here's where I bow out of any further debate on this subject. Toodles, Agnes Cloninger > > Elizabeth, > > I disagree with Agness Cloniger's statement. Maybe her statement is > accurate > as it pertains to standard operating procedure in genealogical > circles, but > it is not accurate for the community of historians and lawyers with > whom I > usually hang out. I guess that the point that I am trying to make > is that > the root word is used in so many other applications, starting with > calling > the instrument itself an "Indenture", that I feel that Agness > Cloniger's > statement is confusing because of its narrow focus. However, if you > are > writing just for genealogists maybe Agness Cloniger's approach is the > appropriate one to take. > > I am retooling as an historian, not as a genealogist. So please > excuse me, > while I continue to disagree with Agness Cloniger. > > Sincerely, > > Leslie > ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to DUTCH-COLONIES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Leslie, Yup, I have confined my response to genealogical circumstances only - since this is a genealogical research board, it seemed more appropriate to do so. Edifying as it might be, debating the particulars of every circumstance does not strike me as the purpose of this forum, and I am not equipped to do so, that was my husband's area of expertise. Should historians and lawyers choose to feel my take is too narrow, so be it, narrow was my intent, and I do apologize if that seems overly limiting. Here's where I bow out of any further debate on this subject. Toodles, Agnes Cloninger > > Elizabeth, > > I disagree with Agness Cloniger's statement. Maybe her statement is > accurate > as it pertains to standard operating procedure in genealogical > circles, but > it is not accurate for the community of historians and lawyers with > whom I > usually hang out. I guess that the point that I am trying to make > is that > the root word is used in so many other applications, starting with > calling > the instrument itself an "Indenture", that I feel that Agness > Cloniger's > statement is confusing because of its narrow focus. However, if you > are > writing just for genealogists maybe Agness Cloniger's approach is the > appropriate one to take. > > I am retooling as an historian, not as a genealogist. So please > excuse me, > while I continue to disagree with Agness Cloniger. > > Sincerely, > > Leslie >

Have you tried Joyce Tice's Tri-County Site? _http://www.picosearch.com/cgi-bin/ts.pl?index=101835&query=Osterhout&psel=all &SEARCH=Search&opt=ANY_ (http://www.picosearch.com/cgi-bin/ts.pl?index=101835&query=Osterhout&psel=all&SEARCH=Search&opt=ANY) has a bunch of osterhouts ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.

Elizabeth, I disagree with Agness Cloniger's statement. Maybe her statement is accurate as it pertains to standard operating procedure in genealogical circles, but it is not accurate for the community of historians and lawyers with whom I usually hang out. I guess that the point that I am trying to make is that the root word is used in so many other applications, starting with calling the instrument itself an "Indenture", that I feel that Agness Cloniger's statement is confusing because of its narrow focus. However, if you are writing just for genealogists maybe Agness Cloniger's approach is the appropriate one to take. I am retooling as an historian, not as a genealogist. So please excuse me, while I continue to disagree with Agness Cloniger. Sincerely, Leslie ----- Original Message ----- From: "Elizabeth Johnson" <elizajohn@sbcglobal.net> To: <dutch-colonies@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, April 16, 2007 8:02 PM Subject: Re: [DUTCH-COLONIES] Indenture vs. contract >I really do understand! Nevertheless I appreciate your taking the time to >go over this and point out the differences. As for apologizing for being a >wordsmith as attorneys tend to be, I can only say that I've been doing >reports for judges on various aspects of juvenile, family, and criminal >life of various individuals in Massachusetts for years. I haven't had an >attorney trip me up yet but they do try..and try..and try.. My secret >is...when in doubt about the wording, call a friend, not on the case, who >also happens to be an attorney and ask! > > The difficulty with indenture is what Agnes Cloniger wrote "One does tend > to automatically append the word 'servant' to 'indentured' and that does > not necessarily describe the precise intent of the contract." It drives > me mad when whole scenarios are built around a person deemed an"indentured > servant" because the word "indentured" is somewhere associated with his > name. One example is the gentleman who was to provide so many barrels of > beer over a specified period of time in exchange for a piece of property. > This agreement was referred to as an indenture. Before long, I read > that this gentleman was the indentured servant of the other party in this > agreement. The source was the original agreement that I just described. > > Again, thank you... > > Elizabeth > > > lbpotter@comcast.net wrote: > Elizabeth, > > I don't know how to tell you this, but we attorneys are word-smiths. I > felt that your translation of my explanation was a little imprecise, which > is why I became confused by it in my fatigue Friday afternoon. > > Deeds and mortgages, which are written in the indenture format, usually > start out with the following wording or similar wording... > > "This Indenture made this X day of Y month, in the year of Our Lord one > thousand seven hundred eighty-nine, between John Jones, of the Borough of > West Chester, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and Agnes Jones, his wife > (hereinafter called the Grantors), of the first part, and Henry Brown also > of the said Borough and Commonwealth (hereinafter call the Grantee), of > the Second Part." > > When the instrument starts out saying "This Indenture" one is immediately > alerted to the format of the document but not the subject of the > instrument. So when my NPS-ranger-friends used to tell me that had found > an "Indenture", they were using the word "Indenture" as a noun and > substituting the word it for a more accurate term to describe the > instrument in question. Therefore, I had to keep asking them what kind of > an instrument were they were actually talking about - a deed, a mortgage, > or an employment contract. > > Although I have not read an Indenture of Apprenticeship recently, I seem > to remember that the wording of the first paragraph was very similar to > the first paragraph of a deed, which has been written in indenture form. > That is to say that the Indenture of Apprenticeship starts out "This > Indenture made this X day of Y month, in the year of our Lord one thousand > seven hundred eighty-nine...." > > Please keep in mind that all employment contracts (even modern executive > employment contracts) are in effect "MASTER-SERVANT" relationships. Now > when you are dealing with a colonial employment contract in which the > consideration for the term of labor is payment of a a person's > ship-passage, the person, who is being bound, is said to be "indentured to > the Master" with whom he is contracting. So the person, who is selling his > labor to the Master in exchange for having his ship-passage to America is > binding himself to the Master, usually for a period of seven years. By the > act of contractually binding himself to the master, the servant is > "indenturing" himself to the master; therefore he referred to as an > "indentured" servant. > > The same linguistic acrobatics apply to a minor child, who has been > "indentured" to a master craftsman for a period of years by his parents. > > I hope that this explanation makes your writing project a little easier > for you. If you have any further questions please feel free to contact me. > > Sincerely, > > Leslie > > -------------- Original message -------------- > From: Elizabeth Johnson > >> And again, thank you for your time! What you are saying is what I >> understood, I >> think it is my writing and purpose of writing that is confusing you, I >> think. >> I'm attempting an explanation of why the connection of the word >> "indentured" to >> any given person should not be assumed to mean that the person is an >> indentured >> servant. >> >> You said: An "indentured servant" is merely a man or a woman, who has >> entered >> into an employment contract for a specific term of years for an already >> agreed >> upon consideration." >> >> and >> >> "The parent of a minor, who has apprenticed his or her child to a master, >> has >> also entered into an education/employment contract for a specific period >> of time >> for stated consideration. These were called Indentures of