Records for Symon Jansen ROMEYN:
Symon Jansen ROMEYN, born in 1629, emigrated from Amsterdam, probably in 1653, and married Jan. 1, 1671 to Sophia Jans.1 Settled at first in New Amsterdam, and then in Flatland, where his name appears on the ass. rolls of 1675,2 and where in 1664, he made an affidavit relating to Capt. Scott's raid, as per p.482 of Vol. II of Doc. of Col. His.3 He also in 1664, after the conquest of the colony, took the oath of allegiance in N.Y. to the English.4 In 1680, he bought land in Bergen County, New Jersey, as per page 69 of Winfield's Land Titles of Hudson Co., to which he probably eventually removed.5 Mar. 1 1680-81, he conveyed to Adriaen Van Laer, a house and lot in Flatland, giving his residence as in the city of New York, as per p. 47 of Lib. A of Flatbush records.6 Signed his name "Symon Jansen ROMEYN" and sometimes, "Symon Jansen." No account of his descendants.
"Appeared before me, Johannes la Montagne, in the service of the
General Chartered West India Company commissary at Fort Orange and the
village of Beverwyck, in the presence of the hereinafter named witness,
Pieter Jansen van Stockholm, late soldier of the aforesaid company, who
declared that he had constituted, as he hereby does constitute and appoint,
the worthy Symon Janssen Romeyn, trader at Amsterdam in New Netherland,
his attorney, in the principal's name and on his behalf to demand and receive
from the General Chartered West India Company, at the Chamber at Amsterdam,
the sum of four hundred and twenty-nine guilders, nine stivers and eight
pence, which the principal has earned at Amsterdam in New Netherland of
the aforesaid company, as appears by the account subscribed on the debit
side Carel van Brugen and on the credit side P. Stuyvesant; with poser
likewise one or more in his place to substitute in case the attorney shall
deem this advisable; for receipts acquittance to give and in said matter
to act as if the principal were present, who promises to hold good and
valid whatever the attorney shall do in said matter, for which he binds
his person and estate, real and personal, submitting the same to all courts
and judges. Done in fort Orange, the 23d of November Ao. 1658, in
presence of Johannes Provoost and Jan Cloet. Signed: Pieter Janssen v.
Stokholm Johannes Provoost, witness Johannsz Clute Acknowledged before
me, La Montagne, Commissary at Fort Orange
[These records have been arranged by court case for better continuity.]
Vol. 3, p. 36, 50
Simon Janzen Romein vs Cornelis Willemzen
2 Sept 1659 Symon Janzen Romein, pltf. v/s Cornelis Willemzen, carpenter, deft. Deft. in default.
16 Sept 1659 Symon Janzen Romain demands, that the Bailiff shall proceed with the execution of the judgment against Cornelis Willemsen. The Court order the Bailiff to proceed with the execution.
Vol. 3, p. 89, 93, 100, 127, 137, 227, 228
Frerick Aarzen vs Jan Eraat
9 Dec 1659 Frerick Aarzen, pltf. v/s Jan Eraat, deft. Pltf. producing in writing his demand requests, that deft. shall be condemned to repair honorably and profitably the injuries doe to his wife. Deft. produces a certain letter purporting that some ells of linen were given to pltf's wife to be handed him, which he did not receive. Request to know, where the same remain? Pltf. is asked, whether his wife has received the linen? Answers, she rec'd 10 3/4 ells of linen, but says, knows nothing of it. The Court order the pltf., that his wife must appear in person on the next Court day bringing, if she can, with her proof, that she gave the linen to some person at Fort Orange.
16 Dec 1659 Grietje Aarens, pltf. v/s John Eraat, deft. Deft. is at the Esopus. Pltf. is informed, that deft. demands linen from her, whereunto she answers, that she demands, what she hands in, in writing; and whereas party is not present the matter is post-poned till his arrival.
13 Jan 1660 Grietje Pieters, pltf. v/s Jan Errat, deft. Pltf. produces her demand against the deft. in writing for injuries she received from him. Deft. exhibits certain declarations of Symon Janzen Romein and Stoffel Jansen, carpenter, against which pltf. has declared, that she received a piece of linen fro shirts from Mighiel, a sailor, to hand them to Jan Errat. The Court order the pltf. to make good to the deft. so many ells of linen as she received from Mighiel, the sailor.
27 Jan 1660 Jan Eraat appears in Court exhibiting the judgment pronounced by the Court between him and Margriet Pieters, and the return of the Court Messenger to the notice served on her; whereupon he was told, first to take the linen, she offers and he have any further claim he can then institute his action again.
24 Feb 1660 Jan Eraat, pltf. v/s Grietje Pieters, deft. Pltf. says, he comes again for the linen, producing the judgment of the Court dated 13th January of this year, 1660. Deft. says, the linen is attached and that the man, who attached it, is satisfied with her. Pltf. says, that the deft. will not give him back more than 10 and 3'4 ells, and cannot obtain six shirts from it. The Court order the deft. to deposit the linen in question, within twice twenty four hours, with the Secretary of this City.
5 Oct 1660 Jan Eraat, appears in Court requesting execution on the judgment against Grietje Pieters. The Court order the Bailiff to execute these.
