transcription and translation of Records->Misc->128.jpg from http://digitalcollections.archives.nysed.gov BEGIN Translation Lease from Arent van Curler to Thomas Spicer of the farm of the late Jonas Bronck Series: A0270 Scanned Document: NYSA_A0270-78_V2_062a Mr. Arent van Curler, secretary of Renselaerswyck, of the first part, and Tomas Spycer, of the second part, have [ in the manner ] and on the terms hereinafter written amicably agreed and contracted as follows: Arent van Curler leases the farm called [ ] [1] to Mr. Spycer above mentioned, who also acknowledges that he has rented the same, for the term of five consecutive years, with which farm the aforesaid van Curler delivers as appears from the inventory a house, tobacco house, barn and hay barrack, as well as implements and cattle, according to the inventory. In regard to the cattle, the risk of their dying during the term of the lease shall be in common, it being understood that if any of the animals be wounded or killed by the Indians, the lessor alone shall incur the risk, provided the lessee proves the fact; and at the end of the first three years, half the increase above the capital stock shall be equally divided and distributed between the parties. The term of the lease shall begin on the first of July anno 1643, and end anno 1648, when the lessor shall first of all take out his number of animals in such condition as now delivered, and the remainder which by God’s blessing shall be bred shall be divided and distributed half and half by them. The lessee shall for each of the five milch cows annually pay twenty lbs of good butter; for the three heifers he shall the first year they have calved be free from butter rent, but the second year he must likewise give twenty pounds of butter for each. The lessee shall keep in good repair the buildings and implements according to the inventory and at the end of the lease deliver them back in the same condition as he now receives them. For all of which the lessee shall annually pay as rent, in addition to the butter, one hundred and five schepels of barley or rye, and at the end of the lease leave the field sowed with twenty-five schepels of grain as now received, as more fully appears by the inventory. Furthermore, if at the expiration of the lease it should appear that any noticeable and suitable improvement had been made on the farm, the lessor shall pay therefore according to the decision of arbitrators conversant with such matters. For all of which the parties bind their respective persons and properties, movable and immovable, present and future, submitting the same according to law. Done the 25th of June 1643, in Fort Amsterdam, New Netherland. Arent van Curler Thomas Spicer Tho. Willett Adriaen van Tienhoven Cornelis van Tienhoven 1. Name left blank. The reference is to the farm of Jonas Bronck, deceased, called “Emmaus.” Cf. Inventory on [54]. References Translation: Scott, K., & Stryker-Rodda, K. (Ed.). New York Historical Manuscripts: Dutch, Vol. 2, Register of the Provincial Secretary, 1642-1647 (A. Van Laer, Trans.). Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co., Inc.: 1974.A complete copy of this publication is available on the New Netherland Institute website. END translation/transcription of Records->Misc->128.-2.jpg from http://digitalcollections.archives.nysed.gov BEGIN Translation Declaration of Adam Mott regarding a debt due by William Lachem to Thomas Spicer Series: A0270 Scanned Document: NYSA_A0270-78_V2_147c At the request of Tomas S[ py ]se[ r ], Adam Mott, about twenty-three years of age, attests and declares that some time ago, about July last, he heard Willem Lachem say that he owed the above mentioned Tomas Spyser fifty guilders or thereabouts. All of which he, the deponent, declares, in place of an oath, to be true, offering to confirm the same. In testimony whereof this is signed in the record by Adam Madt, the 23rd of October anno 1645, in Fort Amsterdam, New Netherland. Adam Mott Cornelis van Tienh. References Translation: Scott, K., & Stryker-Rodda, K. (Ed.). New York Historical Manuscripts: Dutch, Vol. 2, Register of the Provincial Secretary, 1642-1647 (A. Van Laer, Trans.). Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co., Inc.: 1974.A complete copy of this publication is available on the New Netherland Institute website. END translation/transcription of Records->Misc->128.-3.jpg from http://digitalcollections.archives.nysed.gov BEGIN Translation Mortgage by Herry Breser of his house, lot and garden to Thomas Spicer Series: A0270 Scanned Document: NYSA_A0270-78_V3_123a On this day, date underwritten, before me, Cornelis van Ruyven, appointed secretary in New Netherland in the service of the General Chartered West India Company, appeared the worthy Herry Breser, who declared as follows: That for the behoof of Mr. Tomas Spicer and Tomas Hal, to free them from the effect of the bond which they have this day executed in favor of the appearer before Notary Schelluyne and certain witnesses and with promise, therefore, at all times to indemnify and free the said sureties from expenses on account of the said bond and to save them harmless, he firmly mortgages and especially binds and offers as counter security his house, lot and garden, situated on the island of Manhatans, to the east of the house of Egbert van Borsum, and further his person and property, real and personal, submitting the same to the control of all courts and judges Thus done in New Amsterdam, this day the 15th of October 1654. Herry Breser La Montagne Frans Cregier Cornelis van Ruyven Thomas Hall Cor: van Tienhoven Notes The bond is canceled in the record. References Translation: Scott, K., & Stryker-Rodda, K. (Ed.). New York Historical Manuscripts: Dutch, Vol. 3, Register of the Provincial Secretary, 1648-1660 (A. Van Laer, Trans.). Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co., Inc.: 1974.A complete copy of this publication is available on the New Netherland Institute website. END translation/transcription of Records->Misc->128.-4.jpg from http://digitalcollections.archives.nysed.gov BEGIN Translation Bond of Johannes van Tweller to satisfy the judgment which Thomas Spicer may obtain against Arent van Curler Series: A0270 Scanned Document: NYSA_A0270-78_V3_123b Before me, Cornelis van Ruyven, appointed secretary in New Netherland for the General Chartered West India Company, appeared the worthy Johannis van Twiller, merchant residing in Beverwyck, who in the presence of the hereinafter named witnesses declared that under renunciation of the beneficium ordinis, excussionis et divisionis, of the tenor of which he considers himself duly informed, he institutes himself surety and principal for Arent van Curler for the satisfaction of the judgment which may he pronounced by the honorable director general and supreme council, or a committee thereof, in so far as the amount is concerned in which he may be condemned on account of the action instituted against Mr. Tomas Spicer, promising to satisfy the said judgment and decision. For which he hereby binds his person and property, real and personal, submitting the same to the control of all courts, tribunals and judges Done at New Amsterdam, this day the 15th of October 1654, in New Netherland. J: v. Twiller R. Vastrick Claes van Elslant C: v: Ruyven References Translation: Scott, K., & Stryker-Rodda, K. (Ed.). New York Historical Manuscripts: Dutch, Vol. 3, Register of the Provincial Secretary, 1648-1660 (A. Van Laer, Trans.). Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co., Inc.: 1974.A complete copy of this publication is available on the New Netherland Institute website. END translation/transcription of Records->Misc->128.-5.txt from http://digitalcollections.archives.nysed.gov BEGIN Translation Bond of Thomas Hall to satisfy the judgment which Arent van Curler may obtain against Thomas Spicer Series: A0270 Scanned Document: NYSA_A0270-78_V3_124a Before me, Cornelis van Ruyven, appointed secretary in New Netherland for the General Chartered West India Company, appeared the worthy Tomas Hal, residing near the city of New Amsterdam, who in the presence of the hereinafter named witnesses declared that under renunciation of the beneficium ordinis, excussionis et divisionis, of the meaning of which he regards himself as fully informed, he constitutes himself surety and principal for Mr. Tomas Spicer for the satisfaction of the judgment which may be pronounced by the honorable director general and supreme council, or a committee thereof, in so far as the amount is concerned in which the said Spicer may be condemned in the action instituted against him by Arent van Curler before the director general and council, promising to satisfy the said judgment and decision. For which he hereby binds his person and property, real and personal, submitting the same to the control of all courts, tribunals and judges Done at New Amsterdam, this day the 15th of October A° 1654, in New Netherland. Thomas Hall R. Vestrick Claes van Elslant Cornelis van Ruyven References Translation: Scott, K., & Stryker-Rodda, K. (Ed.). New York Historical Manuscripts: Dutch, Vol. 3, Register of the Provincial Secretary, 1648-1660 (A. Van Laer, Trans.). Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co., Inc.: 1974.A complete copy of this publication is available on the New Netherland Institute website. END translation/transcription of Records->Misc->128.-6p1.jpg and Records->Misc->128.-6p2.jpg from http://digitalcollections.archives.nysed.gov BEGIN Translation Dutch colonial council minutes, 17 - 28 December 1646 Series: A1809 Scanned Document: NYSA_A1809-78_V04_p278-279 Jellitjen, wife of Gerrit Douman, complains in court that Elke Jansen has stolen her money that was in the cradle, inasmuch as Elke remained in her house while she and her husband went to church and that on coming home from church, Elke Jansen being still in her house, she immediately missed the money. Elke denies having stolen the money and says that she never saw it. Case adjourned until tomorrow to secure further evidence. Gerrit Seers, soldier, aged about 26 years, declares at the request of Gerrit Douman that Elken said to him yesterday, "If the sergeant has again sent out a spy, I have two attorneys who will see the matter through for me, if I only stick to the words which the attorneys tell me to say." The aforesaid Elke Jansen is provisionally released on her promise to answer at any time the charges brought against her by the sergeant. The fiscal, plaintiff, vs. the wife of Hendrick Kip, defendant, alleging that said Kip's wife said that the honorable director and council were false judges and that the honorable fiscal was a false fiscal. Hendrick Kip appearing with his wife makes answer that his wife received such a shock at the time that Maryn Andriaensen attempted to murder the honorable director in his room that she has never been well since and that, when she experiences the least excitement, the woman does not know what she is doing. The wife of Hendrick Kip declares that she never said that the honorable director and council were false judges, or that the fiscal was a false fiscal. The plaintiff’s complaint and the answer of the defendant and her husband being heard, the defendant is ordered to prove that she has not said anything to the detriment of the honorable director and council or the fiscal. The fiscal is ordered to prove his charges on the next court day, or to compound with his opponent. Jan Onderhill, plaintiff, vs. Jan Hadduwe, defendant, for having slandered plaintiff's daughter. Jan Hadduwe declares in court that he has nothing to say that in anyway reflects on the honor and virtue of his daughter. Ordered by the honorable director general and council that Jan Hadduwe in the presence of Debora, daughter of Jan Onderhill, shall acknowledge having done wrong and to pray her for forgiveness. Jan Hadduwe prays Jan Onderhill for forgiveness and is therefore condemned to pay the costs of the trial. Tomas Spyser, plaintiff, vs. Tomas Sandersen, defendant. Plaintiff complains that the defendant keeps him off his land, assaults him, calls him a rogue and a rascal and has shot dead one of his goats. Ordered that the first time defendant gives offense to Tomas Spyser or anyone of the neighbors he shall be banished from the plain. As to the goat and damage to the cabbage, parties shall each select two of their neighbors to decide the matter as arbitrators and Tomas shall now take his produce from the land and deliver it to Spyser. Jonas Wodt, plaintiff, vs. Pietertje, wife of Claes Jansen, for balance due for two cows. Plaintiff is condemned to pay 12 gl., on condition that the defendant shall give security to repay the money if defendant's husband can prove that the plaintiff kept the cows six or seven weeks longer than was agreed upon. On the 28th of December anno 1646 Jellitjen, wife of Gerrit Douman, says in court that last Sunday she went to church with her husband, leaving at her house her young daughter with Elke Jansen and Jan de Voocht. The aforesaid woman says that she left money in a cradle at her house and that when she came home the money was no longer in the cradle. Jan de Voocht, being drunk, lay asleep, therefore, she says Elke must have stolen the money. Elcke Jansen says that she never knew of the money, let alone stealing it. Jan Pitersen from Amsterdam, Jailer, declares at the request of Elcke Jansen that the eldest daughter of Douman, being questioned, said that her mother had taken the money out of the cradle and mislaid it. Case is adjourned until tomorrow in order meanwhile to prove the accusations and to give the accused an opportunity formally to establish her innocence. Gerrit Segers, soldier, aged about 26 years, declares in court at the request of Gerrit Douman that Elcke Jansen said to him yesterday, "If sergeant Douman has sent out a spy, I have two attorneys who will see me through, if I only stick to what my attorneys tell me to say." Gerrit Segers has confirmed this on oath before the honorable director general and council. References Translation: Scott, K., & Stryker-Rodda, K. (Ed.). New York Historical Manuscripts: Dutch, Vol. 4, Council Minutes, 1638-1649 (A. Van Laer, Trans.). Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co., Inc.: 1974.A complete copy of this publication is available on the New Netherland Institute website. END translation/transcription of Records->Misc->128.-7.jpg from http://digitalcollections.archives.nysed.gov BEGIN Translation Judgment in appeal of Martin Jansen vs. Thomas Spicer Series: A1809 Scanned Document: NYSA_A1809-78_V05_0257a Marten Jansz, petitioner in the case of appeal against Thomas Spicer, defendant; the petitioner finding himself injured, submits his written complaint and conclusion to the session of the high council at which appeared the schout of the respective courts of Midwout in order to subpoena, pursuant to the summons, the judgment passed by the aforesaid court. Therefore, the director-general and high council of New Netherland, having examined and studied the papers submitted to the aforesaid court by the respective parties at the request of the plaintiff, and the allegations and verifications by the schout, conclude that the judgment pronounced on 24 April by the court of Midwout against Marten Jansz and to the advantage of Thomas Spycer was just, and that the plaintiff submitted a bad appeal, condemning the plaintiff to pay court costs and in addition a fine of twelve guilders. References Translation: Gehring, C., trans./ed., New York Historical Manuscripts: Dutch, Vol. 5, Council Minutes, 1652-1654 (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co., Inc.: 1983).A complete copy of this publication is available on the New Netherland Institute website. END translation/transcription of Records->Misc->128.-8p1.jpg and Records->Misc->128.-8p2.jpg from http://digitalcollections.archives.nysed.gov BEGIN Translation Complaint of Dirck van Schelluyne, attorney for Arent van Corler, vs. Thomas Spicer Series: A1809 Scanned Document: NYSA_A1809-78_V05_0381 has been given. In the meantime consent is given to the factor, as stated above, to seek profits with his masters' cargo, provided the proceeds be paid at full value into the hands of the aforesaid honorable attorney and counsel of the honorable director-general and high council held at New Amsterdam, 15 October 1654, in New Netherland; and was signed: P. Stuyvesant, N. de Sille, La Montange, C. v. Tienhooven. Dirck van Schelluyne, attorney for Arent van Corler, plaintiff, against Mr. Thomas Spycer, attachee; the plaintiff concludes that the attachment be continued in order to affirm or deny his signature on the contract dated 26 June 1643 concluded between the aforesaid Corler and the attached.[158] If yes, the plaintiff requests a judgment for the full satisfaction of the aforesaid contract, namely, to deliver the leased farm in the same condition that it was received, or the plaintiff calculates his losses to the sum of f3000, requesting interest in addition to the losses, according to provisions in the conditions; and that the attachment not be removed except with sufficient security for your honors' judgment, with expenses. Having heard Notes See Volume 2: 26a, translated in New York Historical Manuscripts: Dutch (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Company, Inc., 1974), 2:139, for this contract dated 25 June 1643. References Translation: Gehring, C., trans./ed., New York Historical Manuscripts: Dutch, Vol. 5, Council Minutes, 1652-1654 (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co., Inc.: 1983).A complete copy of this publication is available on the New Netherland Institute website. END "The New York Genealogical and Biographical Record", Vol 47, 1916 BEGIN Will of Thomas Spicer of Gravesend. Dated Sept. 30, 1658. Proved Nov. 4, 1658. Wife Michall & Son, Samuell Spicer heirs and executors of all estate, except the following legacies: To Ann Lake, wife of John Lake, 60 gilders for benefit of her three children. To Susannah Brasier, wife of Henery Brasier, 80 gilders, for her four children. For mending of highway in the Lane to the fort ward, 40 gilders. For fencing tne burial place, 20 gilders. Witnesses: Richard Gibbens and John Tilton. (Gravesend Records, Liber 3, page 112.) END from ancestry.com BEGIN Thomas Spicer b. 1592 PAF records of AFTruesdell 9 Mar 2016 BIRTH: baptismal date "1591/2 Feb 3 Spycer ,Thomas s, of Nicholas, husbandman" (and Martha Grant) from parish records reprinted in "A Supplement to the Descendants of Peter Spicer", compiled by Susan Billings Meech. NOTE: From research of Harriet Stryker-Rodda, Oct 1971: Nicholas Spicer, who was born c1555 in Kent, England was married 1st) to Joan _____ and 2nd) to Martha Grant.MARR: 1st) 4 Feb 1626, by license to Ann Grant of St. Mary's in Sandwich. Known children were Susanna and Ann. MARR: 2nd) 5 Feb 1635 by license to Michall Jenkins of St. Clements, widow of John Jenkins. Known child was Samuel, bp 30 Jul 1637, at St. Peter's, Sandwich, Kent, England. DEATH: Will of Thomas Spicer of Gravesend. Dated Sep 29, 1658, proved 4 Nov 1658. Wife Michall and son Samuell Spicer, heirs and executors of all estate except legacies "to Ann Lake, wife of John Lake, 60 gilders for the benefit of her three children... To Susanna Brazier, wife of Henry Brazier, 80 gilders for her four children". HIST: 3 Feb 1591/2 bp at Barfreston, Kent, England 3 Feb 1626 m. Ann Grant at Sandwich, Kent, England c1628 Susanna born. c 1630/2 Ann born. 5 Feb 1635 m. Michal _____ Jenkins, widow of John Jenkins. 30 Jul 1637 Samuel born at Sandwich, Kent, England. 1638 an inhabitant of "island now called Aqueedneck" in RI. 1639 chosen surveyor for a highway in Portsmouth. 1640 in Towne of "Nieuport", chosen to service of laying out lands for Towne of Portsmouth. 1641 listed as Freeman 1642 chosen as Treasurer of Portsmouth for one year. 25 Jun 1643 leased farm on Long Island from Arent van Curler for 5 years. This farm was part of the property to which Jacob Van Corlaer had received a patent, located in the area of Flatlands and Flatbush. From the inventory, it was already sown with grains, had a house, farm implements and animals. Deborah Moody and associates received their patent to Gravesend during 1643 but it does not appear that Thomas Spicer was at that time associated with them. 23 Oct 1645 court record in New Amsterdam seeking a debt from Wm Lachem to Thomas Spicer. 1644-46 other court actions in Nw Amsterdam where he is named. 20 Feb 1646 received a plantation lot in Gravesend but apparently did not remove to or reside on lot since on 11 Dec 1653 delegates from each of the towns located on LI met and drew up a protest against Gov. Peter Stuyvesant. Thomas Spicer was recorded as being a representative for the town of Flatbush. 14 Jun 1651 Arent Van Curler annuls his power of attorney to David Provoost in regard to the lease of the farm to Thomas Spicer and seeks court action against Thomas Spicer for unsatisfactory settlement of the lease. 1652 Thomas purchases Bergen's Island from the Indians and deed is witnessed by "Jan Lake". This same property is sold in 1665 by Thomas' widow Michal to Elbert Elberse Stoothoff. 1653 Thomas a resident of Flatbush. 1658 Thomas dies. aftruesdell originally shared this 5 years ago story END from https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/5914cc00add7b04934806cc9# BEGIN *Equivalent Citations* 258 App. Div. 19116 N.Y.S.2d 55 ATTORNEY(S) Ralph L. Baldwin, for the claimants Gerritsen Basin Development Corporation and others. Bernard Cowen, for the claimants Helena K. Wyeth and others. Ernest G. Metcalfe, for the claimant Tristram W. Metcalfe. William C. Chanler, Corporation Counsel [ Paxton Blair, Joseph F. Mulqueen, Jr., George S. Parsons, Philip L. Wellens and Herman Meltzer with him on the brief], for the respondent. JUDGES LAZANSKY, P.J. (concurring). CLOSE, J. HAGARTY, J. (dissenting). ACTS No Acts MATTER OF CITY OF NEW YORK Court of Appeals of the State of New York., 04 Apr 1939 Edit MATTER OF CITY OF NEW YORK Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department., 18 Apr 1938 Edit MATTER OF CITY OF NEW YORK Court of Appeals of the State of New York., 13 Jul 1937 Edit PEOPLE v. FOOTE, TOWN OF OYSTER BAY Court of Appeals of the State of New York., 23 Mar 1937 Edit MATTER OF CITY OF NEW YORK (JAMAICA BAY) Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department., 26 Feb 1937 Edit ZIMMERMANN v. ROESSLER HASSLACHER CHEMICAL COMPANY Court of Appeals of the State of New York., 20 Oct 1936 Edit MATTER OF CITY OF N.Y. (GERRITSEN MARINE PARK) Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department., 29 Jun 1936 Edit ZIMMERMANN v. ROESSLER HASSLACHER CHEMICAL CO Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department., 30 Dec 1935 Edit ALLEN v. TRUSTEES OF GREAT NECK FREE CHURCH Court of Appeals of the State of New York., 23 Oct 1934 Edit PEOPLE v. FOOTE Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department., 12 Jul 1934 Edit ALLEN v. TRUSTEES OF GREAT NECK FREE CHURCH Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department., 09 Feb 1934 Edit MATTER OF CITY OF N.Y. (REALTY ASSOCIATES) Court of Appeals of the State of New York., 12 May 1931 Edit BEERS v. HOTCHKISS Court of Appeals of the State of New York., 24 Mar 1931 Edit SCHUYLKILL FUEL CORP. v. NIEBERG REALTY CORP Court of Appeals of the State of New York., 13 Feb 1929 Edit BEST RENTING CO. v. CITY OF NEW YORK Court of Appeals of the State of New York., 19 Jul 1928 Edit INSURANCE CO. v. DUTCHER U.S. Supreme Court, 01 Oct 1877 CITED BY VISUAL * MATTER OF CITY OF NEW YORK (JAMAICA BAY) Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department. Dec 11, 1939 * Subsequent References * CaseIQ (AI Recommendations) MATTER OF CITY OF NEW YORK (JAMAICA BAY) 258 App. Div. 191 16 N.Y.S.2d 55 Smart Summary (Beta) New Generate Smart Summary MATTER OF CITY OF NEW YORK (JAMAICA BAY) CLOSE, J. These are three condemnation proceedings involving land in the vicinity of Jamaica Bay. The three cases are concerned with the same basic issues, and were tried and decided together. These issues were the subject of prolonged study by this court in a previous proceeding to condemn lands in the same area. ( /Matter of City of N.Y./ [ /Gerritsen Marine Park/], 248 App. Div. 240 ; affd., 275 N.Y. 456 .) In the present proceedings the whole subject is reopened. The lands involved in all these proceedings lie in southern Brooklyn between the Gravesend section on the west and Jamaica Bay on the east, and consist chiefly of a number of low islands extending from the mainland to and including the most southerly of the group, Barren Island. Since 1923 the city of New York has been acquiring land in this area, partly for the construction of a marine park and partly for the improvement of the water front. Lands taken for the first of these purposes were and are the subject-matter of the Gerritsen Creek Marine Park proceeding cited above and of the last-named of the three proceedings now before us. The acquisition of lands for the second purpose gave rise to the two remaining proceedings. Title to the lands in question is the issue. The appellants assert a title originating in a grant made in 1636 by the Dutch Colonial Governor Van Twiller and the Council of New Netherlands to Andreas Hudde and Wolphert Gerritsen. The city denies that the 1636 grant included the lands involved here, and claims title in itself by virtue of a patent granted to the town of Flatlands in 1667 and grants by the State of New York in 1909 and 1912. In the former proceeding the trial court held that the Hudde and Gerritsen grant did not include the disputed lands. On appeal this court expressed the opinion, on the record then before it, that the lands were included in the grant, but the decree was affirmed on the ground that the claimants had failed to prove the devolution of title to themselves. ( 248 App. Div. 240 .) The Court of Appeals affirmed "because of the failure of the claimants to clearly establish their title to the land in question," and added that it did not pass upon the disputed boundary of the Hudde and Gerritsen grant. ( 275 N.Y. 456 .) In the present proceedings the trial court has held, contrary to the opinion expressed by this court in the prior case, that the disputed lands were not included in the original grant. New theories and new evidence account for the reluctance of the trial judge to adopt the conclusion of the Appellate Division in the earlier proceeding as to the extent of the early grant. The issue is not /res judicata/, because the lands directly affected by the former decision were different ( /Matter of City of New York/ [ /Jamaica Bay/,] 250 App. Div. 124 ), and for the further reason that the estoppel of the former decree is limited to the point actually determined. ( /Schuylkill Fuel Corp./ v. /Nieberg Realty Corp./, 250 N.Y. 304 .) The area in dispute includes a considerable number of islands lying off the mainland and bounded by Jamaica Bay, the ocean, Gerritsen's creek and Mill creek. Except for Bergen's Island and Barren Island, they consist of low-lying marsh land, uninhabited for the most part and unimproved except for a few shacks erected on piles. Adopting the name appearing on an ancient map, the area has been referred to in these proceedings as the "broken lands." The city denies that the Hudde and Gerritsen grant included any part of such lands. The parties agree that the northerly boundary of the