Apprenticeship. >> (Black's Law Dictionary p. 911)" >> >> >> You said " Saying that a legal document is an "indenture" is as specific >> as >> saying that the said instrument was written on pink paper. The color of >> the >> paper, as well as, the format in which an instrument is written falls >> into the >> "so what" category. What is important is what kind of a contract are you >> reading." >> >> I said "Being indentured, in itself, does not and did not mean more than >> being in a contract or a legal agreement with another person or persons >> with >> the terms of the indenture determined by document itself. In short, an >> indenture is the general term for the format in which any number of >> agreements >> could be written >> Is this not the same? >> >> But then, I said "but unless specifically stated in the document itself, >> being >> indentured was not synonymous with the word servant." and this needs >> rewording. >> I know what I was trying to say and missed. I meant wished to put across >> the >> idea that if a person was said to be indentured to another person, but >> the >> terms of the indenture are not given,it meant only that there was a >> contract or >> an agreement between these persons that could cover have covered a myriad >> of >> topics only one of which would be the agreement to become an indentured >> servant. >> The use of the word indenture without the terms of the Indenture being >> given >> tells nothing more than that there is an agreement between the parties >> and an >> obligation is established in the indenture. >> >> How is this different? Too wordy? Did I miss the point totally? What am I >> leaving out? >> >> It's not just you, I had my husband read it and he was confused until I >> explained the whole thing to him and this is what I didn't want to have >> to do. >> >> Perhaps I could just say that an indenture is a form of a contract and >> without >> knowing the contents of the contract, one knows nothing about the purpose >> or >> obligation inherent in the contract. Thus, the combining of the two words >> indentured and servant based upon a document associating the word >> "indentured" >> with a name means nothing unless the contents of the indenture are known. >> Case in point, a man contracts with another for the production and >> delivery of >> beer for an 8 year period in exchange for certain goods and properties. >> In >> these same documents, this is later referred to as an indenture. The next >> reference I see to this in another book, refers to the man as an >> indentured >> servant and cites the above reference. >> >> And the other option is to trash what I have written and start >> over....Bah >> Humbug.. Oh well, it wouldn't be the first time. >> >> Elizabeth >> >> >> lbpotter@comcast.net wrote: >> Elizabeth, >> >> I read your interpretation of my explanation and got confused. Let me >> start >> again. >> >> You said: "An indenture was originally a contract between two or more >> parties, >> written in duplicate or counter part all on the same piece of paper or >> parchment, words or letters of the alphabet being written between the two >> counterparts. The counterparts were then separated by cutting or tearing >> along a >> wavy or indented line through these words or letters (hence the name >> "indenture"), and each party received one of the counter parts. In case >> of later >> dispute as to the authenticity of either of the counterparts they could >> be >> fitted together to settle the question. (Ladner of Conveyancing in >> Pennsylvania >> page 141.) >> >> >> "An indenture was originally a contract between two or more parties, >> written in >> duplicate or counter part all on the same piece of paper or parchment, >> words or >> letters of the alphabet being written between the two counterparts. The >> counterparts were then separated by cutting or tearing along a wavy or >> indented >> line through these words or letters (hence the name "indenture"), and >> each party >> received one of the counter parts. In case of later dispute as to the >> authenticity of either of the counterparts they could be fitted together >> to >> settle the question. (Ladner of Conveyancing in Pennsylvania page 141.) >> >> Also see Theodore Plucknett"s, A Concise History of the Common Law at >> pages >> 612-613. Although I have a copy of Van Der Linden's Institutes of the >> Laws of >> Holland and Xeroxed extensive portions of Simon Van Leeuwen's >> Commentaries of >> the Roman Dutch Law, neither of these book speaks to the format of legal >> instruments. >> >> An "indentured servant" is merely a man or a woman, who has entered into >> an >> employment contract for a specific term of years for an already agreed >> upon >> consideration. >> >> The parent of a minor, who has apprenticed his or her child to a master, >> has >> also entered into an education/employment contract for a specific period >> of time >> for stated consideration. These were called Indentures of Apprenticeship. >> (Black's Law Dictionary p. 911) >> >> It is the subject matter and terms of the individual contract, which are >> important not the format in which the contract is drafted. >> >> When I began working with the rangers at the Saratoga National Historical >> Park, >> they used to get all excited when they found an "Indenture", until they >> got >> tired of my asking them if the instrument were a deed, a mortgage, or an >> employment contract. Saying that a legal document is an "indenture" is as >> specific as saying that the said instrument was written on pink paper. >> The color >> of the paper, as well as, the format in which an instrument is written >> falls >> into the "so what" category. What is important is what kind of a contract >> are >> you reading. >> >> Sincerely, >> >> Leslie >> >> -------------- Original message -------------- >> From: Elizabeth Johnson >> >> > Thank you! As any good lawyer does, you have forced me to look at the >> > bigger >> > picture. It does help because I had narrowed my thinking down to the >> > issue of >> > indenture only in the terms of the person and the two most frequently >> > seen >> > applications of the word in both Dutch and English histories, excluding >> > legal >> > documents, and genealogies: The training of the person such as in the >> > case of >> a >> > minor, who would be placed in an apprenticeships for training in >> > exchange for >> > whatever was specified, money or labour, for a specific amount of time. >> > It >> > seems that these are usually referred to by historians as >> > apprenticeships such >> > as "he apprenticed to...." which then hints at the nature of the >> > endenture. >> The >> > general term would be indenture. The other usage, which is what I see >> > when, >> > reading through quite a few genealogies, is the word "indenture" >> > combined with >> > servant. I believe that in the 17th Century, this particular type of >> > indenture >> > placed the person into a state of servitude and >> > allowed them to be categorized as an indentured servant, for a period >> > of time >> > in exchange for something of monetary value which in that era was often >> > a >> > passage from Europe to a determined destination. >> > >> > What you are saying is, I believe, is what I originally thought but >> > somehow >> > lost in my narrow focus: The discussion that started this train of >> > thought was >> > the classification of several persons as endentured servants based upon >> > the >> name >> > of the person or persons being combined with the words "indentured to". >> > Being >> > indentured, in itself, does not and did not mean more than being in a >> > contract >> > or a legal agreement with another person or persons with the terms of >> > the >> > indenture determined by document itself. In short, an indenture is the >> > general >> > term for the format in which any number of agreements could be written >> > but >> > unless specifically stated in the documented itself, being indentured >> > was not >> > synonymous with the word servant. >> > >> > I'm frequently rushing when I pose a question to the list and should >> > probably >> > wait until I have the time to fully explain myself. >> > >> > lbpotter@comcast.net wrote: >> > Elizabeth, >> > >> > An "Indenture" is just one of many types of format in which any number >> > of >> types >> > of contracts can be written. Deeds, mortgages, contract for the sale of >> chattel, >> > and employment contracts are just a few of the types of instruments, >> > which are >> > commonly written in the "Indenture" format. All of the aforementioned >> > instruments can also be written in other formats. >> > >> > What is significant is not the format in which the instrument is >> > written, but >> > rather the subject matter with which instrument deals. What is >> > important is >> > whether the instrument a deed, a mortgage, a contract for the sale of >> > chattel >> or >> > an employment contract. >> > >> > Hope that this helps. >> > >> > Sincerely, >> > >> > Leslie Potter >> > PA Atty ID # 16580 >> > -------------- Original message -------------- >> > From: Elizabeth Johnson >> > >> > > It wasn't too long ago that I asked a similar question and didn't get >> > > a >> chance >> > > to thank those who responded. I'm still on the same subject, but from >> perhaps >> > a >> > > little different angle. If one boarded a ship in Texel, and paid for >> > > his own >> > > trip and had a contract for specific services, for a specific time >> > > and wage >> to >> > > van Rensselaer, it is my impression that this is a contract as it is >> > > called >> > but >> > > not an indenture. A second party, on the same ship, has his passage >> > > paid but >> > by >> > > whom is unknown. He may have paid his own. The next mention of this >> > > second >> > > person is when he draws his wages from the colony. Contract or >> > > indenture? or >> > is >> > > it possible to tell? >> > > >> > > Any help is appreciated >> > > >> > > Elizabeth >> > > >> > > ------------------------------- >> > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> > > DUTCH-COLONIES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' >> > > without the >> > > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> > >> > ------------------------------- >> > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> > DUTCH-COLONIES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without >> > the >> > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> > >> > >> > ------------------------------- >> > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> > DUTCH-COLONIES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without >> > the >> > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> DUTCH-COLONIES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without >> the >> quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> DUTCH-COLONIES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without >> the >> quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > DUTCH-COLONIES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > DUTCH-COLONIES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Elizabeth, I don't know how to tell you this, but we attorneys are word-smiths. I felt that your translation of my explanation was a little imprecise, which is why I became confused by it in my fatigue Friday afternoon. Deeds and mortgages, which are written in the indenture format, usually start out with the following wording or similar wording... "This Indenture made this X day of Y month, in the year of Our Lord one thousand seven hundred eighty-nine, between John Jones, of the Borough of West Chester, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and Agnes Jones, his wife (hereinafter called the Grantors), of the first part, and Henry Brown also of the said Borough and Commonwealth (hereinafter call the Grantee), of the Second Part." When the instrument starts out saying "This Indenture" one is immediately alerted to the format of the document but not the subject of the instrument. So when my NPS-ranger-friends used to tell me that had found an "Indenture", they were using the word "Indenture" as a noun and substituting the word it for a more accurate term to describe the instrument in question. Therefore, I had to keep asking them what kind of an instrument were they were actually talking about - a deed, a mortgage, or an employment contract. Although I have not read an Indenture of Apprenticeship recently, I seem to remember that the wording of the first paragraph was very similar to the first paragraph of a deed, which has been written in indenture form. That is to say that the Indenture of Apprenticeship starts out "This Indenture made this X day of Y month, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred eighty-nine...." Please keep in mind that all employment contracts (even modern executive employment contracts) are in effect "MASTER-SERVANT" relationships. Now when you are dealing with a colonial employment contract in which the consideration for the term of labor is payment of a a person's ship-passage, the person, who is being bound, is said to be "indentured to the Master" with whom he is contracting. So the person, who is selling his labor to the Master in exchange for having his ship-passage to America is binding himself to the Master, usually for a period of seven years. By the act of contractually binding himself to the master, the servant is "indenturing" himself to the master; therefore he referred to as an "indentured" servant. The same linguistic acrobatics apply to a minor child, who has been "indentured" to a master craftsman for a period of years by his parents. I hope that this explanation makes your writing project a little easier for you. If you have any further questions please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Leslie -------------- Original message -------------- From: Elizabeth Johnson <elizajohn@sbcglobal.net> > And again, thank you for your time! What you are saying is what I understood, I > think it is my writing and purpose of writing that is confusing you, I think. > I'm attempting an explanation of why the connection of the word "indentured" to > any given person should not be assumed to mean that the person is an indentured > servant. > > You said: An "indentured servant" is merely a man or a woman, who has entered > into an employment contract for a specific term of years for an already agreed > upon consideration." > > and > > "The parent of a minor, who has apprenticed his or her child to a master, has > also entered into an education/employment contract for a specific period of time > for stated consideration. These were called Indentures of Apprenticeship. > (Black's Law Dictionary p. 911)" > > > You said " Saying that a legal document is an "indenture" is as specific as > saying that the said instrument was written on pink paper. The color of the > paper, as well as, the format in which an instrument is written falls into the > "so what" category. What is important is what kind of a contract are you > reading." > > I said "Being indentured, in itself, does not and did not mean more than > being in a contract or a legal agreement with another person or persons with > the terms of the indenture determined by document itself. In short, an > indenture is the general term for the format in which any number of agreements > could be written > Is this not the same? > > But then, I said "but unless specifically stated in the document itself, being > indentured was not synonymous with the word servant." and this needs rewording. > I know what I was trying to say and missed. I meant wished to put across the > idea that if a person was said to be indentured to another person, but the > terms of the indenture are not given,it meant only that there was a contract or > an agreement between these persons that could cover have covered a myriad of > topics only one of which would be the agreement to become an indentured servant. > The use of the word indenture without the terms of the Indenture being given > tells nothing more than that there is an agreement between the parties and an > obligation is established in the indenture. > > How is this different? Too wordy? Did I miss the point totally? What am I > leaving out? > > It's not just you, I had my husband read it and he was confused until I > explained the whole thing to him and this is what I didn't want to have to do. > > Perhaps I could just say that an indenture is a form of a contract and without > knowing the contents of the contract, one knows nothing about the purpose or > obligation inherent in the contract. Thus, the combining of the two words > indentured and servant based upon a document associating the word "indentured" > with a name means nothing unless the contents of the indenture are known. > Case in point, a man contracts with another for the production and delivery of > beer for an 8 year period in exchange for certain goods and properties. In > these same documents, this is later referred to as an indenture. The next > reference I see to this in another book, refers to the man as an indentured > servant and cites the above reference. > > And the other option is to trash what I have written and start over....Bah > Humbug.. Oh well, it wouldn't be the first time. > > Elizabeth > > > lbpotter@comcast.net wrote: > Elizabeth, > > I read your interpretation of my explanation and got confused. Let me start > again. > > You said: "An indenture was originally a contract between two or more parties, > written in duplicate or counter part all on the same piece of paper or > parchment, words