12 Oct 1660 Grietje Pieters, pltf. v/s Jan Eraat, deft. Pltf. wants to know, what claim deft. has against her, inasmuch as she accounted for the linen according to order. Deft. says, she accounted only for 10/14 ells and there is not sufficient linen for him to get six shirts from. Pltf. says, she had no more linen from him. Deft. answers, that pltf. admitted to Simon Jansen Romein and Stoffel Jansen, carpenter, that she received enough of line for him for six shirts, where of he had exhibited an affidavit, as the judgment dated 13 January last proves. Jan Erat was ordered to cal Simon Jansen Romein, who appearing was asked, if Grietje Pieters admitted to him, that she received from Jan Eraat a piece of linen for six shirts? Answers, that Grietje Pieters had said so and that she had given it to a woman who had left for Fort Orange. Symon Jansen having read to him the contents of his written declaration dated 13 Jan 1660 exhibited in Court by Jan Eraat, was asked, If he will confirm the same on oath? Answers, Yes. Which was stated to Grietje Pieters, who was called in, who, thereupon answered, then I will pay it. And whereas Symon Jansen Romeyn on being sent for to Court to confirm his declaration by oath, excuses himself, that he cannot do it as he has people with him, the matter was postponed by the Court until the next Court day.
Volume 3:228, 316
Friday 10 June 1661 in the City Hall
Annetje Minnes, widow of Cornelia Nysen, late soldier of the Ft. Hon'ble Director General, going on her three and twentieth year, born in Amsterdam, and Neeltje Pieters, wife of ROMEYN, the carman, also going on her three and twentieth year, born at Sardam, being sent for to Court appear.
The officer says, that they, under pretext of buying some linen, having stolen some goods from the house of Symon Jansen ROMEYN, concluding that they shall be corrected and punished therefor.
Neeltje Peiters denies having stolen the goods. The Officer undertakes, to prove it, requesting that Neeltje and Annetje shall go to prison until he shall take further information in the matter. Whereupon Annetje declares, that she said to Neeltje at the house of Symon Jansen ROMEYN, Give me a pair of stockings; which Neeltje did, giving her three pairs. Neeltje says, that she thought, that was in trade. Symon Jansen ROMEYN brought by the Court messenger, appears, is asked what theft was committed at his house and was told to speak the precise truth; answering says, five to six pairs and some galloon and other cord is stolen which is by the above names Annetje and Neeltje, who bought at his house one or two ells fine linen and buttons and that he had received them back. The declaration of Symon Jansen ROMEYN being read to Annetje and Neeltje, Annetje says, that Neeltje gave her the stockings and that Neeltje sold the stockings to Hilletje, the baker's. Neeltje says that Annetje sold her the stockings for a crown. Symon Jansen ROMEYN again entering says, he got back five pairs of stockings, three pairs of white and one pair of gray; and that he being a certain time at a house in Pearl Street, was asked If he had buyers at his house without money, telling him of the stolen goods, and that they were carried hither and thither, and had received them back from Jurrien, the goldsmith, Cornelis Langevelt, Helletje, the baker's, also a pair of slippers from Hendrick Asureus and some black lace, yarn, silk and silk ribbon, missed but cannot say where it remained. Neeltje acknowledged to have sold the stockings; three pairs to Hilletje, the baker's, and one pair to Jan, the carman's wife, and that Symon Jansen has had one pair of hose, and says she bought the stockings from Annetje. Annetje denies it. Annetje says, that Neeltje stole a napkin and a salter. Neetje say, that Annetje put the stockings in her bosom at Symon Jansen Romayn's house; also brought some goods to her house. Neeltje acknowledges to have sold a piece of cord to Harry Breser; one bought from Annetje. Annetje denies it. Annetje and Neeltje were asked about the black lace and thread, and silk and ribbon. Answer, that did not take any. Annetje says, that Neeltje stole a napkin and salt cellar from Tryn Claas, which Neeltje denies. Annetje says, that Neeltje did it, drawing it afterward out of her bag. Tryn Claas appearing in Court was asked, if a certain female had stolen anything from her? Answers, No; but that Cornelis Lagevelt's wife lost a napkin. Neeltje asks Tryn Claas about the stockings to sell, and that she had put them to her bosom at Symon Jansen's. Annetje confesses, she gave Neeltje the stockings and says that Neeltje told her that she had not paid for the stockings; whereupon she said; Bless us, what have you done! and let it remain there, thinking as there followed no inquiry, that there would be no harm. Merritje, wife of Cornelis Langevelt, appearing in Court, is asked, if she had at any time, lost a napkin and salt cellar? Answers, Yes, but know not who took them, and that they were brought back by ROMEYN's wife, believing that they were taken from her. Neeltje confesses to have taken the napkins and says that Annetje Afterwards brought the salt home to her, and that Annetje gave her a piece of lace which she had taken from Pieter Jacobson's Merritje. Neeltje acknowledges to have taken it from Symon Jansen ROMEYN, and to have brought it back. Merritje, the wife of Cornelis Langevelt is asked, whether she had had her napkin and salt cellar back? Answers, Yes; and that the same were brought to Tryn Claas. Annetje and Neeltje were asked, if they had taken anything else from Symon Jansen ROMEYN. Answer, No.
Burgomasters and Schapens order the officer Pieter Tonneman to convey Annetje and Neeltje to prison which was done.