lands conveyed to Hudde and Gerritsen in 1636 was the southerly line of the town of Flatbush; that the westerly boundary was the line of the town of Gravesend; and that the northeasterly and easterly boundary was Bedford creek, also known and designated on some of the maps as "bestafather's Kill," "Bestaver's Kill" and "the Paerdegat." The south boundary is the one in dispute. In the former proceeding the city claimed that this boundary was a line running westerly across the mainland from the mouth of Bedford creek, and excluding not only all the broken lands but also the large tongue of land between Gerritsen's creek and Mill creek designated on Beer's Map of 1873 as "Baes Jurians Hook." The city now concedes that Baes Jurians Hook was included in the patent of 1636 and asserts that Mill creek formed the entire southerly boundary. This version, of course, still excludes the broken lands. The original of the grant to Hudde and Gerritsen, dated June 16, 1636, is not in existence, but what purports to be a copy, written in Dutch and made simultaneously with the original, appears in a book of Colonial manuscripts on file in the New York State Library. Several English translations are extant, some of which contain variations which at first glance appear to be of minor importance. In the former proceeding all but one of these English versions were introduced in evidence, and apparently no one paid very much attention to, or saw any significance in, the slight differences in the context. Both parties seemed content to accept, and this court, therefore, adopted, a translation, recorded in the office of the Secretary of State in a book of translations of Dutch Colonial patents. Using that translation as a basis, this court held that the Hudde and Gerritsen grant included all the broken lands. In the present proceedings the city undertook to show that that translation was incorrect in important particulars and that a proper translation would lead to a contrary conclusion. In addition to introducing again the various translations which were before the court in the prior proceeding, the city produced as a witness Mr. Arnold J.F. van Laer, Archivist of the University of the State of New York, who has had extensive experience in translating and editing the early Dutch records of the State. Through this witness the city introduced a translation which was not in evidence in the former proceeding, but which was apparently discovered later in a volume of Colonial Documents in the State Library. Mr. van Laer testified that this was the correct translation. It cannot be said that this translation was a new one, for it accords substantially with several of the other versions which were received in the former proceeding. What is new, however, is the expert testimony that this version alone is an accurate translation of the Dutch patent, and that the translation accepted by the court in the Gerritsen Creek Marine Park case was erroneous and vitally misleading. The van Laer translation of the description in the patent reads as follows: "the westernmost of the 3 flats called Kestateuw belonging to them situated on the island called Sewanhacky between the bay of the North River and the East river of New Netherland, /stretching in length from/ a certain kil coming from the sea almost north into the woods and in width from a certain valley, included, almost west also into the woods." A comparison between this interpretation of the patent and that accepted by the court in its former opinion discloses three main differences: (1) The plural word "Bays" becomes the singular "bay;" (2) "extending the length of a certain Kill" is changed to "stretching in length from a certain kil;" and (3) the valley is "included" rather than "inclining." There can be very little doubt that the van Laer translation of the Hudde and Gerritsen patent is the correct one. It is supported not only by the testimony of van Laer himself, but also by most of the other renditions which were introduced in evidence. A confirmatory patent made by the English Governor Nicolls in 1667 is substantially in accord, except for a single interpolation which will be mentioned hereinafter. Likewise in accord is a translation found among the records of the town of Flatlands filed in the office of the commissioner of records of Kings county. There is also a copy of the patent written in Dutch with the English translation interlineated, made by Teunis G. Bergen, a historian and geneologist of Kings county, which was obtained from the New York Public Library. The Bergen translation agrees with that of van Laer except that the former renders the word "incluys" to mean "inclining" (as in the version accepted in the last proceeding) rather than "included." The translation from the office of the Secretary of State stands alone in the use of the plural "Bays," and in the phrase "extending the length of a certain Kill." The van Laer translation is, therefore, supported by the great weight of the evidence and should be accepted. The question is whether it should lead us to a conclusion different from that reached in the former proceeding. Of the three chief differences in translation, which have been pointed out above, the first and third are not of sufficient importance to justify a different construction of the patent; for the "bay" is merely a means of locating the "island called Sewanhacky" (Long Island), and the inclusion of the valley, which is conceded to mean the valley of Bestaver's kill, is not material to the present issue. But the second of the three changes in translation is highly significant. It now appears that the land was described as "stretching in length /from/ a certain kil coming from the sea almost north into the woods," instead of "extending the length /of/ a certain Kill coming from the Sea the most part Northerly till to the woods." The chief difference is in the translation of the Dutch word "van," which in the latter version (accepted in the prior proceeding) is taken to mean "of," while in the van Laer translation it is rendered as "from." This portion of the description forms the basis of the city's contention that Mill creek was the intended southerly boundary. The witness van Laer reasoned that the intention was to indicate certain land stretching north from a kill; that to locate such land it is first necessary to find a kill running east and west; and that the kill running most nearly east and west is Mill creek. In my opinion this is the proper construction of the patent. As in the former proceeding, the first problem is to locate the "certain kil coming from the sea." We held in our previous opinion that this kill was the Strom kill (now Gerritsen's creek). But the city, abandoning its former contention that the kill thereby intended was Bestaver's kill lying far to the east, now points out that the kill to the west of the patented lands has two branches. The westerly branch is the Strom kill proper. The easterly branch is Mill creek. Both have a common mouth into the sea. Since the kill is not named in the patent, a choice must be made between these two branches. In making that choice the van Laer translation of the description is decisive. We must look for a flat which stretches northerly from a kill. There can be no such land running north from the Strom kill, which itself runs almost directly north. But Mill creek, according to the Hubbard Map of 1666, ran nearly east and west, and there is no difficulty in locating the land stretching to the north from that creek. This construction solves most of the difficulties arising out of the construction of the Hudde and Gerritsen patent. It furnishes the grant with a southerly boundary, which otherwise is lacking and left wholly to conjecture. It produces a tract of land having four fixed limits from Mill creek on the south to the woods on the north, and from the valley on the east to the woods on the west. The conclusion now reached is also in accord with other language appearing in the description. It is significant that the land was described as "situated on the island called Sewanhacky," /i.e./, on Long Island. Certainly a conveyance of land on a named island can only with difficulty be construed as including other islands. This is particularly true when we consider that some at least of the other islands bore separate names. Bergen's Island was known as Meutelaer's Island at least as early as 1646, and Barren Island was known to the Indians as "Equindito." It will be noted too that the only land conveyed to Hudde and Gerritsen was a "flat" with an adjoining valley. This on its face excludes the notion that great offshore islands were included in the grant. With Mill creek as the southerly boundary and the broken lands excluded from the patent, facts and circumstances which would otherwise remain obscure or unexplainable are clarified. It is claimed by appellants that Bergen's Island was included in the patent of 1636. Yet it appears that in 1646 the Dutch Governor Kieft conveyed Bergen's Island to one Onderhil. This indicates that the Dutch Governor and Onderhil at least were of opinion that Bergen's Island was not a part of the land granted by the earlier patent. In 1652 certain Indians joined with Onderhil in a deed conveying the island to Thomas Spicer, and in 1665 it was purchased from the heir of Spicer by Elbert Elbertsen, claimants' alleged predecessor in title to the lands in dispute. It was not until 1666 that Elbertsen received from the Gerritsen heirs his title to the lands embraced within the patent of 1636. This tends to show that Elbertsen did not believe that Gerritsen had ever been the owner of Bergen's Island, for he would scarcely have purchased from the Spicer family if he had believed that Gerritsen or his heirs had title. Similarly, in 1664 certain Indians gave Samuel Spicer and John Tilton a deed to Barren Island under the name of "Equindito." The description in this deed indicates that he parties thereto considered the Gerritsen lands as lying some distance north of Barren Island. In 1681 Tilton and Spicer conveyed all their right, title and interest in the island to Elbert Elbertsen, thus again indicating that the latter did not consider himself already the owner by virtue of his purchase from the Gerritsen heirs. It may be true, of course, that the Indians who originated this chain of title had no title themselves, but the circumstances are significant evidence of the contemporary understanding of the lands conveyed by the Hudde and Gerritsen patent Most important of all, perhaps, is the consistency between the present interpretation of the patent and the statement made in 1651 by the directors of the West India Company, in a letter to Governor Stuyvesant, that Hudde and Gerritsen held "about 1800 morgens" (3,600 acres) of land on Long Island. If the broken lands had been included in the patent the entire area would have amounted to nearly 8,000 acres. Excluding the broken lands the area granted to Hudde and Gerritsen would be 4,065 acres, which is reasonably close to the West India Company's estimate. The principal obstacle to an acceptance of the present construction of the patent is found in the determination of a board of arbitrators appointed in 1696 to decide a dispute between the town of Flatlands and the heirs of Elbert Elbertsen who had succeeded to the Hudde and Gerritsen title. The arbitrators made a lengthy decision containing findings of fact and conclusions. The decision does not state what lands were in dispute except that they were "Certaine Tracts or parcells of land lying situate and being in the township of fflattlands." However, the findings as a whole give rise to the inference that the dispute was concerned with the westerly boundary of the lands conveyed by the Hudde and Gerritsen patent. The arbitrators adopted the description contained in the confirmatory patent from Governor Nicolls in 1667. Their decision contains the following finding: "2d. We doe find according to our best understanding that by the words above mencond in van Twillers patent (stretching in length from a Certaine Kill or Creeke coming out of the sea, and soe runs almost north into the woodland) is meant only the running of the Creeke almost north, and not to run almost a north line from said Kill or Creeke into the woodland." This finding cannot be reconciled with the theory which we are about to accept that the original patent was intended to indicate land lying north of the kill, for the finding is that the northerly direction referred to the kill itself. A finding of such antiquity should not be lightly disregarded. Yet there is reason to believe that the arbitrators who made it were themselves misled by an erroneous translation of the patent. The confirmatory grant of 1667, from which the arbitrators took their description, is the only extant translation which interpolates the words "and soe runs" following the reference to the kill. The insertion of these words makes it appear that it was the kill which ran northerly to the woods. Yet if these words are omitted the northerly direction may reasonably be taken to relate back to the "stretching" of the flat from the kill. Under the circumstances the finding of the arbitrators is of such doubtful value that it cannot be allowed to prevail over the evidence supporting a contrary finding. It would not be profitable to undertake a detailed discussion of the numerous other items of evidence contained in the large record before us. Such evidence is for the most part so uncertain that contrary inferences can be drawn with equal readiness. It is enough to say that we have examined the whole record with great care and have reached the conclusion, on the grounds heretofore stated, that the Hudde and Gerritsen grant did