or letters of the alphabet being written between the two > counterparts. The counterparts were then separated by cutting or tearing along a > wavy or indented line through these words or letters (hence the name > "indenture"), and each party received one of the counter parts. In case of later > dispute as to the authenticity of either of the counterparts they could be > fitted together to settle the question. (Ladner of Conveyancing in Pennsylvania > page 141.) > > > "An indenture was originally a contract between two or more parties, written in > duplicate or counter part all on the same piece of paper or parchment, words or > letters of the alphabet being written between the two counterparts. The > counterparts were then separated by cutting or tearing along a wavy or indented > line through these words or letters (hence the name "indenture"), and each party > received one of the counter parts. In case of later dispute as to the > authenticity of either of the counterparts they could be fitted together to > settle the question. (Ladner of Conveyancing in Pennsylvania page 141.) > > Also see Theodore Plucknett"s, A Concise History of the Common Law at pages > 612-613. Although I have a copy of Van Der Linden's Institutes of the Laws of > Holland and Xeroxed extensive portions of Simon Van Leeuwen's Commentaries of > the Roman Dutch Law, neither of these book speaks to the format of legal > instruments. > > An "indentured servant" is merely a man or a woman, who has entered into an > employment contract for a specific term of years for an already agreed upon > consideration. > > The parent of a minor, who has apprenticed his or her child to a master, has > also entered into an education/employment contract for a specific period of time > for stated consideration. These were called Indentures of Apprenticeship. > (Black's Law Dictionary p. 911) > > It is the subject matter and terms of the individual contract, which are > important not the format in which the contract is drafted. > > When I began working with the rangers at the Saratoga National Historical Park, > they used to get all excited when they found an "Indenture", until they got > tired of my asking them if the instrument were a deed, a mortgage, or an > employment contract. Saying that a legal document is an "indenture" is as > specific as saying that the said instrument was written on pink paper. The color > of the paper, as well as, the format in which an instrument is written falls > into the "so what" category. What is important is what kind of a contract are > you reading. > > Sincerely, > > Leslie > > -------------- Original message -------------- > From: Elizabeth Johnson > > > Thank you! As any good lawyer does, you have forced me to look at the bigger > > picture. It does help because I had narrowed my thinking down to the issue of > > indenture only in the terms of the person and the two most frequently seen > > applications of the word in both Dutch and English histories, excluding legal > > documents, and genealogies: The training of the person such as in the case of > a > > minor, who would be placed in an apprenticeships for training in exchange for > > whatever was specified, money or labour, for a specific amount of time. It > > seems that these are usually referred to by historians as apprenticeships such > > as "he apprenticed to...." which then hints at the nature of the endenture. > The > > general term would be indenture. The other usage, which is what I see when, > > reading through quite a few genealogies, is the word "indenture" combined with > > servant. I believe that in the 17th Century, this particular type of indenture > > placed the person into a state of servitude and > > allowed them to be categorized as an indentured servant, for a period of time > > in exchange for something of monetary value which in that era was often a > > passage from Europe to a determined destination. > > > > What you are saying is, I believe, is what I originally thought but somehow > > lost in my narrow focus: The discussion that started this train of thought was > > the classification of several persons as endentured servants based upon the > name > > of the person or persons being combined with the words "indentured to". Being > > indentured, in itself, does not and did not mean more than being in a contract > > or a legal agreement with another person or persons with the terms of the > > indenture determined by document itself. In short, an indenture is the general > > term for the format in which any number of agreements could be written but > > unless specifically stated in the documented itself, being indentured was not > > synonymous with the word servant. > > > > I'm frequently rushing when I pose a question to the list and should probably > > wait until I have the time to fully explain myself. > > > > lbpotter@comcast.net wrote: > > Elizabeth, > > > > An "Indenture" is just one of many types of format in which any number of > types > > of contracts can be written. Deeds, mortgages, contract for the sale of > chattel, > > and employment contracts are just a few of the types of instruments, which are > > commonly written in the "Indenture" format. All of the aforementioned > > instruments can also be written in other formats. > > > > What is significant is not the format in which the instrument is written, but > > rather the subject matter with which instrument deals. What is important is > > whether the instrument a deed, a mortgage, a contract for the sale of chattel > or > > an employment contract. > > > > Hope that this helps. > > > > Sincerely, > > > > Leslie Potter > > PA Atty ID # 16580 > > -------------- Original message -------------- > > From: Elizabeth Johnson > > > > > It wasn't too long ago that I asked a similar question and didn't get a > chance > > > to thank those who responded. I'm still on the same subject, but from > perhaps > > a > > > little different angle. If one boarded a ship in Texel, and paid for his own > > > trip and had a contract for specific services, for a specific time and wage > to > > > van Rensselaer, it is my impression that this is a contract as it is called > > but > > > not an indenture. A second party, on the same ship, has his passage paid but > > by > > > whom is unknown. He may have paid his own. The next mention of this second > > > person is when he draws his wages from the colony. Contract or indenture? or > > is > > > it possible to tell? > > > > > > Any help is appreciated > > > > > > Elizabeth > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > > > DUTCH-COLONIES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > > > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > > DUTCH-COLONIES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > > DUTCH-COLONIES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > DUTCH-COLONIES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > DUTCH-COLONIES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I really do understand! Nevertheless I appreciate your taking the time to go over this and point out the differences. As for apologizing for being a wordsmith as attorneys tend to be, I can only say that I've been doing reports for judges on various aspects of juvenile, family, and criminal life of various individuals in Massachusetts for years. I haven't had an attorney trip me up yet but they do try..and try..and try.. My secret is...when in doubt about the wording, call a friend, not on the case, who also happens to be an attorney and ask! The difficulty with indenture is what Agnes Cloniger wrote "One does tend to automatically append the word 'servant' to 'indentured' and that does not necessarily describe the precise intent of the contract." It drives me mad when whole scenarios are built around a person deemed an"indentured servant" because the word "indentured" is somewhere associated with his name. One example is the gentleman who was to provide so many barrels of beer over a specified period of time in exchange for a piece of property. This agreement was referred to as an indenture. Before long, I read that this gentleman was the indentured servant of the other party in this agreement. The source was the original agreement that I just described. Again, thank you... Elizabeth lbpotter@comcast.net wrote: Elizabeth, I don't know how to tell you this, but we attorneys are word-smiths. I felt that your translation of my explanation was a little imprecise, which is why I became confused by it in my fatigue Friday afternoon. Deeds and mortgages, which are written in the indenture format, usually start out with the following wording or similar wording... "This Indenture made this X day of Y month, in the year of Our Lord one thousand seven hundred eighty-nine, between John Jones, of the Borough of West