Neeltje Pieters and Annetje Minnes, prisoners, appear in Court, against whom the officer prosecutes his charge, concluding that Neeltje Pieters shall for her committed theft, be brought to the place where justice is usually executed and there be bound fast to a stake, severely scourged and banished for ten years from the jurisdiction of this city, and that Annetje Minnes shall, whilst justice is administered to Neeltje Pieters, stand by and look at her, and after justice is executed shall be whipped severely within doors and banished for six years outside this City's jurisdiction, as she was with those from whom the goods were stolen by the above named Neeltje. Which demand being read to the prisoners, they fall on their knees and beg forgiveness. Burgomasters grant the prisoners three time four and twenty hours, to bring in what they have for their excuses.
Saturday 25 June 1661. In the City Hall
Annetje Minnes, prisoner, appearing in Court is asked if she has well considered, how much she received? Answer: Yes, and has not received any, declaring that Neeltje lent her a crown, and she gave her back a dollar thereon, sold no stockings to her, but that she gave Neeltje the stockings, not thinking, that she did keep them without paying. Was asked if she had not brought Neeltje any into her stall and if she did not receive a crown for the stockings. Answers, no. Neetlje Pieters, a prisoner appearing in Court was asked, if she had both the stockings from Annetje? Answers, yes, and they they had divided together the money proceeding from the stockings, but does not know how much; then declares she received for the three pairs of stockings last sold, seven and a half guilders, the half of which Annetje got; which being reported to Annetje, says it is not true, but that she borrowed a crown from her as before and paid her Marys dollar, coming to the Wooden Horse and there earned it by work; and that Neeltje told her, she may keep it, and that she now says, she kept the crown for the pair of stockings. Neeltje being taken back to prison, Annetje Minnes is placed on the rack, and threatened with torture. Standing in the rack, she is asked if she has not received any money for the stockings and helped to steal the stockings and had received none of the six guilders, ten stivers for which the stockings were sold? No; and cannot say anything else with the truth, than what she has said. Returning from the rack, she begs for pardon; as she had not discovered, that Neeltje had stolen the stockings was conveyed away back again.
Burgomasters and Schepens of this city having considered the demand and conclusion of the Officer Pieter Tonneman on and against the prisoner, Neeltje Pieters, wife of ROMEYN Servyn, carman, born at Serdan over and about certain crimes of theft committed by her at two different places, being considered by the W. Court of this City, Burgomasters and Schepens having affirmed the prisoner, Neeltje Pieters, and she having voluntarily confessed, without torture or bonds, that she stole from Symon Jansen ROMEYN, stockings, thread, Pins and other cord also from Merritje, wife of Cornelis Langevelt, some linen; of which in a well ordered City, where justice is wont to be administered, cannot and ought not to be tolerated but as an example to others, be punished. Burgomasters and Schepens seeing, that the prisoner Neeltje Pieters is a pregnant woman, going on her last, having neither the time nor hour, excuse her from the well merited punishment, sentence her to be banished for the time of eight consecutive years, condemning her in the costs and misc. of justice. Thus done and adjudged by Burgomasters and Schepens, at the City Hall, Amsterdam, in New Amsterdam on Saturday, the 25th of June, 1661.
Burgomasters and Schepens of this City having considered the demand and conclusion of the Officer Pieter Tonneman on and against the prisoner, Annetje Minnes, widow of Cornelis Nysen, late soldier in the service of the Hon. Privileged West India Company here, born at Amsterdam, for and on account of certain crime committed by her. Burgomasters and Schepens having examined the Prisoner even unto threatening her with torture find, that the above named Annetje Minnes is an accomplice to the stealing of stockings, committed by Neeltje Pieters, because she gave the stockings to the above named Neeltje, but as she says, not thinking, that Neeltje did keep them without paying; therefore had not committed such fault, as that on which the officer draws his conclusion; moreover it is testified by credible witnesses, by whom she had much visited, that she has always borne herself honestly and well. Burgomaster and Schepens, weighing the same excuse her from corporal punishment and banishment, dismissing herein the officer's entered demand, condemning then the aforesaid Annetje in the cost and misc. of justice. Thus done and sentenced by Burgomasters and Schepens, at the City Hall, Amsterdam in N. Netherland, on Saturday 25th June, 1661.
Vol. 3, p. 204, 210, 216, 243, 246, 256
Mighiel Janzen vs Simon Janzen Romein
7 Sept 1660 Mighiel Janzen, pltf. v/s Simon Janzen Romein, deft. Platf. demands, that deft. release him from the bill of exchange returned protested. Deft. says, he is attorney for Marcus Vogelsanck, and that it is known that Marcus Vogelsanck sold a house to Mighiel Jansen on payments and for performance of the payments h has arrested the monies. Pltf. says, the payments due have been paid and the arrest was made before the day of payment arrived. The Court ordered Mighiel Janzen to prove by the next Court day, when the monies were arrested by Marcus Vogelsanck; when the payment is due on the house, which he bought from Marcus Vogelsanck.
14 Sept. 1660 On the petition of Mighiel Janzen, ordered:--The Court order copy hereof to be furnished Symon Jansen Romein, that may produce by the Court day what he has against it.
21 Sept. 1660 On the answer of Simon Janzen Romein, att'y for Marcus Vogelsanck, against Mighiel Jansen ordered:--The Court direct copy to be furnished to party to answer thereunto at next Court day.
30 Nov 1660 On the reply of Mighiel Janzen against Symon Janzen Romein, ordered:--Coy to be furnished to party thereunto to rejoin by the next court day.
4 Jan 1661 Simon Janzen Romein rejoins to the reply of Mighiel Janzen, whereupon was ordered:--The Court direct copy to be furnished to platf., and parties were ordered to desist from further productions, to exchange with each other their papers and to produce at the next Court day, by inventory their deduction and principal intendit.
