E Johnson <iris.gates@gmail.com> wrote: >Hi Renee, > >Thank you for the record and the second wife of John Lake. > >This is very interesting, and maybe for more than Johnson-Van Nuys >descendants, and the Sutphen descendants, and so forth. Maybe it would also >interest some of the Sickels descendants. > >Lambert Sickels (one of several sons of Zacharias) was from Albany, and >came to NY sometime before 1692, when he and wife Maria Jans baptized a son >Johannes in the NYDRC. Here is a collection of data about him, collected >some 10 years ago by Laurie Lightfoot: >http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/SICKLES/2002-06/1023901198 > >And a RW website has more info, including what appears to be an extract >from Riker's "Harlem", on Joan School Francis' database: >http://wc.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=joanfran&id=I06834 > >This 1712 case in Flatbush is just such a minimal entry, but very >interesting. It concerned two daughters of Jan Jacobs aka van Rheenen >(Elizabeth and Eva), against Lambert Sickels. He was born ca 1666 >(apprenticed 1680 in Albany). He is approximately the same age as Elizabeth >and Eva, daughters of Jan Jacobs aka van Rheenen, who start having children >in the late 1670's and early 1680's. Lambert Sickels had five children by >1698 (Long Island census). > >Jan Jacobs aka van Rheenen had married Geertje Gysberts, and after his >death, Geertje married Auke Jans van Nuys, the father of Jan Aukes van >Nuys, Eva (van Rheenen) Jans' husband. They were in Brooklyn as early as >1662, when Jan Jacobs van Rheenen and Geertje Gysberts baptized a son Jacob >in October 1662. See New Netherland Connections Vol. 2 (1997), p. 35. > >Now I wonder if Maria Jans, wife of Lambert Sickels, had been another >daughter of Jan Jacobs aka van Rheenen, who had died before 1712. Perhaps a >dispute had arisen concerning the distribution of Jan Jacobs van Rheenen's >and Geertje Gysberts' mutual estate. > >Maybe other records will turn up in the various records of Flatbush >concerning Lambert Sickels, that would give some indication of who his wife >had been. Or more about what the lawsuit concerned. > >Thanks again, >Liz J > > > >On 27 December 2012 21:27, Renee L. Dauven <promine@web-ster.com> wrote: > >> Hope you all are having pleasant holidays. >> I have added one new document to my website. Although it holds >> interest to a much smaller group of researchers than the previous lists >> might have held, it will be very interesting to that smaller group. >> The document is an entry in what appears to be the Court of >> Sessions >> Minute book for a court held in Flatbush on 30 April 1712. It seems to >> be the only record of a second marriage for John Lake, son of John Lake >> and Anne Spicer. John is known to have married Neeltje Claeszen as his >> first wife. At the time he worte his will in 1723, he makes reference >> to his wife, Mayke. This document shows that he had a another wife >> between these two. >> Thus this second wife was Elizabeth Jans. From the context of the >> law >> suit and the identity of her co-plaintiff, she is to be identified as >> Lisbet Jans van Rheenen, daughter of Jan Jacobsen (van Rheenen) and >> Geertje Gysbrechts. Her sister, called "Evah Oke" in this document, is >> the co-plaintiff. Eva was married to Jan Aukes (sometimes Van Nuys), >> the son of Auke Jansen Van Nuys and Magdalena Pieters. Geertje married >> Auke Jansen as her second husband. >> The specifics of the case are not given but the record does state >> that >> the two plaintiffs are heir to "John Jacobse late of Bedford" and that >> it is an action "de morte ancestors". >> They are suing Lamber Sychels, about whom I have failed to learn >> anything. However the case has been allowed to abate and judgment does >> to Lambert. >> The source for this document is part of the >> Translations/Transliterations series for the Town Records of Long >> Island. Labeled as "Court and Road Records. 1668-1766" vol. 2, it is >> itemized on the Archives Master Sheets (their finding aid) with the only >> remaining volume of Brooklyn Records (Town Meetings 1785-1823) and is on >> the same reel of film as those records. For that reason, I have >> included it in the Brooklyn folder on my web-site. Also this particular >> volume is lacking the usual certificate at the end which gives the >> transcriber/translators statement. The statement by the County Clerk is >> included, dated Feb 1906. The writing appears to be that of Frank L. >> Van Cleef. >> >> Hope some at least of you will enjoy this and find it useful. >> >> Renee L. Dauven >> >> >> >> >> ************** >> For New Netherland Resources - ships lists, church records, land records >> and more visit http://olivetreegenealogy.com/nn/ >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> NEW-NETHERLAND-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 >

In this 1706 Orange County, NY deed, there are several places where"her merck" is used, but for the names of men. I assume from the usage that "her" doesn't mean a female, but is a pronpun that includes men. I checked Bing and Google's translators, but they weren't helpful as their translations were both "re merck". This is the deed, "her merck" entered on the bottom of the right-hand page: https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-1971-32875-17679-2?cc=2078654&wc=M9M4-JGS:1748883472 Thank you, Julia

This is simply a transcription error. These entries should read 'het merck' (the mark), rather than 'her merck'. When making this transcription, someone had read the final 't' in 'het' as an 'r'. Sometimes these ending t's (or anywhere in the word really), look more like a tall 'r' and are not crossed the way we see it today. The term on the right there, 'ickals getuygen' is funky, too. Probably was meant" 'ick als getuygen' which doesn't come out in good English, but would translate as 'I as witnesses'. actually it says 'witnesses' but again we don't know if the transcriber hallucinated a final n (pluralizing it), or whether it was actually there. In 1706 the language was certainly in transition, and some of the provincial documents I've seen in the last few years have some pretty strange-looking Dutch. Wow. Some of those NY Land records here are very hard to find. But it's wonderful that they are there. Liz J On 12 March 2013 16:10, juliasgenes <juliasgenes@yahoo.com> wrote: > In this 1706 Orange County, NY deed, there are several places where"her > merck" is used, but for the names of men. I assume from the usage that > "her" doesn't mean a female, but is a pronpun that includes men. I checked > Bing and Google's translators, but they weren't helpful as their > translations were both "re merck". > > This is the deed, "her merck" entered on the bottom of the right-hand > page: > https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-1971-32875-17679-2?cc=2078654&wc=M9M4-JGS:1748883472 > > Thank you, Julia >