not include the broken lands. There are a few damage parcels, mostly on Barren Island, which were claimed by certain of the appellants other than the Gerritsen Basin Development Corporation and the Wyeth group, the title to which was not in dispute. Awards which are claimed to be inadequate were made for these parcels. The parcels in question are those numbered 2, 2-A, 4, 6, 7, 10 and 11 in the Jamaica Bay Proceeding No. 1, and those numbered 2 and 16 in the Addition to Marine Park proceeding. As to all of these, except Damage Parcel No. 2 in the last-named proceeding, we are satisfied that there is adequate evidence to support the awards made at Special Term and that the awards should stand. ( /Matter of City of New York/ [ /Neptune Emmons Avenues/,] 254 App. Div. 690 ; affd., 280 N.Y. 604 .) The award of $1,550 for Damage Parcel No. 2 in the Addition to Marine Park proceeding, owned by the appellant Metcalfe, is so clearly wrong as to shock the conscience of the court. The sum awarded is substantially less than the amount of an assessment for benefit imposed upon the same parcel in 1932 in a previous condemnation proceeding, in spite of a provision in section 1001 of the Greater New York Charter forbidding an assessment exceeding one-half the value of the property. The award for this parcel should be increased to the sum of $3,940. The final decrees in the Jamaica Bay Proceeding No. 1 and Jamaica Bay Proceeding No. 2 should be affirmed, with costs. The final decree in the Addition to Marine Park Proceeding should be modified by increasing the amount of the award for the Metcalfe parcel (Damage Parcel No. 2) to the sum of $3,940, and, as thus modified, the decree should be affirmed, without costs. LAZANSKY, P.J., CARSWELL and TAYLOR, JJ., concur, each in separate opinion; HAGARTY, J., dissents in part, with opinion, and with reference to Damage Parcels 16, 16A, 16B, 19, 21, 21A, 22, 22A, 23, 23A, 24, 24A, 26, 27, 27A, 27B, 28, 29, 30, 31, 31A, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 36A, 37, 37A, 38, 38A, 39, 40, 40A, 40B, 41, 41A, 42, 43, 43A, 44, 46, 46A, and 46B in Jamaica Bay Proceeding No. 1; 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 in Jamaica Bay Proceeding No. 2; and 1, 17, 18 and the land portion of 19, in Addition to Marine Park Proceeding, votes to reverse the decrees as to such parcels and to remit for the taking of proof as to devolution of title and the making of awards in accordance therewith. LAZANSKY, P.J. (concurring). The conclusion reached by me in this case is in accord with that of Mr. Justice CLOSE that the "Broken Lands" were not included within the patent of 1636, although in /Matter of City of N.Y./ ( /Gerritsen Marine Park/) ( 248 App. Div. 240 ) there was concurrence by me in the opinion of Mr. Justice HAGARTY to the contrary. The determination in that case, as pointed out by Mr. Justice CLOSE, is not /res judicata/ here and, since there are new material facts, /stare decisis/ is not applicable. The change in my views is largely due to the corrected translation of that part of the description in the patent from what was then conceded in the /Gerritsen Marine Park/ case ( /supra/) to be the correct translation, to wit, " /extending the length/ of a certain Kill coming from the Sea the most part Northerly till to the woods," to the present translation " /stretching in length from/ a certain kil coming from the sea almost north into the woods * * *." The translation, accepted by all in the /Gerritsen Marine Park/ case ( /supra/,) fortified as it was by the description in the Nicolls confirmatory patent of 1667 and the finding in the arbitration of 1696, both then deemed to be accurate, readily invited the view that the westerly bounds was the Strom kill from the sea north and, therefore, tended to justify the inference that the ocean was the southerly boundary of the land granted by the patent. This meant, of course, as urged by claimants, that the lands in dispute were within the patent of 1636. But the corrected translation sets a new face on the situation. This new translation, to wit, "stretching in /length from a certain kil coming from the sea/ almost north into the woods and in width from a certain valley, included, almost west also into the woods" suggests to me a construction different from the one outlined by Mr. Justice CLOSE in his opinion, but with no change in result. "Stretching in length /from/ a certain kil coming from the sea * * *" means a "stretching" from some part of, or place on, the kill that comes from the sea. What part of, or place on, the kill is not stated. The "kil coming from the sea" describes the kill, but does not mean that the boundary starts from the sea whence comes the kill. There is nothing in this part of the description which indicates a definite place of beginning. But an inference as to where the place of beginning was may be made from the remainder of the description "in width from a certain valley, included, almost west also into the woods." These words not only indicate the width, but also the eastern boundary. Upon the conceded facts, the southernmost part of the valley was directly north of the head of what is now known as Mill creek, and thence the valley runs along the side of Bestafather's kill. "Almost west also into the woods" describes land which is also north of Mill creek. There is no description of width south of Mill creek. If the width of the land granted was entirely north of Mill creek, then the length must have begun north of Mill creek stretching "almost north into the woods." The Hubbard map, though crude, made ten years after the patent, shows Mill creek running about east and west and joining the Strom kill on the west. Since a place on what is conceded to be the Strom kill is where the stretching begins, and the entire width is north of Mill creek, and the valley begins on the north side of and about at Mill creek, it may be fairly said that the "stretching in length from a certain kil coming from the sea almost north into the woods" meant that the length of the grant was measured from where the Strom kill meets Mill creek and thence "almost north into the woods," meaning probably the direction of the Strom kill. From all this it may be inferred that the width on the south was from a place where the Strom kill and Mill creek meet over to the valley or Bestafather's kill, and that the length was from between those points on Mill creek "almost north into the woods." Thus Mill creek was the southerly boundary. Of course, this is not by any means conclusive, nor completely convincing. But it does give a sensible interpretation to a description obscured by its sparseness. That Mill creek was intended as the southerly boundary and that no part of the grant extended below that creek is also strongly indicated by (1) the absence of any boundary to the east below the valley, which means below Mill creek, although Hubbard's map shows a five-mile stretch from Mill creek south to the ocean, consisting of sand hills and Canarsie Bay on the east; and (2) the failure expressly to name the ocean as the southerly boundary. In this connection it may be noted that in the patents to Gravesend adjoining to the west, the main "ocean sea" is given as the southerly boundary. Although my colleague, Mr. Justice CLOSE, has written an extensive opinion, I take the liberty of making several additional observations in connection with items which have a different significance in light of the new translation and tend to support the conclusion reached by him. Reference is made by Mr. Justice CLOSE to the grant of Bergen's Island by Governor Kieft to Onderhil and by the Indians and Onderhil to Spicer and by Spicer's heir to Elbertsen in 1665. Although the arbitration of 1696 indicated that the westerly bounds of the early grant was the Strom kill beginning at the sea, from which it was inferred that the "Broken Lands" were included in the original patent, the arbitrators, nevertheless, found the patent from the Dutch Governor Kieft to Onderhil of Mutelar's Island (Bergen's Island) and conveyed by Onderhil to Elbertsen. There was no reference to the early Dutch grant in this connection. Bergen's Island, according to the description in the Kieft patent, was two creeks from Long Island, therefore, a part of what is called the "Broken Lands." A recognition of this patent by the arbitrators, it seems to me, is inconsistent with a holding that the "Broken Lands" were included in the early Dutch grant. It tends to support the view of Mr. Justice CLOSE that the early Dutch grant did not go below Mill creek. The description of Barren Island, also called the "Broken Lands," conveyed by the Indians to Tilton and Spicer is not without significance. It is as follows: "a Certain Island, commonly called by the Indians Equindito; And by the English the broken Lands lying and being near Unto the Westermost End of Long Island, and to the Southside thereof, And for the most part Inviorined with the Main Ocean Sea, which on the westermost part thereof branches itself into a river running Northerly, that is to say, to the land sometime belonging to Hugh Garratson, And allso into a river run running Easterly." It thus appears that the "Broken Lands" were surrounded for the most part with the "Main Ocean." This includes the south side and the east side. On the west is a river running northerly, /i.e./, Strom kill, and on the north is a river running easterly (Mill creek). It also appears that the river running northerly goes to the land "sometime belonging to Hugh Garratson." I assume that this is one of the Gerritsen family, through whom the original Dutch patent comes. It thus seems that the Strom kill ran up to Garratson's land and thence ran easterly a river which also was a branch of the ocean. This suggests that Garratson's land did not begin at the ocean. It also tends to support the view expressed by Mr. Justice CLOSE that there were two branches of the "kil coming from the sea." In the Nicolls patent to the Flatlands freeholders of 1667 there is a description difficult to follow and understand, a part of which is as follows: "from their Westerne Bounds wch begins at a Certaine Creek or Kill commonly called ye stromme Kill they Stretch to ffirkins or varckens Hook." On Hubbard's map there is a part outlined in red indicating the boundaries of the grant which claimants assert was made under the original Dutch patent. Outside of these red lines to the east thereof and to the east of Bestafather's kill will be found the words "Varkin's Hook." From this part of the description and from a general understanding of the balance thereof, it is fair to infer that this grant to Flatlands was north of Mill creek and did not include the "Broken Lands." In this grant to Flatlands, as in the original Dutch patent, there were no bounds by the ocean. The ocean is not mentioned. It is hardly likely that two such large islands would be included within the words "Together wth all Havens Harbours Creekes Quarryes woodlands Meadow Ground Reedland or Valley of all Sorts Pastures Marshes Waters Rivers Lakes fishing hawking hunting fowling all other profitts Comodityes Emolumts Hereditamts to ye said Lands prmisses wthin ye said Bounds Lymitts sett forth belonging or in any wise apperteyning," as is claimed by appellants. There are a number of items upon which appellants may call to sustain their view. The Dongan grant of 1685 indicates that the ocean was the southern boundary of Flatlands, which seems to be presently conceded. The various grants of Gravesend were made, all of which were bounded on the south by the ocean. In the arbitration of 1696 it was found that the western boundary of Elbertsen's land, granted by Governor Nicolls in confirmation of his purchase from Gerritsen growing out of the original Dutch grant, joins to the easternmost part of the Gravesend town patent which ran to the ocean. In the Nicolls patent of 1667, the description was followed by the words "TOGETHER with all the lands, Soyles, Woods, Meadows, fflats, Pastures, Marshes, Creekes, Waters, Lakes, ffishing, Hawking, Hunting and ffowling, And all other profits, Commodities, Emoulments, and hereditaments to the said Parcell or Tract of land premises belonging or in anywise, appertaining with their and every of their Appurtenances and of every part and parcell thereof." This it is said, refers to the "Broken Lands" and, at least, indicates what it was thought that the original Dutch patent granted. It will be remembered that in 1664 the Indians conveyed Barren Island or the "Broken Lands" to Tilton and Spicer and that an heir of Spicer conveyed to Elbertsen in 1681. It appears that in 1679 Elbertsen claimed title to the island in an action which he brought for trespass. There are also some other items which, appellants argue, indicate that the "Broken Lands" were included within the original grant. However, whatever doubt may be thrown on the conclusion reached by the trial court by reason of these various items submitted by appellants, they are not sufficient to overcome the construction placed upon the original patent adopted by the trial court, starting with the corrected description as a basis. CARSWELL, J. (concurring). When this case was here before I did not concur in the opinion of the court. I merely concurred in the result, which is not controlling on the question now presented. I concur in the opinion of Mr. Justice CLOSE, with these observations: (a) The basic conclusion of Special Term is reinforced by the rule of strict construction applicable here. A patent or a grant from a sovereign to a subject is to be construed strictly in favor of the Crown. A different rule prevails where the grant is to a town or a political subdivision. ( /People/ v. /Foote/, 