29 Jan 1661 Burgomasters and Schepens of this City having considered, read and re-read the papers, documents and exhibits in both sides in the suit between Mighiel Jansen, pltf., against Symon Janzen Romeyn agent for Marcus Vogelsanck residing in Amsterdam in Europe, deft., over an arrest served on certain monies in Fatherland belonging to the pltf., unjustly arrested by Marcus Vogelsanck on a claim for money due him here by the above named Mighiel Jansen on purchase of his house and lot, which must be paid here, according to a bond passed therefore, whereunto the deft. in his capacity concludes, that the arrest on Mighiel Jansens money as aforesaid is legally done, in as much as pltf. remains in default of fulfilling the payment due, according to aforesaid bond. Burgomasters and Schepens having weighed and considered whatever is material that has been produced by parties, conclude and find, that the arrest levied by Marcus Vogelsanck on the monies in the Fatherland is illegal--therefore condemn Symon Janse Romeyn in his quality as agent for Marcus Vogelsanck to indemnify the pltf. in all the costs, damages and interest as well as the principal sum, which, Migheil Jansen has suffered by the unjust arrest, and Michiel Jansen, was ordered after indemnification to satisfy and pay Marcus Vogelsanck of Symon Jansen Romeyn, his agent, the remaining monies, which he owes to Marcus Vogelsanck according to the aforesaid bond and Symon Jansen Romeyn is further condemned in his quality aforesaid in the costs incurred in this suit. Thus adjudged in this City Hall, Amsterdam in N: Netherlands the 29th January 1661. Signed: Allard Anthony
Vol. 3, p. 416
Dirckje Jans vs David Wessel
[This case began as an action brought by Dirckje Jans against David Wessel. Symon appears not to have been initially involved but was later to be Dirckje's attorney. It is actually a combination of suit and counter-suit but pieces of all suits have been listed together in order to maintain continuity].
24 May 1661 Dirckje Janz, pltf. v/s David Wessels and Teunis Cray, defts. Pltf. demands from defts. two hundred guilders arising from a balance for the purchase of a yacht, which her husband, Jan Martens, sold to Jacob Janzen and Ide Ibes, and the aforesaid Jacob Janzen again sold his half to Teunis Cray and the other half is assumed by David Wessels, who sold it again to one David Dele before the day the aforesaid fl. 200 were due. Therefore demanding payment and that thwo persons be appointed to look over and examine, in presence of one of the W: Schepens, the documents referring to the same, to reconcile parties or to render a report of their action. Deft. demands copy of the request. The W: Court refer the matter in question jacoubs Backer, old Schepen of this City, and Isaack Grevera to look over and examine, in the presence of Scherpen Joannes van Brugh parties' documents and papers, to decide the same, and to reconcile them if possible; if not to render a report of their action to the court.
21 June 1661 David Wessels, pltf. v/s Simon Janzen Romein, deft. Pltf. produces in wiring demand in reconvention and answer in convention to the demand of Dirckje Jans. Deft, as attorney of Dirckje Jans, exhibits the decision of arbitrators in the case, which Dirckje Jans had against pltf. David Wessels is asked, what he has to object to the decision? Answers, he does not understand the matter, therefore has made the matter known to others. Teh W: Court order party to be furnished with copy of demand in reconvention and answer in reconvention and Dvid Wessels with copy of the decision (award); and parties were ordered to answer thereunto on the next Court day.
Symon Janzen Romeyn, pltf. v/s David Wessels, deft. Pltf. in default.
28 June 1661 On the answer and reply oif David Wessels against Symon Janzen Romeyn, att'y of Dirckje Jans, ordered: the W: Court direct copy to be furnished to party to reply thereunto at the next Court day.
On the reply of Symon Janzen Romeyn against David Wessels, the W: Court ordered copy to be furnished to part to rejoin thereunto at the next Court.
5 July 1661 Ordered, on the reply of Symon Jansen Romeyn refarding the deputies of the W; Court, Jacobus Backer, old Schepen, and Isaack Grevera, against David Wessels:--The W: Court direct copy to be furnished to party to rejoin thereunto at the next Court day. On the rejoinder of David Wessels against Symon Jansen Romein, the W: Court order copy to be funished to party and parties are ordered to desist from further produce their deduction and principal intendit by inventory on the next Court day.
"Saturday, 3d December 1661. In the City Hall. Present the Heeren Pieter Tonneman, Paulus leendersen van der Grift, Allard Anthony, Tymotheus Gabry Joannes van Brugh, Jan Vigne. "Burgomasters and Schepens of this City having read, re-read and considered the pleas, documents and papers, made use of on both sides in the suit between Symon Jansen Romein, att'y for Dirckje Jans, wife of Jan Martens, pltf. v/s David Wessels, deft., for and touching satisfaction and payment of one hundred guilders, which the deft. owes pltf. in his quality, arising out of the sold yacht, called the 'Blind Ass', against which the deft. concludes, he is not indebted as the yacht is not bund for the debt and was sold back again by him and Teunis Cray to one David Dele, who absconded for here without paying. Burgomasters and Schepens having pondered over and wighed all that is material therein, find that whereas the deft. David Wessels has sold the aforesaid yacht without having power either by deed of sale, conveyance of the knowledge of the Judge, consequently have no right thereto, condemn him to pay and satisfy the pltf., in his quality, the demanded hundred guilders and parties wer on both sides condemned each to pay his own costs. This done and adjudged in Amsterdam in New Netherland at the Court of the W. Heeren Burgomasters and Schepens, absent Pieter Wolferzen van Couwehoven. Dated as above.