Chester, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and Agnes Jones, his wife (hereinafter called the Grantors), of the first part, and Henry Brown also of the said Borough and Commonwealth (hereinafter call the Grantee), of the Second Part." When the instrument starts out saying "This Indenture" one is immediately alerted to the format of the document but not the subject of the instrument. So when my NPS-ranger-friends used to tell me that had found an "Indenture", they were using the word "Indenture" as a noun and substituting the word it for a more accurate term to describe the instrument in question. Therefore, I had to keep asking them what kind of an instrument were they were actually talking about - a deed, a mortgage, or an employment contract. Although I have not read an Indenture of Apprenticeship recently, I seem to remember that the wording of the first paragraph was very similar to the first paragraph of a deed, which has been written in indenture form. That is to say that the Indenture of Apprenticeship starts out "This Indenture made this X day of Y month, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred eighty-nine...." Please keep in mind that all employment contracts (even modern executive employment contracts) are in effect "MASTER-SERVANT" relationships. Now when you are dealing with a colonial employment contract in which the consideration for the term of labor is payment of a a person's ship-passage, the person, who is being bound, is said to be "indentured to the Master" with whom he is contracting. So the person, who is selling his labor to the Master in exchange for having his ship-passage to America is binding himself to the Master, usually for a period of seven years. By the act of contractually binding himself to the master, the servant is "indenturing" himself to the master; therefore he referred to as an "indentured" servant. The same linguistic acrobatics apply to a minor child, who has been "indentured" to a master craftsman for a period of years by his parents. I hope that this explanation makes your writing project a little easier for you. If you have any further questions please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Leslie -------------- Original message -------------- From: Elizabeth Johnson > And again, thank you for your time! What you are saying is what I understood, I > think it is my writing and purpose of writing that is confusing you, I think. > I'm attempting an explanation of why the connection of the word "indentured" to > any given person should not be assumed to mean that the person is an indentured > servant. > > You said: An "indentured servant" is merely a man or a woman, who has entered > into an employment contract for a specific term of years for an already agreed > upon consideration." > > and > > "The parent of a minor, who has apprenticed his or her child to a master, has > also entered into an education/employment contract for a specific period of time > for stated consideration. These were called Indentures of Apprenticeship. > (Black's Law Dictionary p. 911)" > > > You said " Saying that a legal document is an "indenture" is as specific as > saying that the said instrument was written on pink paper. The color of the > paper, as well as, the format in which an instrument is written falls into the > "so what" category. What is important is what kind of a contract are you > reading." > > I said "Being indentured, in itself, does not and did not mean more than > being in a contract or a legal agreement with another person or persons with > the terms of the indenture determined by document itself. In short, an > indenture is the general term for the format in which any number of agreements > could be written > Is this not the same? > > But then, I said "but unless specifically stated in the document itself, being > indentured was not synonymous with the word servant." and this needs rewording. > I know what I was trying to say and missed. I meant wished to put across the > idea that if a person was said to be indentured to another person, but the > terms of the indenture are not given,it meant only that there was a contract or > an agreement between these persons that could cover have covered a myriad of > topics only one of which would be the agreement to become an indentured servant. > The use of the word indenture without the terms of the Indenture being given > tells nothing more than that there is an agreement between the parties and an > obligation is established in the indenture. > > How is this different? Too wordy? Did I miss the point totally? What am I > leaving out? > > It's not just you, I had my husband read it and he was confused until I > explained the whole thing to him and this is what I didn't want to have to do. > > Perhaps I could just say that an indenture is a form of a contract and without > knowing the contents of the contract, one knows nothing about the purpose or > obligation inherent in the contract. Thus, the combining of the two words > indentured and servant based upon a document associating the word "indentured" > with a name means nothing unless the contents of the indenture are known. > Case in point, a man contracts with another for the production and delivery of > beer for an 8 year period in exchange for certain goods and properties. In > these same documents, this is later referred to as an indenture. The next > reference I see to this in another book, refers to the man as an indentured > servant and cites the above reference. > > And the other option is to trash what I have written and start over....Bah > Humbug.. Oh well, it wouldn't be the first time. > > Elizabeth > > > lbpotter@comcast.net wrote: > Elizabeth, > > I read your interpretation of my explanation and got confused. Let me start > again. > > You said: "An indenture was originally a contract between two or more parties, > written in duplicate or counter part all on the same piece of paper or > parchment, words or letters of the alphabet being written between the two > counterparts. The counterparts were then separated by cutting or tearing along a > wavy or indented line through these words or letters (hence the name > "indenture"), and each party received one of the counter parts. In case of later > dispute as to the authenticity of either of the counterparts they could be > fitted together to settle the question. (Ladner of Conveyancing in Pennsylvania > page 141.) > > > "An indenture was originally a contract between two or more parties, written in > duplicate or counter part all on the same piece of paper or parchment, words or > letters of the alphabet being written between the two counterparts. The > counterparts were then separated by cutting or tearing along a wavy or indented > line through these words or letters (hence the name "indenture"), and each party > received one of the counter parts. In case of later dispute as to the > authenticity of either of the counterparts they could be fitted together to > settle the question. (Ladner of Conveyancing in Pennsylvania page 141.) > > Also see Theodore Plucknett"s, A Concise History of the Common Law at pages > 612-613. Although I have a copy of Van Der Linden's Institutes of the Laws of > Holland and Xeroxed extensive portions of Simon Van Leeuwen's Commentaries of > the Roman Dutch Law, neither of these book speaks to the format of legal > instruments. > > An "indentured servant" is merely a man or a woman, who has entered into an > employment contract for a specific term of years for an already agreed upon > consideration. > > The parent of a minor, who has apprenticed his or her child to a master, has > also entered into an education/employment contract for a specific period of time > for stated consideration. These were called Indentures of Apprenticeship. > (Black's Law Dictionary p. 911) > > It is the subject matter and terms of the individual contract, which are > important not the format in which the contract is drafted. > > When I began working with the rangers at the Saratoga National Historical Park, > they used to get all excited when they found an "Indenture", until they got > tired of my asking them if the instrument were a deed, a mortgage, or an > employment contract. Saying that a legal document is an "indenture" is as > specific as saying that the said instrument was written on pink paper. The color > of the paper, as well as, the format in which an instrument is written falls > into the "so what" category. What is important is what kind of a contract are > you reading. > > Sincerely, > > Leslie > > -------------- Original message -------------- > From: Elizabeth Johnson > > > Thank you! As any good lawyer does, you have forced me to look at the bigger > > picture. It does help because I had narrowed my thinking down to the issue of > > indenture only in the terms of the person and the two most frequently seen > > applications of the word in both Dutch and English histories, excluding legal > > documents, and genealogies: The training of the person such as in the case of > a > > minor, who would be placed in an apprenticeships for training in exchange for > > whatever was specified, money or labour, for a specific amount of time. It > > seems that these are usually referred to by historians as apprenticeships such > > as "he apprenticed to...." which then hints at the nature of the endenture. > The > > general term would be indenture. The other usage, which is what I see when, > > reading through quite a few genealogies, is the word "indenture" combined with > > servant. I believe that in the 17th Century, this particular type of indenture > > placed the person into a state of servitude and > > allowed them to be categorized as an indentured servant, for a period of time > > in exchange for something of monetary value which in that era was often a > > passage from Europe to a determined destination. > > > > What you are saying is, I believe, is what I originally thought but somehow > > lost in my narrow focus: The discussion that started this train of thought was > > the classification of several persons as endentured servants based upon the > name > > of the person or persons being combined with the words "indentured to". Being > > indentured, in itself, does not and did not mean more than being in a contract > > or a legal agreement with another person or persons with the terms of the > > indenture determined by document itself. In short, an indenture is the general > > term for the format in which any number of agreements could be written but > > unless specifically stated in the documented itself, being indentured was not > > synonymous with the word servant. > > > > I'm frequently rushing when I pose a question to the list and should probably > > wait until I have the time to fully explain myself. > > > > lbpotter@comcast.net wrote: > > Elizabeth, > > > > An "Indenture" is just one of many types of format in which any number of > types > > of contracts can be written. Deeds, mortgages, contract for the sale of > chattel, > > and employment contracts are just a few of the types of instruments, which are > > commonly written in the "Indenture" format. All of the aforementioned > > instruments can also be written in other formats. > > > > What is significant is not the format in which the instrument is written, but > > rather the subject matter with which instrument deals. What is important is > > whether the instrument a deed, a mortgage, a contract for the sale of chattel > or > > an employment contract. > > > > Hope that this helps. > > > > Sincerely, > > > > Leslie Potter > > PA Atty ID # 16580 > > -------------- Original message -------------- > > From: Elizabeth Johnson > > > > > It wasn't too long ago that I asked a similar question and didn't get a > chance > > > to thank those who responded. I'm still on the same subject, but from > perhaps > > a > > > little different angle. If one boarded a ship in Texel, and paid for his own > > > trip and had a contract for specific services, for a specific time and wage > to > > > van Rensselaer, it is my impression that this is a contract as it is called > > but > > > not an indenture. A second party, on the same ship, has his passage paid but > > by > > > whom is unknown. He may have paid his own. The next mention of this second > > > person is when he draws his wages from the colony. Contract or indenture? or > > is > > > it possible to tell? > > > > > > Any help is appreciated > > > > > > Elizabeth > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > > > DUTCH-COLONIES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > > > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > > DUTCH-COLONIES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > > DUTCH-COLONIES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > DUTCH-COLONIES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > DUTCH-COLONIES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to DUTCH-COLONIES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Thanks Pete. Adam was probably operating the Gowanus mill by 1656 when he sold his Manhattan property though I don't believe there are any records of exactly when he made the move from Manhattan to Long Island. Steve ---- "j. gonigam" <gonigam@gmail.com> wrote: > As I recall, one or more of the Brouwer children at the time of marriage > was/were listed as being "from" Gowanus. That doesn't pin down Adam > Brouwer's exact location but it seems to set > his domicile somewhat more precisely than "Long Island." > > --pete

Assuming New York County and Otsego County work alike, this is not a "book" at all, and hence not in any library. Rather it is a reference to the series of manuscript volumes officially recording deeds in New York County, kept wherever New York County official records are kept. Liber A means, in effect, Volume 1, and 69 would be the page number. Unless somebody has transcribed and published these records, you would have to go to the original in New York City to see it. Hugh MacDougall, Cooperstown. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Brewer" <slbrewer@fuse.net> To: <dutch-colonies@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, April 16, 2007 2:51 PM Subject: Re: [DUTCH-COLONIES] Help with Adam Brouwer reference > Also, being a newbie to colonial dutch reference books. What is Lib. A > and is it still generally available in decent genealogical libraries? > > Thanks, > Steve > > ---- Howard Swain <hswain@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> The most complete abstract is probably the one in Stokes' Iconography vol >> II, p. 368. >> He cites: "Lib. A, Deeds, N. Y. Co.: 69" This is lot 5 on his Dutch >> Grants map >> and appears to be where you said, but in a little from the two streets so >> that there >> are other lots between it and the streets. >> Stokes' version says nothing about Long Island. > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > DUTCH-COLONIES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

As I recall, one or more of the Brouwer children at the time of marriage was/were listed as being "from" Gowanus. That doesn't pin down Adam Brouwer's exact location but it seems to set his domicile somewhat more precisely than "Long Island." --pete ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Brewer" <slbrewer@fuse.net> To: "dutch-colonies: rootsweb.com" <dutch-colonies@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, April 16, 2007 12:26 PM Subject: [DUTCH-COLONIES] Help with Adam Brouwer reference > With all the expertise on this list, I'm hoping someone will be able to point me in the right direction. > On August 19, 1656 Adam Brouwer sold his lot in Manhattan to Dirck van Schelluyne. Most people when mentioning this, note the date the transaction took place and the quote that Adam was 'at present living on Long Island" and nothing more. The most detailed reference I've found is in Historic Homes and Institutions and genealogical and Family History of New York by William Pelletreau which has the additional detail of "a house and lot north of begun graft, between the lot of Jan the Cooper on the west, and Egbert Woutersen on the east". From this and other info that I've been able to dig up, this was at the corner of Beaver and Broadway. > In Floyd Brewer's book on Adam Brouwer he notes the source for this as 1 N.Y. Col. MSS, 8;821 in Alfred H. Brower's The Brouwer and Brower Genealogy, 1985:13. I don't have access to either this book or NY Colonial Manuscripts but it is my understanding that Volume 8 is Land Papers, volumes GG, HH & II. I do have access to this but didn't find the record of this sale. > I'd really like to get the full text of this land transaction. Does anyone have access to N.Y. Col. MSS 8? Am I wrong that volume 8 is the Land Papers book? Does anyone know the full text of this land transaction? Any help would be appreciated. > > Thanks, > Steve Brewer > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to DUTCH-COLONIES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Also, being a newbie to colonial dutch reference books. What is Lib. A and is it still generally available in decent genealogical libraries? Thanks, Steve ---- Howard Swain <hswain@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > The most complete abstract is probably the one in Stokes' Iconography vol II, p. 368. > He cites: "Lib. A, Deeds, N. Y. Co.: 69" This is lot 5 on his Dutch Grants map > and appears to be where you said, but in a little from the two streets so that there > are other lots between it and the streets. > Stokes' version says nothing about Long Island.