242 App. Div. 162 ; 273 N.Y. 629 ; certiorari denied, *302 U.S. 760*.) The rule in respect to grants between private parties is that ambiguity or doubt as to meaning is to be resolved in favor of the grantee. (2 Tiffany, Real Property [2d ed.], § 437, p. 1618; /Allen/ v. /Trustees of Great Neck Free Church/, 240 App. Div. 206 ; affd., 265 N.Y. 570 .) Likewise a grant by a sovereign to a subject or private person based upon a real or adequate consideration requires ambiguity to be resolved in favor of the grantee. (b) That basic conclusion is further reinforced and buttressed by the rule of repose ( /Beers/ v. /Hotchkiss/, 256 N.Y. 41, 48 ; /People/ v. /Foote, supra/) applicable to the resolving of disputes as to interpretations of old grants, that "courts do not look at records with over-technical eyes after the healing acquiescence" of centuries. The "rule of repose" is not in conflict with the principle that there can be no abandonment of title — in fact it is wholly compatible with that principle. The rule here acts upon and presupposes a situation where contemporaneous or early interpretations of original grants resulted in a course of action or inaction, equivalent to a practical construction of the grant, which recognizes that there never was title in respect of the parcel in controversy in the one under whom a claim of title is belatedly asserted. This is a far cry from abandonment of title. It is a mere recognition that there never was any title to abandon. The existence of the principle that there can be no abandonment of title does not militate against the existence of the "rule of repose" which has long been recognized. ( /Beers/ v. /Hotchkiss, supra; People/ v. / Foote, supra./) TAYLOR, J. (concurring). In relation to the claims to awards, of the appellant Gerritsen Basin Development Corporation, for real property taken within the confines of the so-called "broken lands," which claims are based upon that appellant's contention that the Dutch grant of 1636 included such "broken lands," I am of opinion that the following additional considerations fortify the conclusion of my brother CLOSE that such grant did /not/ include those lands but did include only a "flat" on the mainland of Long Island. It did not include the marshy islands and land under water constituting the broken lands lying between the mainland and the ocean on the south. Such a grant must be construed strictly against the grantee. ( /People/ v. /Foote/, 242 App. Div. 162 ; 273 N.Y. 629 ; certiorari denied, *302 U.S. 760*.) Thus construed, the land conveyed is on Long Island only. Further, the Dutch grant is in effect an ambiguous contract as far as the description therein is concerned. Practical construction of that contract by the parties thereto and their successors in title or interest, as shown by their acts or omissions in relation to the real property, aids in the interpretation of the description in the grant. The conduct of the said appellants' alleged predecessors in title, as disclosed in the record, for an impressively long period of time — nearly 300 years — shows that they recognized that the land conveyed in the grant was mainland only. "The practical interpretation of an agreement by a party to it is always a consideration of great weight. * * * There is no surer way to find out what parties meant, than to see what they have done." ( /Insurance Co./ v. /Dutcher/, 95 U.S. 269, 273 ; /vide/ also /Zimmermann/ v. /Roessler Hasslacher Chemical Co./, 246 App. Div. 306, 315 ; affd., 272 N.Y. 566 .) HAGARTY, J. (dissenting). I dissent in part and as to the following damage parcels: 16, 16-A, 16- B, 19, 21, 21-A, 22, 22-A, 23, 23-A, 24, 24-A, 26, 27, 27-A, 27-B, 28, 29, 30, 31, 31-A, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 36-A, 37, 37-A, 38, 38-A, 39, 40, 40-A, 40-B, 41, 41-A, 42, 43, 43-A, 44, 46, 46-A and 46-B in Jamaica Bay Proceeding No. 1; 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 in Jamaica Bay Proceeding No. 2; and 1, 17, 18 and the land portion of 19, in Addition to Marine Park proceeding, and vote to reverse the decrees as to such parcels and to remit for the taking of proof as to devolution of title and the making of awards in accordance therewith. The only important differences between these proceedings and the former one ( /Matter of City of N.Y./ [ /Gerritsen Marine Park/,] 248 App. Div. 240 ; affd., 275 N.Y. 456 ) are that the respondent now admits that which it previously denied and challenged, namely, that the Strom kill was the kill coming from the sea described in the Hudde and Gerritsen patent, and that the scope of that patent included the land running along the easterly side of that kill which is known as Baes Jurians Hook. My colleagues are of opinion that a changed translation of the wording of the description of the patent and a construction to be placed thereupon require a conclusion that the southerly boundary of the patent was not the ocean but Mill creek. I am of opinion that the change in translation, even if accepted, is not only immaterial, but indicates just as clearly that the southerly boundary was the ocean. The word "van" in the description may be translated either as "of" or "from." It is used four times in the same description other than at the disputed place and, in three of those instances, it is admitted that the correct translation is "of." If it means "of," the language of the patent is translated to refer to the land as extending the length of a kill which comes from the sea and continues almost northerly into the woods. If it means "from," the patent may be read as relating to land stretching in length almost northerly from a kill coming from the sea. In either case, the plain meaning of this patent is that its length is measured from the kill as it comes from the sea. A different holding involves rejection of all the proof adduced. It is necessary to ignore the fact that the kill comes from the sea and necessarily continues in a northerly direction, and to place the kill, admittedly the Strom kill, in an easterly and westerly direction beyond and to the north of the broken lands. Mill creek fulfills this requirement in so far as it is portrayed on the Hubbard map as running easterly and westerly to the north of the broken lands, but it is not, nor was it ever, regarded as the Strom kill, the kill coming from the sea. The Strom kill is a broad, well-defined watercourse which, at the time of the patent, had its mouth at the ocean and, at the present time, east of Rockaway Inlet, due to accretion of the peninsula to the south. It runs northerly or almost so and terminated, at the time of the patent, in the vicinity of Kings highway, or near the woods of Gravesend referred to in the patent. It is so depicted on every map in the record, inclusive of the Hubbard map of 1666 and the Beers map of 1873, which latter is admitted to be correct by all parties. This is the watercourse which is referred to as a boundary line by numerous town patents, /e.g./, the Dongan patent to Gravesend of 1686 reading "and from thence Running A Long the hollow to the head of a Certaine Creeke, Commonly Called and knowne by the name of the Strom Kill, or Hugh Garresttsen Creeke, and a Long the Said Creeke to the maine Ocean." There is not a shred of proof in this entire voluminous record that Mill creek was ever known as the Strom kill or as a branch of it. In the light of this overwhelming and uncontradicted showing, I am unable to reject the findings of the arbitrators of the 1696 proceeding, outstanding men of the community, who recognized the Strom kill as the watercourse it is undeniably shown to be, as the kill referred to in the patent and as the kill which the patent contemplated as extending almost northerly to the woods, and to accept instead the theory of the present day translator who "only had a comparatively short time to look into this thing." The findings of the arbitrators in these respects were not even questions at issue, but were accepted and acknowledged as facts, apparently with the acquiescence of all concerned, as premises leading to the conclusion reached. The principal difficulty in seeking to exclude the broken lands from the scope of the patent is the effort to find something in the description which limits or qualifies the length of the Strom kill as it comes from the sea. The absence thereof renders the differences in the translations immaterial and accounts for the acceptance of both as meaning the same thing. It would serve no useful purpose to review all the pertinent proof, in the light of the able and painstaking opinions of my colleagues and of the learned Special Term justice, as well as the opinion written for this court when the same question was presented in the former proceeding. ( /Matter of City of N.Y./ [ /Gerritsen Marine Park/], / supra./) There are, however, a number of conceptions of the proof and deductions therefrom, influencing the majority of this court in arriving at their conclusion on the present appeal, with which I cannot agree and to which attention should be directed. The source of title to Barren Island, which island fronted on the ocean, is a most important factor. Without proof, and notwithstanding the language of the Equindito deed of 1664, it seems to be accepted as a fact that that deed purported to convey title only to Barren Island. On the former trial, Mr. Clark, for the respondent, was of opinion that the deed was to the broken lands. The deed itself says so. That the broken lands, in the aggregate, were considered as an "island" is evident from the Hubbard map showing them as such. No patent was ever granted in connection with the Equindito deed, and I do not understand that the majority of this court have found, or that the city contends, that it was efficacious as a source of title, although it is urged as an offset to the claim that the source of title to Barren Island was the Hudde and Gerritsen patent. This deed, made at the time of the English invasion, might have served as a basis for an English patent in the event that the existing Dutch patents were revoked by the new rulers. Instead, the Dutch patents were confirmed. Elbertsen had acquired his interest from the Gerritsen heirs prior to, and not subsequent to, the Equindito deed. Although Elbertsen's deed is dated 1666, the contract of sale of the remainder of the patented lands, pursuant to which the deed was delivered, was made in 1662, and imports possession in Elbertsen as of that time, it being acknowledged that the heirs had sold and that Elbertsen had bought the property in question. In 1679, an action by the inhabitants of Flatlands against Elbertsen on the ground that the latter made claim to a certain tract of land was decided in favor of the defendant. The court entry immediately following recites that Captain Elbertsen complained that three individuals had trespassed "upon his Island called Bearn Island to his Damage." These entries appeared to me in the former proceeding, and still do, to indicate the existence of cross-actions relating to Barren Island. It would be a most remarkable coincidence that, on the same day and apparently at the same time, two totally different and independent actions relating to trespass, both involving Captain Elbertsen, were before the tribunal. Respondent offers the entire docket of the court for that day showing the disposition of numerous cases in addition to these two. The entries of these two follow each other, however, and the significant fact remains that, although in each and every other case the disposition thereof is noted, there is no notation of the disposition of the complaint by Captain Elbertsen against the named individuals of trespass upon Barren Island, and apparently the verdict of the jury in the action against Elbertsen was determinative of both proceedings. Thus it is reasonably clear that Elbertsen did claim title to Barren Island and that his claim was upheld /two years prior/ to the conveyance to him of Equindito in 1681. The Nicolls patent to Flatlands of 1667 describes the westerly boundary as the Strom kill and the easterly boundary as "ye Mouth of ye Creek or Kill" which is undisputedly stated to be Fresh kill, to the east of Ffirkins hook and having its mouth at Jamaica Bay. The designation of Ffirkins hook in the description is utilized to locate a point of land, but the land of the town "runnes about ye end of ye said Point as well as on ye one syde of it." With the westerly boundary terminating at the ocean and the easterly boundary terminating at Jamaica Bay, I am unable to discern any reason for the belief that lands between these two points, inclusive of the broken lands, were not therein included. Nor am I able to subscribe to reasoning that the length of the lands within the Hudde and Gerritsen patent should be measured and circumscribed by the width described therein. I have no doubt that the casual reference in the letter of the West India Company to the effect that Hudde and Gerritsen held about 1,800 morgens of land on Long Island related to the mainland and that the writer did not include these broken and wet lands within his estimate. The only substantial obstacle to the construction of the patent as inclusive of the broken lands is the Kieft patent of 1646 to Captain Onderhil in return for his services in fighting Indians. Numerous other patents, ostensibly derogatory of the Hudde and Gerritsen patent, of lands within the conceded bounds of the latter were issued. The strictures of the Dutch officials as to speculation and land-selling must be borne in mind with respect to them. Here, too, Elbertsen acquired title from Spicer's heirs subsequent to and not prior to the time that he had acquired his interest in the Hudde and Gerritsen patent. The