Vol. 3, p. 344, 348
Symon Janzen Romein, attorney for creditor's of Pieter Jacobsen Buys
12 July 1661 On the petition of Symon Janzen Romein inquality as att'y of the interested creditors of Pieter Jacobsen Buys, wherein he requests, that the execution on said Buy's hose be annulled, the notices quashed and that Pieter Rudolfus' widow shall take her recourse on the other effects and lands being on Long Island. Marginal order:--Burgomaster and Schepens decree, that the execution shall take its course, of that the petitioner shall satisfy the creditors here.
19 July 1661 Symon Jansen Romein in quality etc. requestsy by petition, that the execution for the sale of Pieter Jacobsen Buys' house may be deferred until the arrival of the widow of Pieter Rudolfus. Whereupon is endorsed, Petition is granted.
6 June 1662 Schepen Joannes van Brugh, pltf. v/s Symon Janzen Romein, deft. Deft. in default.
13 June 1662 Schepen Joannes van Brugh, pltf. v/s Symon Janzen Romein, deft. Deft. wd default. Pltf. demands from deft., as attorney here of the estate left by Pieter Jacob Buys, the sum of one hundred and fifty five guilders, eighteen stivers in beavers. The W: Court order the deft to deposit the money with this City.
20 June 1662 Schepen Joannes van Brugh, pltf. v/s Symon Janzen Romein, deft. Pltf. demands of deft. the sum of one hundred and fifty-five guilders eighteen stivers in beavers on a/c of Pieter Jacobsen Buys, of whose effects the deft. is agent. The deft. says, it does not appear by Pieter Buy's book, that he is indebted to the pltf., requesting therefore that the plaintiff shall affirm by oath the justness of the debt. Pltf. offers to do so. Burgomasters and Schepen order the deft. to satisfy and pay the pltf., as he offers to confirm by oath, that the sum demanded is due him by Pieter Jacobson Buys.
Vol. 3, p. 344, 348
Symon Janzen Romein vs Arien Symonzen
29 Nov 1661 Symon Janzen Romein, pltf. v/s Arien Symonzen, deft. Deft. in default.
13 Dec 1661 Symon Janzen Romein entering states, that he has obtained judgment against Arian Symonsen and has settled with him, requesting preferences of the monies attahed in the hands of Egbert van Borsum, asking for the attahment thereupon. Burgomasters and Schepens declare the arrest valid and decide, that the petitioner can obtain no preference, as he did not prosecute the judgment to the end.
Vol. 3, p. 415, 419; 4:7, 289, 296, 298
Symon Janzen Romein vss Tomas Janzen Mingael
29 Nov 1661 Symon Janzen Romein, pltf. v/s Tomas Janzen Mingael, deft. Deft. in default.
6 Dec. 1661 Symon Janzen Romein, pltf. v/s Tomas Janzen Mingael, deft. Pltf. demans from deft. two hundred and eight eight guilders twelve stiver sewant, and nine beavers according to a/c exhibited in Court. Deft. acknowledges the debt. The W: Court order the deft. to pay the pltf.
10 Jan 1662 Symon Janzen Romein, entering, requests execution on the judgment against Tomas Janzen Mingael. The W: Court order the Bailiff to execute these.
6 March 1663 Symon Jansen Romein, Willem de Mareschalck and Daniel de Haart appearing request to know, how they shall proceed with the estate of Tomas Jansen Mingael: whereupon they were informed by the W: Court to apply to the curators. They further state, they understand that the widow has received and concealed some debts and are answered, to bring in proof thereof.
28 Aug 1663 Symon Janzen Romein, pltf. v/s Burgomaster Paulus Leenderzen van der Grift and Govert Loeckermans, as curators of the insolvent estate left by Tomas Janzen Mingael, deft. Pltf. produces a judgment against Tomas Janzen Mingael, decd. 6 December 1661, obtained from the W: Court, purporting to pay him the sum of two hundred and eighty eight guilders twelve stivers in seawant and nine beavers; demanding preference by virute thereof in the goods left behind. The defts. answere, that the claim cannot be preferred as the judgment is over a year. The Court postponed the case, until the Court day.
4 Sept 1663 Symon Janzen Romein returning says, that the action of preference be disposed of, which he has against the curators of the insolvent estate of Tomas Jansen Mingael. Whereupon Burgomaster Paulus Leendersen van der Grift demands eight days delay, which were granted to his Worship.
11 Sept 1663 Brugomasters and Schepens have considered the case in question, which Symon Jansen Romein, pltf. in case of prefenced, has entered in date 21 Aug last against Burgomaster Paulus Leendersen van der Grift and Govert Loockermans, as curators of the insolvent estate of Tomas Jansen Mingael, decd., defts. in said case: After hearing of parties herein and pondering and weighing everythin that is material, they decree and adjdge, that the pltf. by virtue of right acquired to the estate left by Tomas Jansen Ningael by delivery of judgment dated 6 Decembr 1661 is entitled to preference: Therefore order the curators, defts. herein, to satisfy and pay the pltf. the demanded sum mentioned in the aforesaid sentence.