Howard, Thanks for this and all your help. What do you think Stokes was referring to when he said "All subsequent transcriptions prove this desc. erroneous."? I do have access to both Valentine and Stokes. I'll try to take a look at them tomorrow. Thanks, Steve

Does anyone know anything about the Ousterhout family who went into the Wyoming Valley either from Orange County or Dutchess County, NY? I've heard both origins and maybe both are correct, indicating their migration. I am researching a Mary Osterhout born in PA in the early 1800s. None of the accounts I've seen are documented; they appear to be family legend. I'm looking for better evidence! Some accounts say Mary Osterhout was born in 1810, but have her married to John Buck in 1817! John was enumerated with a wife Mary in the 1850 census of Nicholson Township, Wyoming Co, PA, the same place he had lived in 1840 although it was then part of Luzerne County. In 1820 and 1830 he was in Lenox Township, Susquehannah County. He clearly had two wives, both of whom might have been named Mary. Or Mary Osterhout might have been the second wife and therefore not the mother of all the children. [John's first wife was born 1794-1800 (based on ages in censuses of 1820 and 1830). The Mary on the 1850 census was age 40, therefore born about 1810. In 1820 there are Osterhouts in Nicholson Township, Luzerne County, (Webster and Samuel) but none in Susquehanna County. In 1830 there are Osterhouts in Nicholson Township, Luzerne County (Webster and Hiram), and in Tunkhannock Township (David), but none in Susquehanna. In 1840, John Buck was living in Nicholson Township, Luzerne County, 3 doors away from Webster Osterhout. In 1810 John Buck was probably with his father Andrew in Clifford Township, Luzerne County. John's father Andrew Buck lived in Tuckhannock Township, Luzerne County in 1800, in the same neighborhood with John, Jeremiah, David, and Isaac Osterhout. Hence, he was living in close proximity to Osterhouts when he married both wives, and either could be the Mary Osterhout written into family records without documentation. Documentation of a relationship between Bucks and Osterhouts in any of these places would be greatly appreciated. Karen Karen Mauer Green 113 Pioneer St. Cooperstown, NY 13326 ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.

With all the expertise on this list, I'm hoping someone will be able to point me in the right direction. On August 19, 1656 Adam Brouwer sold his lot in Manhattan to Dirck van Schelluyne. Most people when mentioning this, note the date the transaction took place and the quote that Adam was 'at present living on Long Island" and nothing more. The most detailed reference I've found is in Historic Homes and Institutions and genealogical and Family History of New York by William Pelletreau which has the additional detail of "a house and lot north of begun graft, between the lot of Jan the Cooper on the west, and Egbert Woutersen on the east". From this and other info that I've been able to dig up, this was at the corner of Beaver and Broadway. In Floyd Brewer's book on Adam Brouwer he notes the source for this as 1 N.Y. Col. MSS, 8;821 in Alfred H. Brower's The Brouwer and Brower Genealogy, 1985:13. I don't have access to either this book or NY Colonial Manuscripts but it is my understanding that Volume 8 is Land Papers, volumes GG, HH & II. I do have access to this but didn't find the record of this sale. I'd really like to get the full text of this land transaction. Does anyone have access to N.Y. Col. MSS 8? Am I wrong that volume 8 is the Land Papers book? Does anyone know the full text of this land transaction? Any help would be appreciated. Thanks, Steve Brewer

Arnoldus de la Grange and Cornelia de la Fontaine baptized a son Arnoldus in New York (NA) DRC on on 22 January 1679. Witnesses were Jeremias Janszen and Sara de Foreest. Can someone help me with the identities of these two witnesses? On the Jeremias Janszen here I have no clue --can someone identify him?? Which Sara de Foreest was this? I don't seem to have a Sara de foreest the right age. Could this have been Sara du Trieux, wife of Isaac de Foreest? I have no death date for her --was she still around by 1679? She would have been maybe 54 or so. If this is Sara du Trieux, she is "almost" a great-aunt of this little Arnoldus: Back in 1641, Sarah du Trieux married Isaac de Foreest, whose father Jesse de Foreest was a brother of Gerard de Forest, who was married on 12 August 1611 in Leyden, to Hester de la Grange --who is probably a sister of Pieter de la Grange, father of Joost, father of Arnoldus, whose son Arnoldus Jr. is being baptized in NYDRC in 1679. Or am I missing another Sara de Foreest, who was old enough to witness this baptism in 1679? Please would someone help me with the identities of these two witnesses. Thanks very much, Liz J

Hi Steve, From: "Steve Brewer" <slbrewer@fuse.net> Sent: Monday, April 16, 2007 10:26 AM Subject: [DUTCH-COLONIES] Help with Adam Brouwer reference > With all the expertise on this list, I'm hoping someone will be able to point me in the right direction. > On August 19, 1656 Adam Brouwer sold his lot in Manhattan to Dirck van Schelluyne. Most people when mentioning this, note the date the transaction took place and the quote that Adam was 'at present living on Long Island" and nothing more. The most detailed reference I've found is in Historic Homes and Institutions and genealogical and Family History of New York by William Pelletreau which has the additional detail of "a house and lot north of begun graft, between the lot of Jan the Cooper on the west, and Egbert Woutersen on the east". From this and other info that I've been able to dig up, this was at the corner of Beaver and Broadway. > In Floyd Brewer's book on Adam Brouwer he notes the source for this as 1 N.Y. Col. MSS, 8;821 in Alfred H. Brower's The Brouwer and Brower Genealogy, 1985:13. I don't have access to either this book or NY Colonial Manuscripts but it is my understanding that Volume 8 is Land Papers, volumes GG, HH & II. I do have access to this but didn't find the record of this sale. > I'd really like to get the full text of this land transaction. Does anyone have access to N.Y. Col. MSS 8? Am I wrong that volume 8 is the Land Papers book? Does anyone know the full text of this land transaction? Any help would be appreciated.< The most complete abstract is probably the one in Stokes' Iconography vol II, p. 368. He cites: "Lib. A, Deeds, N. Y. Co.: 69" This is lot 5 on his Dutch Grants map and appears to be where you said, but in a little from the two streets so that there are other lots between it and the streets. Stokes' version says nothing about Long Island. However, David Valentine's Manual of the Corporation of the City of New York for 1861 has a section titled "Old Conveyances in the Time of New Amsterdam". On p. 589 he has an abstract beginning: "19th August 1656. Adam Brouwer, of Long Island, to Dirck van Schelluyne, Notary Public and concierge of the City. A house and lot north of the begun Graft, ..." I do not know what " 1 N.Y. Col. MSS, 8;821" refers to. I doubt that it is Land Papers GG, HH, & II. (Under O'Callaghan's numbering scheme vol 8 is Council Minutes; and p. 821 (as in his Calendar) has nothing to do with Adam or land.) Land Papers GG on original p.l67 (p. 48 of the printed book) has the original grant to Adam in 1647. Note that Stokes says that: "All subsequent transcriptions prove this desc. erroneous." (It also says nothing about Long Island.) Regards, Howard hswain@ix.netcom.com