situation suggests that he deemed it politic to purchase a quitclaim, as he did of Equindito, rather than assert and litigate his own superior title. In contrast, the only demonstrated source of title out of Elbertson to the adjacent Mill Island is the Hudde and Gerritsen patent. My conclusion is that if the grantors had been sedulous to exclude the broken lands from the bounds of the patent and by means of a southerly boundary consisting of an inland waterway, they would have so stated. I have no doubt that they had no intention of so circumscribing this, the first patent issued of land on Long Island, and that on the contrary they plainly showed by their description that the southerly boundary was the sea, a fact established by an overwhelming preponderance of the extrinsic proof. Assuming that there was doubt or ambiguity, no satisfactory reason is shown why the confirmatory Nicolls patent of November 1, 1667, should not be taken to mean what it says, namely, that title is confirmed in Elbertsen of all the land included within the patent together with lands "fflats, Pastures, Marshes" and "Creekes;" and in the light of the holding in /Best Renting Co./ v. /City of New York/ ( 248 N.Y. 491 ), I am of opinion that this language should be accepted at its face value. Here, too, the description shows that the grant was measured by the kill "coming out of the sea /and so/ runs almost North into the Woodland * * *." (Italics mine.) Finally, there is no so-called "rule of repose" with respect to land titles for the reason that there is no such thing as abandonment of title predicated upon neglect of an estate. ( /Matter of City of N.Y./ [ /Realty Associates/], 256 N.Y. 217 .) Nor is it in accordance with the facts to assert that there has been acquiescence or recognition of exclusion of the broken lands from the scope of the patent for 250 or 300 years. In 1745, Wilhelmus Stoothoff conveyed a one-half part of "the Common undivided Lands, Meadows, flatts, bays, Marshes, beaches, Creeks * * *" of which his father had died seized, by virtue of the patent. By will probated April 19, 1794, Jeromus Lott devised his interest in "the undivided lands and meadows, beaches and marshes," in the patent. In 1897 the Lott heirs conveyed an interest in the broken lands north of Barren Island to Henry M. Gescheidt and invoked the patent, and Gescheidt asserted the claim of these heirs to the broken lands by reason of the patent before the Attorney-General of the State in 1898. In my opinion, the finding of the trial court that the broken lands were not included within the bounds of the patent should be reversed and as to those damage parcels hereinbefore enumerated the matter should be remitted to the trial court for the taking of proof and determination of the devolution of title and the making of awards in accordance therewith. Final decrees in the Jamaica Bay Proceeding No. 1 and Jamaica Bay Proceeding No. 2 affirmed, with costs. Final decree in the Addition to Marine Park Proceeding modified by increasing the amount of the award for the Metcalfe parcel (Damage Parcel No. 2) to the sum of $3,940, and, as thus modified the decree is affirmed, without costs. END from https://www.simonpg.com/d305.htm BEGIN Thomas SPICER was christened on 13 Feb 1591/2 in Barfreston, Kent, England. (Spycer, Thomas, Son of Nicholas).1 He immigrated about 1638. He died on 4 Nov 1658 in Gravesend, Long Island, New York State. He was married 1st to Ann GRANT on the 5 Feb 1626/7 at St. Mary's, Sandwich, Kent, England.1 [Diocese of Canterbury Marriage Licence - Thomas Spicer of Barfreston, and Ann Grant of S. Mary's in Sandwich. At S. Mary's. Feb 4 1626.]2 Ann was buried on the 29 Sep 1635 at St. Peter's Sandwich, Kent.1 It would appear that Thomas and Ann were either using a church whose parish registers are no longer extant or they were non-conformists such as Quakers already. At this time Quakers were buried in their local Church of England graveyard if the Quakers didn't have their own burial ground. This would appear to be the case as there are no baptisms for Thomas & Ann's children in Sandwich, but there are the burials in St. Peter Sandwich of Ann and her "chrisome child" (i.e. unbaptised, meaning the child died soon after birth. And also another possible child Martha buried there in 1634, however no notation was made as to the age or parents. The lack of baptisms for the children of Thomas & Ann can only give rise to the reasonable speculation that Susanna was born to them in this period. He was married 2nd to Michal JENKINS nee WETHERLEY (Witherlie, Weatherly etc.) on the 7 Feb 1635/6 at St. Clements, Sandwich, Kent, England.1 [Diocese of Canterbury Marriage Licence - Thomas Spicer of S. Peter's in Sandwich, maltster, widr., about 43, and Micoll Jenkins of S. Clement's in Sandwich, w. of John Jenkins "sometimes of London". dec At S. Clements. Feb 5 1635.]2 Whilst I haven't found any documentary proof linking Thomas Spicer of America with Thomas Spicer of Kent, England, I feel that the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming. Micall is a most unusual name for a woman, and for two Thomas Spicer's to marry a woman of this name, in the exact time frame, is virtually impossible. Also Thomas & Micall of Kent had a son Samuel baptised as below. I have no hesitation is saying they are one and the same Thomas & Micall.. I would also like to make the point at this stage of saying, that Susannah (who married. Henry Brasier / Breser) is not the daughter of Thomas & Micall but of the first marriage between Thomas & Ann Grant. Susannah married in 1644, making it impossible that she was a daughter by the 2nd marriage in 1635/6. Therefore most published genealogies are wrong in ascribing Micall as Susannah's mother instead of Ann Grant. Thomas is first recorded settling at Newport, Rhode Island. 1639 - Admitted as an inhabitant of Newport. 30 Apr 1639 - Town of Portsmouth We, whose names are under [written doe acknowledge] ourselves the legall subjects of [his Majestie] King Charles, and in his name [doe hereby binde] ourzelves into a civill body politicke, unto his lawes according to matters of justice. Samuel Spicer (amongst 29 signaturies). ['Records of the Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations in New England' Vol.1 pg.70.] 1639 - Town of Portsmouth At a meeting held last Thursday (day & month not stated), it is ordered, that no man shall sell his lot or offer it to ye boddy here in Portsmouth. It is ordered, that John Porter and Thomas Spicer shall [receive from ye] inhabitants of ye lastly purchase meddows, theire monies for this yeare, and bring it to ye [Towne]. ['Records of the Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations in New England' Vol.1 pg.71.] 1639 - Town of Portsmouth At a quarter meeting of the first of ye 5th month, 1639. [It is agreed], that every man that hath a house lott shall build upon the same within one [yeare after, or] he loseth it. Mr. Thomas Spicer and Robert Potter are chosen surveyors for ye highways and ................... this, and in two, foure, or six dayes at ............. this, and ye 29 of 7th month next; or procure a man, he ............... day to ye surveyor, and the surveyors to [make report to] ye Court at ye yeares end. It is agreed upon, to call this town Portsmouth. ['Records of the Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations in New England' Vol.1 pg.72.] 1639, 1st of the 8th month - Town of Newport A catalogue of such [persons], who, by the Generall consent of the Company were admitted to be Inhabytants of the Island now called Aqueedneck, having submitted themselves to the Government that it shall be established, according to the words of God therein. Thomas Spicer (14th in list of names.) ['Records of the Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations in New England' Vol.1 pgs.90, 91.] 12 Apr 1640 - Town of Newport By Election Item 9. It is ordered, that to the number of five men shall be chosen to lay out the Lands belonging to the Towne of Portsmouth, and three for Nieuport. Item 10. By order of the Courte, John Sanford, Adam Mott, Thomas Spicer, Richard Burden, and Philip Shearman, are chosen to the service of laying out the Lands for the Towne of Portsmouth. ['Records of the Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations in New England' Vol.1 pgs.101, 102.] 16th Mar 1641 - Town of Newport The Court Roll of Freeme, with the officers, as they were Elected on the 16th of March, 1641. Thomas Spicer (17th on the list) ['Records of the Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations in New England' Vol.1 pg.110.] 16th & 17th March 1642 - Town of Newport At the Generall Court of Election held on the 16th and 17th of March, att Newport, 1642. Mr. Thom. Spicer is chosen Threa'r of Portsmouth for one whole year, &c. (or till a new be chosen). ['Records of the Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations in New England' Vol.1 pg.120.] As Thomas starts to appear in the New York records in 1643 it would therefore appear that he moved from Rhode Island to Long Island, New York with the party led by Lady Deborah Moody. She had organized a party to settle a new community under guidance of the Dutch Colony of New Netherlands. She, with her fellow colonists moved to Long Island, and started a settlement at a place named Gravesend, a name given it by the Dutch Director Kieft. ['Long Island Historical Bulletin' April 1913] Says Steyvesant in 1653 - "Elbert Elbertson and Thomas Spicer, from Amersfoort, usurped their lands many years ago without any deed.......... They are occupying such lands in said village fifteen to twenty years" ['History of New Netherland' by E.B. O'Callaghan, V.1 pg.173. - Hol. Doc. v.,398] 25 Jun 1643 Lease. Arent van Curler, Secretary of Rensselaerswyck, to Thomas Spicer, of a bouwery with house, barn, tobacco house, &c., (with) Inventory of what Mr. Van Curler delivered to Mr. Spicer. Vol. II, pg.62. [Cal. of Historical Manuscripts in the Office of the Sec. of State, Albany, NY - Edmund Baily O’Callaghan. Vol.1 (Dutch), p.23] 7 Jul 1644 (see next entry for relevance) Declaration. Peter Jansen, that he was told by Mr. Middeler, on the river Rappahanock in 1643, that the bark belonging to Mr. Throgmorton and Peter Louwrens, was the property of Sir Edmund Pleydeon, Knt. Vol. II, pg.119 [Cal. of Historical Manuscripts in the Office of the Sec. of State, Albany, NY - Edmund Baily O’Callaghan. Vol.1 (Dutch), p.28] 8 Jul 1644 Court Proceedings. Mr. Moor vs. Mr. Spyser, in a case of attachment on a bark belonging to Peter Lourensen and Mr. Trockmorton; Lourensen is condemned to deliver the bark to Spicer agreeably to the power of attorney, on condition that the latter give security for the value of the vessel, in case Mt. Moor hereafter prove that the owner is indebted to him, when the money must be returned. Vol. IV, pg. 193, 194. [Cal. of Historical Manuscripts in the Office of the Sec. of State, Albany, NY - Edmund Baily O’Callaghan. Vol.1 (Dutch), p.89] 21 Sep 1645 Court Proceedings. Francis Weeks vs. Mr. Spicer, for loss of a gun; judgment for defendant. Vol IV, pg.235, 236. [Cal. of Historical Manuscripts in the Office of the Sec. of State, Albany, NY - Edmund Baily O’Callaghan. Vol.1 (Dutch), p.97] 23 Oct 1645 Declaration. Adam Mott that he heard William Lachem acknowledge to owe 50 guilders to Thomas Spyser. Vol. II, pg.147. [Cal. of Historical Manuscripts in the Office of the Sec. of State, Albany, NY - Edmund Baily O’Callaghan. Vol.1 (Dutch), p.33] 1645 On December 10, 1645, Lady Moody, Sir Henry Moody, Ensign George Baxter and Sergeant James Hubbard, with their associates were granted a patent by Director Kieft. The settlers entered into an agreement at Amersfoort with Lady Moody and her associates by which the town was to be divided into 28 parts, each to receive a plantation lot, also a village lot. - Lot 17 Thomas Spicer In 1646 a new division was made, laying out the town into 40 lots. - Lot 15 Thomas Spicer. ['Long Island Historical Bulletin' April 1913] 5-10 Jul 1646 Court proceedings. Examination of Thomas Gridy, of Devonshire, Eng; a prisoner accused of having stolen silver ware and other articles, and of having endeavoured to entice John Jones and others to steal; prisoner remanded. Declaration of Maria Roberts, that John Jones had bought shirts, that had been stolen from Spicer, to her house, and that her husband, Thomas Gridy, had received them. 6 Jul 1646. Confession of Thomas Gridy, that he had received stolen goods, and had solicitored others to rob, but denies that he stole silver ware; wherefore, he continues obstinate in such denial; ordered that he be subjected to torture. 10 Jul 1646. Sentence. Thomas Gridy aforesaid, to be conveyed to the place of execution, and publically whipped, and then banished the county forever. Vol. IV, pg.263-4. [Cal. of Historical Manuscripts in the Office of the Sec. of State, Albany, NY - Edmund Baily O’Callaghan. Vol.1 (Dutch), p.103] 17 Dec 1646 Court Proceedings. Thomas Spicer v. Thomas Sanderson; plaintiff complains that defendant keeps him out of his land, threatens his life, abuses him as a rogue and villain, and shot one of his goats; court decrees that the first time Thomas Spicer, or any of the neighbours, is insulted, defendant shall be banished from the Plain; the damages complained of to be assessed by arbitrators. Vol. IV, pg. 278, 279. [Cal. of Historical Manuscripts in the Office of the Sec. of State, Albany, NY - Edmund Baily O’Callaghan. Vol.1 (Dutch), p.106] 20 July 1652 Thomas Spicer buys Bergen or Metlers Island. See transcript. 13 May 1653 - Jacob Couwenhoven sold a tract at Flatlands to Thomas Spicer. Sold by his widow to Coert Stevense (Van Voorhees). 