Vol. 4:63, 65, 71, 74
Symon Janzen Romein vs Albert Alberzen
10 April 1662 Symon Janzen Romein, pltf. v/s Albert Alberzen, ribbon weaver, deft. Both in default.
25 April 1662 Symon Janzen Romein and Gerrit van Tright, pltfs. v/s Albert Alberzen, ribbon weaver, deft. Pltfs. say, that the deft. is bound to deliver them the tobacco according to the contract about the purchase of the land; exhibiting the deed of sale which is read Deft. says he pormised no beavers; the tobacco delivered at the weighscales is received by the pltf. @ six stivers per lb. Pltf's reply, that deft is bound to pay in beavers or in tobacco at beavers price. Burgomasters and Schepens refer the matter in question to Cornelis Steenwyck, old Schepen and now Orphan Master of this City, and Jacque Cosseau top hear parties, to decide the matter, if possible to reconcile parties, if not to render a report of their verdict to the Court.
2 May 1662 Schout Pieter Tonneman, pltf. and arrestant v/s Albert Alberzen, ribbon weaver, arrested and deft. Deft. in default. Pltf. says, that deft. has been arrested here by Symon Jnasen Romein and Gerrit van Tright, who allowed him to go home or promise of appearing on the first Court day; and whereas the deft. has not appeared, concludes that he has violted his arrest; therefore claiming from the deft. sixty guilders, for which he has arrested him; demands that the arrest be declared valid. The W: Court declare the arrest valid.
2 May 1662 Symon Janzen Romein and Gerrit van Tright, arrestants and pltfs. v/s Albert Alberzen, ribbon weaver, arrested and deft. Both in default.
Vol. 4:185, 199, 207
Symon Jansen Romein vs Francois de Bruyn
23 Jan 1663 Symon Janse Romein, pltf. v/s Francois de Bruyn, deft. Defts. 2d default. Pltf., as atty of Pieter Lucassen, demands from deft forty guilders for wages and sail cloth furnished for the boat, which Jan Jacobsen owns and is sailed by the deft. The W: Court order the deft. to deposit the money with the Secretary of this City.
13 Feb. 1663 Symon Janse Romein, pltf. v/s Francois de Bruyn, deft. Deft. 3e default. Platf, as attorney of Pieter Lucassen, requests from deft. payment of the sum of forty guilders for wages and cloth delivered for a sail on Jan Jacobsens boat, navigated by deft. Brugomasters and Schepens condemn deft., as he has not appeared on three summons, to satisfy and pay pltf. in his quality the forty guilders.
27 Feb 1663 Symon Jansen Romein entering says, he has a judgment against Francois de Bruyn, producing the same, and that he has attached the monies of said de Bruyn in the hands of Frerick Flipzen, requesting that the attachment be declared valid and he admitted to lift the money aforesaid. The S: Court declares the attachment valid and the petitioner is allowed to lift the monies under bail.
Vol. 4: 285
Symon Jansen Romein vs Frans Barenzen Pastoor
21 Aug 1663 Symon Jansen Romein, pltf. v/s Frans Barenzen Pastoor, deft. Pltf. as att'y of Pieter Lucassen, demands payment of the rent according to lease, as the deft. reclaimed the rent of the house, in which he resides. Deft. says, he is not bound for the rent; as the conditions of the lease are not fulfilled by the lessor and that the attachment issued against the goods must be declared invalid being illegal; requesting that two arbitrators be appointed to inspect the matter. Burgomasters and Schepens appoint thereunto Allard Anthony, old Burgomaster and Goovert Loockermans, old Schepen of this City, to take up the matter in question to hear parties debates examin them and reconcile them if possible; if not to report there award to the Court; the attachment remaining meanwhile valid until parties shall have come to an agreement.
Vol. 4: 286
Joannes de Peister vs Symon Janzen Romein
21 Aug 1661 Joannes de Peister, pltf. v/s Symon Janzen Romein, deft. Pltf. demands of the deft. in his quality of attorney of the general creditors of Petere Jacobs Buys, the quantity of four beavers for shoes. Deft. says, that Arent van Corlaar had the shoes; he must therefore get the pay from him. Pltf. says, that Corlaar told him, that he paid the beavers to Buys. Deft., says, he cannot find anything about it in Buy's book. The W; Court decree, if the pltf. can prove by Arent van Corlaar, that he paid Pieter Jacob Buys the beavers for the shoes, that the deft. in his quality as aforesaid shall satisfy and pay the pltf. the demanded four beavers.
Vol. 4: 296, 299, 300, 310
Simon Janzen Romein and Nicolaes Boot
4 Sept 1663 Schepen Jacques Cousseau demands execution of the judgment, which he obtained against Walewyns van der Veen dated 5 June last. The Marshall is ordered to execute these. Simon Janzen Romein and Nicolaes Boot appearing, Symon Jansen is informed of the contents of the petition presende by Nicholaes Boot, requesting therein post-ponement of the execution, which he has obtained against him. Whereunto Symon Jansen answers, he cannot do so, because Freryck Flipzen retains his money, which is due him herein and that the execution must therefore proceed. Whereupon nicolaas Boot replies, if such must be done he requests, that the monies be brought in consignmnet to this City Hall and remain there until advices shall be proceeded with.