Dear Liz-- Sorry for the delay. I'm in the middle of remodeling the library/office and I've had a computer crash. Reconstructing files after the latter has caused me to look further into the matter of Jan Theunissen at New Amstel. You'll find Jan Teunissen and his wife Tryntien Croonenburg in some sort of mess at New Amstel in 1659 here (pp-382-4): http://books.google.com/books?vid=0DwhrCumWqjRdQUli2jYKbk&id=skAOAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA382&lpg=PA382&dq=%22jan+teunissen%22#PPA382,M1 This looks rather like it might have been the source for Riker's assertion that Jan Theunissen, later a resident of Harlem, spent some time in Delaware. I'm not at all sure this is the same Jan Theunissen, however. We start with: 1655 04 Dec; Jan Theuniszen van Tilburg; Tryntje Pieters, van Amsterdam Tryntje Pieters may be the 23 year old "orphan" who arrived in New Amsterdam shortly before this but if this is so, it must have been a whirlwind courtship. In any case, burrowing through the New Amsterdam DRC records shows that Jan Theunissen/Jan Van Tilburg married someone named Tryntje Pieters. Ryker thinks this is the Jan Theunissen banished from either New Albany or New Amsterdam itself for selling liquor to Indians. I've found circumstancial evidence to support this but it is hardly compelling; I can't find a record of Tryntje Pieters in Albany at this point. This is followed by--nothing in New Amsterdam DRC, anyway, until: 1663, Jun 13; Willem Simonszen, Jannetie Barents; Lysbeth; Jan Theuniszen, Tryntie Kroonenburg That seems to fit with the New Amstel record but nothing here says Jan Theuniszen and Tryntie Kroonenburg are married. There is this complicating entry at New Amsterdam: 1659 28 Jul; Jeams Braddys, wid Hanna Manning; Catharina Cronenburg, wid Pieter Albertszen Just to REALLY complicate things, someone named "Jeems Brady" and someone named Jan Teunissen were both supposed to be adminstrators in an Ophanmasters proceeding in 1659: http://books.google.com/books?vid=0BWupAp3DVP0xgwKqId&id=gHrQGIAXVioC&pg=PA73&lpg=PA73&dq=%22jan+teunissen%22+orphanmasters#PPA73,M1 The dates of Jan Theunissen's appearances in the Orphanmaster proceedings don't actually overlap those of the New Amstel imbroglio but they're disturbingly close together for a man to be a fugitive in one location and a pest in a court proceeding in another. The 1663 baptism above seems to involve the Jannetje Barents, widow of Willem Simons, who married a soldier named Hendrick Claeszen 5 July, 1664. (There was another Jannetje Barents who married soldier Jan van der Linden and later Jan Piertszen Bosch--I think.) I have yet to figure out who either husband was or who Jannetje Barents was but none of these people is among those whom I have come to think of as "the usual suspects" in other records relating to Jan Theunissen Van Tilburg. The last entry relating to someone named Jan Theunissen in the Orphanmaster records says he was a shoemaker. Jan Theunissen Van Tilburg seems to have been a carpenter and/or farmer so we may have a case of yet another unidentified Jan Theunissen here. This might help explain the otherwise puzzling matter of Tryntje Pieters deciding to adopt the name "Tryntje Cronenburg" for a while and then reverting to the name Tryntje Pieters for the remainder of her life. *********************************** Also a correction to an earlier post I made: I mistakenly indicated Sara Payne, wife of Luykas Van Arnhem had been a prisoner of the British during the Revolution. In fact, it was Sara Pierson, wife of Luykas' brother Isaac, who is thought to have been a prisoner of the Brits; apparently this traces to an article in the Burlington (Vermont) Free Press, Sept. 5, 1877. --pete ----- Original Message ----- From: "E Johnson" <iris.gates@gmail.com> To: <dutch-colonies@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 11:19 PM Subject: Re: [DUTCH-COLONIES] Theunis / VanArnhem genealogy > Pete, > > Can you give the year that Jan Teunissen was in jail in Delaware. > > Also, to whom did he apply for work as a soldier? > > > Riker was right that Jan Theunissen > tried to become a solider in Delaware but he missed the man's being in > jail there for something (the nature of which is not clear). > > I'd like to chase that a little bit and see where it leads. Penna Archives > might have something but I could use a few more details. > > Thank you, > Liz J > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to DUTCH-COLONIES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I think you will find that the word "indenture" itself comes from the Latin for tooth or toothed. An "indenture" was in its simplist form a way of ensuring the authenticity of a document. A contract, mortgage, or other agreement would be written in two copies on a single sheet of paper or parchment, with a space between the copies. They would then be cut apart in a jagged (toothed) line (or sometimes just a "wavy" line), and each side would keep one part. The proof of authenticity would be that the two parts matched. Presumably, in the case of an indentured servant (like Frederick in The Pirates of Penzance) both master and servant would have a copy, and thus irrefutable proof of the agreement and whether or not it had come to an end. Hugh MacDougall, Cooperstown, NY

Agnes Thank you! Sometimes I struggle with wording something that I understand but yet find that putting it across in writing for everyone's comprehension a monstrous task! Agnes Cloninger <agnesec@cableone.net> wrote: Elizabeth Well done - I also looked in Black's Law Dictionary and although their definition was clear to me I was unable to couch it in terms that would be generally understood. One does tend to automatically append the word 'servant' to 'indentured' and that does not necessarily describe the precise intent of the contract. Thank you, Agnes On Apr 14, 2007, at 1:04 AM, dutch-colonies-request@rootsweb.com wrote IN PART: > Perhaps I could just say that an indenture is a form of a > contract and without knowing the contents of the contract, one > knows nothing about the purpose or obligation inherent in the > contract. Thus, the combining of the two words indentured and > servant based upon a document associating the word "indentured" > with a name means nothing unless the contents of the indenture are > known. Case in point, a man contracts with another for the > production and delivery of beer for an 8 year period in exchange > for certain goods and properties. In these same documents, this is > later referred to as an indenture. The next reference I see to > this in another book, refers to the man as an indentured servant > and cites the above reference. > > And the other option is to trash what I have written and start > over....Bah Humbug.. Oh well, it wouldn't be the first time. > > Elizabeth ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to DUTCH-COLONIES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Elizabeth Well done - I also looked in Black's Law Dictionary and although their definition was clear to me I was unable to couch it in terms that would be generally understood. One does tend to automatically append the word 'servant' to 'indentured' and that does not necessarily describe the precise intent of the contract. Thank you, Agnes On Apr 14, 2007, at 1:04 AM, dutch-colonies-request@rootsweb.com wrote IN PART: > Perhaps I could just say that an indenture is a form of a > contract and without knowing the contents of the contract, one > knows nothing about the purpose or obligation inherent in the > contract. Thus, the combining of the two words indentured and > servant based upon a document associating the word "indentured" > with a name means nothing unless the contents of the indenture are > known. Case in point, a man contracts with another for the > production and delivery of beer for an 8 year period in exchange > for certain goods and properties. In these same documents, this is > later referred to as an indenture. The next reference I see to > this in another book, refers to the man as an indentured servant > and cites the above reference. > > And the other option is to trash what I have written and start > over....Bah Humbug.. Oh well, it wouldn't be the first time. > > Elizabeth