11 Dec 1653 - At a Convention called by the Burgomasters of New Amsterdam, a remonstrance was signed by all members of the convention. The delegates from Flatbush whose names are attached to it were "Elbert Elbertson and Thomas Spicer" [http://longislandgenealogy.com/histflat.html] 2 Jun 1654 Judgment in Appeal. Martin Jansen vs. Thomas Spicer; decision of court of Midwout affirmed, with cost, and 12 guilders fine. Vol. V, pg. 257. [Cal. of Historical Manuscripts in the Office of the Sec. of State, Albany, NY - Edmund Baily O’Callaghan. Vol.1 (Dutch), p.138] 6 Oct 1654 Power of Attorney. Arent van Curler to Dirck van Schelluyne, N.P., to collect rent of a farm from Thomas Spicer. Vol. III, pg.119. [Cal. of Historical Manuscripts in the Office of the Sec. of State, Albany, NY - Edmund Baily O’Callaghan. Vol.1 (Dutch), p.57] 15 Oct 1654 Mortgage. Henry Breser, of his house, a lot and garden, on the Island of Manhattans, as collateral security to Thomas Spicer and Thomas Hall, for a bond signed by them. Vol. III, pg. 123. [Cal. of Historical Manuscripts in the Office of the Sec. of State, Albany, NY - Edmund Baily O’Callaghan. Vol.1 (Dutch), p.57] 15 Oct 1654 Bond. Johannes van Twiller, of Beverwyck, merchant, for any judgment that may be obtained by Thomas Spicer against Arent van Curler. Vol. III, pg.123. [Cal. of Historical Manuscripts in the Office of the Sec. of State, Albany, NY - Edmund Baily O’Callaghan. Vol.1 (Dutch), p.57-8] 15 Oct 1654 Bond. Thomas Hall, for any judgment that maybe obtained by Arent van Curler against Thomas Spicer. Vol. III, pg. 124. [Cal. of Historical Manuscripts in the Office of the Sec. of State, Albany, NY - Edmund Baily O’Callaghan. Vol.1 (Dutch), p.58] 15 Oct 1654 Council Minutes. Complaint. Dirck van Schelluyne, attorney for Arent van Curler, vs. Thomas Spicer, for rent of a brewery; copy to be served on defendant. Vol. V, pg. 381. [Cal. of Historical Manuscripts in the Office of the Sec. of State, Albany, NY - Edmund Baily O’Callaghan. Vol.1 (Dutch), p.142] Thomas Spicer is named as one of the Gravesend Magistrates sometime during the period 1650-1674. [New York County Clerk's Office - http://www.courts.state.ny.us/history/elecbook/sullivan/pg3.htm#38CASE] Will dated 30 Sep 1658, Gravesend. Proved 4 Nov 1658. Wife Michall, son Samuel heirs and executors of all the estate apart from the following legacies :- To Ann Lake (daughter), wife of John Lake, 60 guilders, for the benefit of her three children. To Susannah Brasier (daughter), wife of Henry Brasier, 80 guilders, for her four children. For mending the highway in the Lane to fort Ward, 40 guilders. For fencing burial place, 20 guilders. Gravesend Records, Liber 3, pg 112. 1st Marriage - Ann GRANT on 14 Feb 1626 at St Marys, Sandwich, Kent, England. Children of this marriage were :- child i. Susanna SPICER child ii. Ann SPICER. There are several possible christenings for Ann, the most likely being :- - 21 Oct 1605 d. Markes Graunte - St Mary Sandwich, Kent - 20 Sep 1607 d. John Grannt - St Peter Thanet, Kent - 22 Nov 1607 d. Robert Grant - St Peter Thanet, Kent. The most likely is the 1605 christening, the daughter of Markes Graunte. I can only find two Markes Grauntes but cannot directly link them to this one, however considering the rarity of the name I would say they are connected :- - In the will of Nicholas Gawnte of Wotton in 1552 he names a son Markes. In Nicholas Spycer's will of 1607 he mentions property in Nonington. A Markes family appears in the Nonington Parish Registers in the mid 1500's suggecting that the Markes family and Spicer family may have origins in the same parishes and hence knew or were related to each other. - Christening of Marks Graunte, son of William, on 30 Dec 1564 in Shoulden, just south of Sandwich. 2nd Marriage Micah / Michal JENKINS on 5 Feb 1635/1636. 1st Marriage - John JENKINS & Michal WITHERLIE on 17 Jul 1622 in St. Olave, Hart St., London, England. There always appears to be some confusion with her name, being so similar to the male Michael, and she is often confused as such, and hence often named as Thomas's son instead of his wife/widow. Some researchers say she died in 1663 in Kings, New York. However she is mentioned in the NY manuscripts as late as 1675. Her name is most likely derives from the Prophet Micah of Moresheth, and the Book of Micah from the Old Testament. 17 Feb 1661 Proceedings against Mrs. Micah Spicer, for entertaining George Wilson, a Quaker. Vol.IX, pg’s. 528, 530, 541. [Cal. of Historical Manuscripts in the Office of the Sec. of State, Albany, NY - Edmund Baily O’Callaghan. Vol.1 (Dutch), p.221] 5 Oct 1662 Sentence of banishment against Michal Spicer and Samuel, her son, for harboring Quakers, and distributing seditious and seducing pamphlets, to propogate their heresy. Vol.X, pg.233. [Cal. of Historical Manuscripts in the Office of the Sec. of State, Albany, NY - Edmund Baily O’Callaghan. Vol.1 (Dutch), p.240] 25 Nov 1665 Mactel Spieser sells Bergen or Metlers Island. See transcript. June 1670 Memorandum that Mrs. Micah Spicer had made good her title to part of Throckmorton’s or Spicer’s neck. Vol.XXII, pg.102. [Cal. of Historical Manuscripts in the Office of the Sec. of State, Albany, NY - Edmund Baily O’Callaghan. Vol.2 (English), p.5] 19 Jun 1671 Warrant to the Surveyor General to lay out for Micah Spicer, thirty acres of land, with meadow in proportion, on Throgmorton’s neck, with assignment of the said land, by Mrs. Spicer to Mathias Nicholls. Vol.XXII, pg.117. [Cal. of Historical Manuscripts in the Office of the Sec. of State, Albany, NY - Edmund Baily O’Callaghan. Vol.2 (English), p.6] 8 Jun 1675 Judgment in the case of Michall Spicer, widow, agst. Robert Coe, at the Sessions, at Jamaica, L.I., with bill of costs. Vol.XXIV, pg.110. [Cal. of Historical Manuscripts in the Office of the Sec. of State, Albany, NY - Edmund Baily O’Callaghan. Vol.2 (English), p.36] 20 Apr 1678 Flatlands Town Records, Deeds, Misc. - conveyance by Jan Maertense to his brother, Roeleff Maertense, of a house lot which he had owned for several years, located in Amsfort between Elbert Elbertse and Roeleff Maertense and derived from its former owner, Michal Spicer. ['The Washington ancestry ...' by Charles Arthur Hoppin 1932, pg.149] It would appear that Micah and her son Samuel became Quakers, and were persecuted by the local Dutch authorities. This is somewhat ironic as Thomas originally settled on Long Island, after removing from Rhode Island with a group of others, because R.I. was too puritan. Children were: child i. Samuel SPICER was christened on 30 Jul 1637 at St. Peter's, Sandwich, Kent, England.1 See historical documents relating to him. Sources 1. Parish Register as stated. 2. Canterbury Marriage Licences - Second Series 1619-1660 edited by Joseph Meadows Cowper., Cross & Jackson, Canterbury, 1894. from https://www.simonpg.com/spicer-hm.htm Samuel Spicer - Historical Manuscripts etc. 9 Jan 1661 Minute of search for Quakers; arrest of a Quaker’s cloak and of Sam Spicer of Gravesend L.I. Vol IX, pg 487 [Cal. of Historical Manuscripts in the Office of the Sec. of State, Albany, NY - Edmund Baily O’Callaghan. Vol.1 (Dutch), p.219] 13 Jan 1661 Indictment. Henry Townsend and Sam Spicer for attending Quaker meetings. Vol IX, pg 496 [Cal. of Historical Manuscripts in the Office of the Sec. of State, Albany, NY - Edmund Baily O’Callaghan. Vol.1 (Dutch), p.220] 20 Jan 1661 Trial and sentence of Samuel Spicer, a Quaker; fined Ł12. Vol IX, pg506 [Cal. of Historical Manuscripts in the Office of the Sec. of State, Albany, NY - Edmund Baily O’Callaghan. Vol.1 (Dutch), p.220] 5 Oct 1662 Sentence of banishment against Michal Spicer and Samuel, her son, for harboring Quakers, and distributing seditious and seducing pamphlets, to propogate their heresy. Vol.X, pg.233. [Cal. of Historical Manuscripts in the Office of the Sec. of State, Albany, NY - Edmund Baily O’Callaghan. Vol.1 (Dutch), p.240] from https://www.simonpg.com/deed84.htm Deed - Thomas & Mactel SPICER - 1652 From the book :- Keskachauge, or the first white settlement on Long Island by, Van Wyck, Frederick, 1924. Pages 693-5. The following is a copy of the author's copy of the Indian deed of Bergen Island, the original of which has never been recorded, so far as is known. Know all men by these presents maye any wayes concerne that wee whose names are underwirtten viz: Orancke and Sprecke Jon alias Aremacus the right and true proprietors of a certain Island or parcell of land called and knowne by the name of Metlers Island doe hereby acknowledge and declare that for and in consideration of full and plenarie satisfaction already paied and delivered unto us by Thomas Spicer doe by virtue hereof absolutely sell assign and make over all the said parcel of land as woodland march and meadowe thereunto standing and groweing thereuppon from us our heyeres executours, administrators & assigns actuellie perpetuallie and reallie to injoy and possesse as his owne free land of inheritence and to dispose of itt as to himself shall be expedient. Witness or hands this 20th July 1652, st: no: The mark of Oranke, the mark of Sprecke Jon alias Aremacus Sene and allowed in the presence of The mark of Ambrose Louddon interpretor The mark of Kohne Lake [From a copy made in 1893 from a copy of a copy in the office of John Z. Lott, Esquire, of Brooklyn, purporting to have been made and certified by Teunis G. Bergen.] The following was written on the back of this Indian deed, according to Mr. Bergen's copy, and like the deed itself has never been recorded, as far as is known : I underwritten declare to have transported to Elbert Elbertsen the above written conveyance and acknowledge therefor full payment and declare that I have no further claims on the same, I, nor my heirs from now to the end of time. Executed 25th November A.D. 1665 in Amersfoort on Long Island. The mark of Mactel Spieser Adij dieto. On this paid in Zewant one hundred and twenty [sic] guilders f125- The copy that the late Samuel H. McElroy of Brooklyn gave to the author, mentioned in the preceding chapter XVI, is endorsed : "Copy of the original Indian deed to Thomas Spicer, of Spicer to Elbert Elbertse Stroothoff, and John Underhill to Thomas Spicer, of the Island at present known as Bergens Flatlands Bergen Island." The gifts from Mr. Mc Elroy included a paper endorsed in the same hand writing : "Copy of Original Deed to Capt. John Onderhill of Island in Flatlands known as Meutelaers or Bergen Island Flatlands, Kings County New York. Copy of Copy in possession of John C. Bergen. Samuel McElroy. Compared June 17/91." The paper so endorsed purports to be a copy of the translated record of the patent at Bergen Island by Kieft to Underhill, dated May 14, 1646. At the end of this copy stands : "The above a translation from the Dutch copied from :Translations of Book of Dutch patents G.G. 1642 to 1649 pages 343 & 344." According to the McElroy copy, the sign-manuals of four Indians were affixed to the Bergen Island deed, namely : The mark of Oramke The mark of Specke John Aremacus The mark of Qahasse The mark of Ohachanna "Red Indians" I certify the above to be a correct copy of the original deed in the possession of the heirs of Elbert Elbert Stroothoff. Teunis G. Bergen. Copied and Compared with T.G. Bergen's copy June 17 1891, Samuel H. McElroy. (From McElroy copy in the author's possession.) Judging from the McElroy copy, the conveyance by Mactel Spicer to Elbert Elbertson may have been in Dutch, for at the end of that conveyance the following appears : "The above written on the back of the preceding deed in Dutch translated by Teunis G. Bergen." The work payment according to the McElroy copy was written over the word acknowledgment, crosses out. In the author's copy the word payment follows the word satisfaction, crossed out. from https://www.simonpg.com/d303.htm#P1087 Henry BRASIER / BRESER / BRASHER etc. He was married to Susanna SPICER on 9 Oct 1644 in New York, USA. Marriage entry has Henry Brasher of the Province of Essex to Susanna Walters, widow of William. Walters. Henry's pedigree is not known at this stage. He has been mentioned as of Essex, England. His marriage entry above simply says "Province of Essex". However many American States have locations or Counties named Essex. I have seen this confusion between American place names & English place names in other family references. In both these latter cases the author has definitely confused the American place name with the British. Henry is mentioned as being an Englishman in a slander case, (see below - 2 Oct 1648), however he is also referred to as being Dutch (see below - 1674 List of owners). Whether this last item was based on the written records, or was merely an assumption by the author I cannot say. Some pedigrees featuring Henry have him as being from Nazeing, Essex, England. There are in fact Brasier families in Nazeing and nearby parishes at the time. There are two possible baptisms for Henry in Nazeing on the 10 Sep 1615 & 30 Aug 1618, parents names not stated. There is no burial between the two baptisms, so it cannot be deduced (at this time) whether they were by different parents or not, and indeed who the parents were. Possibly they were William Brasior & Mary Wilkinsonne, who married in Nazeing on 28 Sep 1600. Or Edward BRASIER, turner, of Nazeing, who appeared in a Court case in 1642 :- "Francis Swift gent., Edward BRASIER turner and George Beech labourer, all of NAZEING, 23 June, about the hour of 11 in the forenoon, at Waltham Holy Cross, riotously broke into the close and forest of the King called Waltham Forest and Killed a buck feeding there with "a handgun" charged with 'gunpowder and a bullett' ". [Essex Record Office ref - Q/SR 318/23, Q/SR 318/31]. We know from Henry's will that he was also a turner, as likewise his son Abraham, and grandson Luke or Lucas. All in all, the two baptism dates in Nazeing, Essex, are ideal for our Henry who married in 1642, and died in 1689/90. More research is needed before any definitive conclusions can be drawn. 