11 Sept. 1663 Nicholas Boot and Simon Janzen Romein appearing Nicholaas Boot requests, that he may be granted an apostille on his presented petition. The purport of the petition being read to Simon Janzen Romein, he persists in his answer, rendered on the last Court day, and cannot determine on the deferring of execution. Whereupon Nicholaas Boot requests, that the monies proceeding from the house and lot to be sold may be brought in consignment of this City. The W: Court decree, that the house and lot of Nicholaas Boot (sold) to Pieter Jacob Buys, of whose creditors Symon Janzen Romein is attorney, shall be sold by execution by the Marshal, the monies porceeding therefrom be brought in consignment to this City not to be taken, unless under bail de restituendo should such hereafter be found proper.
2 Oct 1663 Simon Janzen Romein, pltf. and arrestant v/s Robbert Watson, arrested and deft. Pltf. says, he has by virtue of a mortgage against Nicholaas Boot attached his vessel and tobacco at the North, in as much as he entered under bond to do it. wernaar Wessels also appearing porduces an obligation against Nicolaes Boot, demanding payment thereof Burgomasters and Schepens ofder deft. to give security within four and twenty hours, that he shall return here within fourteen days time with Nicholaas Boots bark, the attachment remaining meanwhile valid.
16 Oct 1663 Symon Janzen Romein, pltf. v/s Jan Arriansen, ship carpenter, deft. Deft. in default.
16 Oct 1663 Symon Janzen Romein, pltf. v/s Lambert Huybertsen Mol, deft. Deft. in default.
Vol. 4: 323
Symon Janzen Romein vs Jan Rutgerzen Moreau
23 Oct 1663 Symon Janzen Romein, pltf. v/s Jan Rutgerzen Moreau, deft. Pltf. demands from deft. forty guilders in seawant. Deft. admits the debt. Pltf. says, that the deft. must have some money from Pieter lucasen and the same remain with hi; requesting to get his paument therefrom. Deft. says, he made that over to Wernaer Wessels. Burgomasters and Schepens order deft. to satisfy and pay the pltf.
Page 210- Isaac DeForrest, New York, makes his trusty and known
friend, Simon Hansen Romany, and Cousin, Jacob Kip, tutors and overseers
Page 354- Symon Jansen ROMEYN, In the name of God, Amen. I, Symon Jansen ROMEYN, of the city of New York, Gentlemen, being in good health do make this, my last will and testament. I leave to the Dutch Reformed Church, 5 Pounds. All the rest of my estates, I leave to my wife, Sophia ROMEYN, "And if it should happen that God did take my said wife out of the vain World before me," then I lieave it to my wife's nearest relations. Makes his wife executor, Dated October 3 1702. Witnesses, Johanes Viell, Johanes Van Vorst, Jan Jansen. Proved, Nov. 21 1702.
VOL. 2 1708-1728
Pages 160-161: Page 436.--SOPHIA ROMEYN. In the name of God, Amen. I, Sophia Romeyn, of New York, widow. I leave to my brother, Jacob van Westerhout, of Westchester, shoemaker, 20 shillings. I leave to my brother, Jacob Westerhout, and my sister, Christian wife of Frederick Scureman, of New Rochelle, the house and lot of ground whereon I now live in New York, and I make them executors. I remit to Cornelia Low, wife of Andries Law, of New York, mariner, a debt of 20 [pounds].
Dated October 7, 1715. Witnesses: Catharine Kerbyl, Tunis Quick, Henry Wileman.
Codicil confirms the above and leaves to Eliszabeth, wife of Casparus Maybee, of New Rochelle, 40 [pounds], to Anne, wife of Hendrick Van Pelt, 40 [pounds]; to Christian, daughter of Dennis Dothegan, a bed, "my gold rings and golden ear pendants called in Dutch, Stricken." To Affie, daughter of Casparus Maybee, my large looking-glass. To Christian, Sophia and Catharine, daughters of Casparus Maybee, household goods, silver tankard, 2 large silver porringers, 24 silver spoons, and silver mustard pot. To Hannah Van Swanenburgh, "one of two silver cups, with two handles which are much of a size" and a mourning suit of shalloon, and a silk scarf.
Dated December 6, 1715. Witnesses, Susanah Parmyter, Tunis Quick. Proved, December 29, 1715.
[Corrections from vol. 16 of the Wills of NYHS incorporated above.]
New York Historical Society Collections. 1911. "New
York Tax Lists 1695-1699 and East Ward 1791".
p. 30 Symen Janse Romee (ROMEYN) 120 pounds
p. 46 The house of Symon Janse ROMEYN 10 pounds
p. 47 Symen Janse ROMEYN 120 pounds
p. 82 Simon Janse Romone (ROMEYN) 120 pounds
p. 105 Sumen Janse Romane (ROMEYN) 120 pounds
p. 147 Symon Janse Romyn 120 pounds
p. 184 Simon Janse Romyn 100 pounds
p. 221 Simon Jansen ROMEYN House etc 100 pounds
p. 268 Simon Jansen ROMAINE 100 pounds
p. 298 Simon ROMAINE and House 100 pounds
Symon Jansen ROMEYN lived in the South Ward. The location of the South War is described as follows;
To begin att ye Courner house of James Matthews by ye Watter side and so North ward along the heers Graft to ye house of Simon Jonson Romain and from thense West ward up ye Beaver graft to ye Corner house of Barent Coursen and from thense south ward by ye forte to ye watter syde including ye Pearle Street & so to ye house of James Mathew againe.
Mr. William S. Pelletreau from his manuscript notes on early deeds of
Manhattan Island, locates the houses mentioned in the respective ward boundaries
The house of Symon Jansen Romaine, was the West corner of Beaver and Broad Street. South side of Beaver Street. It was mentioned in deed 1658.
p. 555-557--Remonstrance of the People of New Netherland to the Director-General
[Petition dated 5 Sept. 1664]
Symon Janss ROMEYN
p. 586--Court Minutes of New Amsterdam
Feb. the 7th 1666/7
Names of the Persons who for One Yeare Longer have Voluntarily Promised to pay towards the Maintenance of One of the Ministers Videliezit.
Symon ROMEYN continues
p. 641--Valuation of property in New York in 1674
17th March, 1674
Pursuant to a second order of the Governor General, (Colve) the following valuation was this day extracted, in the City Hall of this city, by the Commissioners, from the second compiled valuation of the best and most affluent inhabitants of this city, to wit:
Symon Janse Romyn 1,200.00.00
(florin) [1,200.00.00 was the smallest amount which was apparently
eligible for inclusion on this list]
[Jan Williemszen Van der Loosdrecht] sold his tract at Pembrepogh to
Simon Jansen ROMEYN, attorney for Poulesse Corneliesen, Dec. 14,
[Winfield's Land Titles Hudson]7
p. 101 Oct. 5, 1660 Symon Jans ROMEYN appointed administrator
of the Estate of Jan Barenss who died this date.
He settled first in New Amsterdam and then the Flatlands, L.I. where name appears on Assessment Rolls in 1675.
Feb. 19, 1671 Simon Jansy ROMEYN paid a marriage fee 6g.
1680 He bought land in Bergen Co., N.J. per Winfield Land.
May 25, 1700 a Symon ROMEYN purchases lots #23 and 27 "Long Fly" and "Cedar Neck" lots.8
1686: 23 August Subscribers obtained by Coert Stevens [Van Voorhees] & Jacob Strycker with the amounts subscribed for a bell, and promised as follows:
B/24 Symen Jansen [ROMEYN] Sons Cornelis & Jan
"DE FOREEST, Sarah [widow of Isaack De Foreest] - Inventory [14 Nov, 1692] taken by the heirs, John De Foreest, Isaac De Foreest, Pieter De Riemer,
Henricus De Foresst, David De Foreest and Mary De Foresst, in the presence of Simon ROMEYN and John Leggett. Among items listed were a house and lot in
Stone St., a hop-garden and orchard at Noormans Bight and a silver earring and hoop-earring, both in the custody of Daniel Verveelen."
"LUCAS, Sigismundus, of New York City, carman - Inventory [17 Oct. 1681] taken and appraised by Simon ROMEYN, Derick Jansen de Groot, John Cooleis and
Jacob Abrahamse Santvoort. Amount of estate was guilders 4,187;03. Some items listed were 2 houses and ground [3,300], 2 pictures , a brass candlestick
[2:10], wooden trenchers [00:03] and a horse and cart ."
ROMEYN, Symon Jansen to Teunis Gray
ROMEYN, Simon Jansen to Louwerens Van der Spiegle
ROMEYN, Symon Jansen from Andries Jockemsen
1642 To Symon Jansen, land on East side of Mesopach Creek next to Burger Jorissens's (p. 67 of clerk's book)
p. 134 ROMEYN, Simon Jansen, from Isaac DeForeest (p. 598 in Valentine's Manual for 1861[sic])
"Index of Grantees 1659-1664"
p. 139 ROMEYN, S. J., from P. Schafbank page 101
p. 144 Simon Jansen ROMEYN, from J. L. Van Diegrift
(Court sale) from Nicolaes Boot " 96
From widow Jansen " 71
(Court sale) from C. J. Ruyter " 73
Research leads and notes:
1. The sources of the birth date has not been found and need to be tracked down.
2. The actual tax lists or good transcriptions of them need to be located and studied to determine if this is actually a reference to Simon Jansen ROMEYN or to one of the three or four other Simon Jansens in the colony at roughly the same time. If it is simply given as "Simon Janse", then it is most likely to be a reference to Simon Jansen Van Ardsdalen.
3. Like number 2, this needs to be checked to see if it is actually reference to Simon Van Ardsdalen.
4. The same
5. Winfield will have to be located and the reference checked as Bergen is almost certainly in error here.
6. A copy of this deed would be nice but it would seem be that it is a correct assignment to Simon Jansen ROMEYN. However, he may have been acting as an agent for someone else in the sale of the property.
7. This reference seems to be to the same entry in Winfield that Bergen used for his statements. Thus as note 5 indicates, it is important to find Winfield's actual reference as well as a copy of the deed to determine what it actually says.
8. Need to find source. Since Ackerman states "...a Simon ROMEYN..." it may indeed be a correct identification. However, it still needs to be determined if he was acting on his own behalf or as an attorney for someone else.
9. This identification is incorrect. The Simon named here is actually Simon Van Ardsdalen.
10. All of the deeds will have to be located in order to determine if the surname Romeyn is actually used or that there has been consistency in identification of those instances where it has not been used.
11. The records of Albany will need to be searched to determine biographical information. Particularly if these are suits for debts owed to Simon's shop in New Amsterdam or if he was acting as an attorney in the collection of debt or the sale of property or if the references constitute proof of his residence in the Albany area.
Return to Main page
Return to Symon Romeyn page
Return to Symon Time Line and Notes
This page created and maintained by Renee L. Dauven It was last updated on 22 Aug. 2001.