1644 - Govert Loockermans had sold another parcel of land1, lying to the eastward of Van Borsum's garden and orchard, to Henry Brazier, frequently spoken of by the Dutch as Herry Breser. Brazier was an Englishman from the shire of Essex, and is found in New Amsterdam as early as 1644, in which year he married Susanna, the widow of "William Watkyns. He appears to have been a tobacco-planter, and had a tract of about thirty-two acres of land upon Long Island, somewhat north of the ferry, and nearly opposite the land which he acquired of Loockermans. [1 Oddly enough, Mr. D. T. Valentine, and a host of those who have followed him, have transferred this land to the other side of the river, "in the vicinity of the present Franklin Square."] This plot, purchased from Loockermans, seems to have extended along the river from the ferryman's garden a distance of about two hundred and ninety English feet, to a point about seventy or eighty feet west of the present Roosevelt Street. From the shore it ran back from two hundred to two hundred and fifty feet to a line a short distance north of the present Cherry Street. The continuation of the ferryman's road still ran along the beach to give access to Brazier's place, and there is evidence that his house stood close to the shore at a spot a few feet east of the present Dover Street, and south of Cherry Street. Brazier had hardly established himself at this place when, in the summer of 1G54, the Dutch in New Amsterdam were thrown into a great state of excitement by the intelligence that an English fleet sent by Cromwell had arrived in New England in the war then being carried on between England and the Netherlands, and that preparations were being made there for an attack on New Amsterdam. Henry Brazier, suspected by his Dutch neighbors, may have found his position an irksome one, or he may have considered the Dutch chances for successful resistance as hopeless, and may therefore have started off to acquire the merit of a timely submission to the anticipated new regime. At any rate he quitted New Amsterdam, — in all probability with his family, — although in doing so at such a time he violated one of Director-General Stuyvesant's ordinances. As peace, however, was soon afterwards declared between England and the Nether-lands, Brazier found himself somewhat amiss in his calcula-tions. He returned to New Amsterdam in 1655, much crest-fallen, but Stuyvesant and the Council received him in high dudgeon, and made an order on the 5th of May of that year, that " Harry Bresar, who left in the time of the troubles, despite the notices, is to be allowed to return to settle his affairs, but not to become domiciliated." It took Brazier so long to settle his affairs, however, that ten years afterwards he is found quietly residing here with his wife and family of four young daughters. The wrath of the Dutch was, as a rule, not of long duration, and Brazier probably had little difficulty in making his peace with them. [New Amsterdam and its people; studies, social and topographical, of the town under Dutch and early English rule by Innes, J. H. (John H.) 1902] 4 Sep 1645 - Patent. Harry Breser; 16 morgens 486 rods of land on the shore of the East River, adjoining Claes Dircksen, the ferryman, and running through the maize land to the valley (Brooklyn). [New York Dutch Patents - Vol.GG, pg.265.] Full transcript 2 Oct 1648 - Sentence. Jan Teunisen, for slandering Harry Breser, an Englishman, and running away, taking with him the company’s ferry boat, to work 100 days for the company, and 50 for the church, and to give bail for the faithful performance of his work. ['Calendar of Historical Manuscripts., Sec. State New York' by Edmund O'Callaghan, pg 120 - Dutch Manuscripts Vol.IV, pg.418.] 8 Feb 1649- Acceptance, by Henry Breser, of Philip de Truy’s house and lot from Nicholas Stillwell. ['Calendar of Historical Manuscripts., Sec. State New York' by Edmund O'Callaghan, pg 45 - Dutch Manuscripts Vol.III, pg.29.] [Dutch Records, Albany - Vol.V, pg.100] - Abstract 29 Aug 1651 - Deed. Herry Breser to Cornelius de Potter, of land and cattle on the East river, at Long Island, between the lands of Cornelius Dircksen Hoogland and Frederick Lubbertsen. ['Calendar of Historical Manuscripts., Sec. State New York' by Edmund O'Callaghan, pg 54 - Dutch Manuscripts Vol.III, pg.92.] 4 Jan 1652 - Deed. Cornelius Dircksen Hooglant, ferryman, to Cornelius de Potter, of a lot of land on Long Island, containing 12 morgens 55 rods, adjoining Harry Breser, together with a house and lot in Breuckelen. ['Calendar of Historical Manuscripts., Sec. State New York' by Edmund O'Callaghan, pg 55 - Dutch Manuscripts Vol.III, pg.99.] 7 Mar 1652 - Deed. Jacob Leendertsen van de Grist, on behalf of Frederick Lubbertsen, his father-in-law, to Jan Hendricksen Stelman, of 15 morgans of land on the East River, adjoining the lands of Harry Breser and Edmund Wiscock. ['Calendar of Historical Manuscripts., Sec. State New York' by Edmund O'Callaghan, pg 56 - Dutch Manuscripts Vol.III, pg.105.] 9 Sep 1652 - Casper Steimits vs. Henry Bresier, action to recover 12 guilders; defendant acknowledges that he passed his word for Mark Meggs for 12 English shillings; judgment for the plaintiff for that amount. ['Calendar of Historical Manuscripts., Sec. State New York' by Edmund O'Callaghan, pg 127 - Dutch Manuscripts Vol.V, pg.53-55.] 18 Nov 1652 - Court Proceedings. Thomas Stevenson vs. Harry Bresier; plaintiff rented a farm from defendant, who was to build a house on the premises whilst plaintiff was to build a tobacco house which he was to leave on the ground, in return defendant was to furnish the nails and half a barrel of beer; plaintiff sues on the contract; the farm having meanwhile been sold to Cornelius de Potter, the case is taken under deliberation; various actions for debt. ['Calendar of Historical Manuscripts., Sec. State New York' by Edmund O'Callaghan, pg 130 - Dutch Manuscripts Vol.V, pg.92, 93.] Friday, 20 March 1654 - i.174 Fort Amsterdam, in extraordinary session. Mr. Isaac Allerton, plaintiff v/s Herry Breser, defendant. Plaintiff proves by the testimony of Jan Wodtkock, Robert Hop and Mary Cocksael, widow, that defendant Herry Breser had said, he, Isaac Allerton, had sold here his provisions and inladen goods contrary to law; whereof he demands suitable proof. Defendant Herry Breser appearing in Court declares, that he had never said, that Mr. Isaac Allerton had sold here any of the provisions and goods laid in now on this voyage, much less that he has any knowledge of such an occurrence, rejecting one of the deponents; all which he subscribed with his signature in Court. (Signed) d the mark of Herry Breser. The Honourable Coucillors aforesaid having heard the declaration of Herry Breser, acquit him, Breser, of the slander, and Mr. Isaac Allerton's claim is dismissed. Thus done at the aforesaid session in Fort Amsterdam in New Netherland. done as above. [The records of New Amsterdam from 1653 to 1674 anno Domini,New York: 1857] 15 Oct 1654 - Mortgage. Henry Breser, of his house, a lot and garden, on the Island of Manhattans, as collateral security to Thomas Spicer and Thomas Hall, for a bond signed by them. ['Calendar of Historical Manuscripts., Sec. State New York' by Edmund O'Callaghan, pg 57 - Dutch Manuscripts. Vol.III, pg.123] 25 Nov 1654 - i.266 Thomas Hall and M. Spicer, plaintiff v/s Herry Breser, defendant. All in default. [The records of New Amsterdam from 1653 to 1674 anno Domini,New York: 1857] 5 May 1655 - Order. Allowing Harry Brasier, who left in the time of the troubles, to trade and sell his property in New Amsterdam but not to be domicilated. ['Calendar of Historical Manuscripts., Sec. State New York' by Edmund O'Callaghan, pg 148 - Dutch Manuscripts Vol.VI, pg.37.] 24 Jan 1656 - ii.23 Tomas Griddy, plaintiff v/s herry Breser, defendant. Both in default. [The records of New Amsterdam from 1653 to 1674 anno Domini,New York: 1857] 1657 - The small burgher right :- 17 Apr 1657 - Herry Breser [Collections of the New York Historical Society for the year 1885 - V.18, pg.23] 1658 - Friday, 4th January - ii.289, also v.vii.166 In the City Hall. Herri Breser is, by order of the Heerem Burgomasters of the City of Amsterdam in N. Netherland, hereby directed to make up his sheetpiling and to raise and fasten it forthwith. Done as above, by order of the Heerem Burgomasters. [The records of New Amsterdam from 1653 to 1674 anno Domini,New York: 1857] 1658 - In the records of the Orphan's Court (Holland Society Year Book, 1900) it is stated that Jan Hutsitson (Hutchison) died at the house of Henry Brasar, and Thmas Hal and Isaack Grevers were appointed administrators. By his will, dated Oct. 4, 1658, Jan Hutsitson willed to jan, son of Joris Hom, 100 guilders; to Susanna, daughter of Henry Breser, his god-daughter, 120 guilders, and the balance of his estate to Mary, Rebecca, Susanna and Martje, children of Henry Breser. ['The history of Lieutenant Nicholas Stillwell, proginator.....' by John E. Stillwell, 1929, pg.137.] 1658 - 12 Oct - vii.196 In the City Hall. Present the Heerem Paulus Leendersen vander Grift, Olaf Stevensen Cortlandt. Thomas Hal and Isaacq Grevera in quality as curators of the estate left by Jan Hutsitson decd. appearing in Court relate, that Herry Breser is unwilling to bring security into the City Hall the goods left by the aforesaid Jan Hutsitson, according to order. Thomas Hall demands an attachment against the person and goods of James Reel, and an order that he may not remove his goods on board. [The records of New Amsterdam from 1653 to 1674 anno Domini,New York: 1857] 1658 - 15 Oct - vii.195 In the City Hall. Present the Heerem Paulus Leendersen vander Grift, Olaf Stevensen Cortlandt. Herry Breser appears in Court, who is told to declare, what he knows of the outstanding debts of Jan Hutsitson decd.? He delivered to the Court an a/c and obligation against Isaacq Allerton Senior for the sum of fl.426.; declaring further that he knows nothing more : The above transferred to the Orphan Book. [The records of New Amsterdam from 1653 to 1674 anno Domini,New York: 1857] 8 Feb 1659 - Gravesend, Long Island - "The town agrees with Henry Brazier for the building of a mill, within the towne, for ye grinding ye corn of the inhabitants, and ye towne will give him 500 guilders; and every man has a team, to cart one day, and such as have none, to give 2 days a piece, in making a dam." ['The History of Long Island' By Benjamin Franklin Thompson. - 1843] 19 Oct 1659 - Will of Isaac Allerton proved - "Due from Henry Brasser for rent for 28 months, from the first October 1656, to the last of May 1658, for three rooms at three guilders a week. I am in debt for work of the old acco which must be deducted. [At a [Court of Magistrates 16 Oct 1659. Acknowledgments to : http://aitchcrests.tripod.com/besheersgivennames/id9.html] 1660 - Tuesday, 13 January - iii.97 In the City Hall. The Heer Scout Nicasius de Sille, plaintiff v/s Herry Breser defendant. The plaintiff says that defendant's Negro has struck a hole in the head of Capt. Jacob Berck's boy - demanding the fine. Defendant says, he has punished the Negro, and if the Magistrates also will punish him they may do it : declaring to have heard from the mouths of the boys in the streets, that they have pelted each other with snowballs and that Capt. Jacob's boy had abused his Negro, whereupon he gave him a blow on the head. The Court order the Officer to inform himself further. [The records of New Amsterdam from 1653 to 1674 anno Domini,New York: 1857] 1660 - Tuesday 31 Aug - iii.197 Paulus Heimans, plaintiff v/s Herry Breser, defendant. Defendant in default. [The records of New Amsterdam from 1653 to 1674 anno Domini,New York: 1857] 1661- Tues 25 Oct - iii393 Herry Breser, plaintiff and arrestant v/s Willem Jacobzen Backer, arrested and defendant. Defendant in default. Plaintiff says defendant is gone away from arrest. [The records of New Amsterdam from 1653 to 1674 anno Domini,New York: 1857] 1662 - Tues 28 Feb - iv.42 Herry Breser, plaintiff and arrestant v/s Cristiaan Antony, arrested and defendant. Plaintiff demands from defendant forty six guilders eighteen stivers, for rent. defendant acknowledges the debt saying, that the plaintiff may retain, what Herry Breser owes him for the sawing of a plank. Plaintiff says, defendant must according to agreement dig a well in his plot. defendant says, plaintiff must build him a cellar and make the roof tight, which he first built two months since. Plaintiff says, it was not agreed on in the lease. The W : court order the defendant to pay the plaintiff fl.46. 18. and if parties have anything else to do with each other they shall have to prove their case. [The records of New Amsterdam from 1653 to 1674 anno Domini,New York: 1857] 1662 - Tues 10 Oct - iv.47 Herry Breser, arrestant and plaintiff v/s William Jacobzen, arrested and defendant. Plaintiff in default. [The records of New Amsterdam from 1653 to 1674 anno Domini,New York: 1857] 1662 - Tues 10 Oct - iv.149 Herry Breser, arrestant and plaintiff v/s William Jacobzen, baker, arrested and defendant. Plaintiff's wife appearing demands from defendant sixty five guilders. defendant says, he owes only fifty eight guilders and gave her some goods in pawn; requesting a months delay promising to pay then and in default the plaintiff may sell the goods at his expense. The W : Court order the defendant to pay plaintiff. [The records of New Amsterdam from 1653 to 1674 anno Domini,New York: 1857] 1662 - Tues 10 Oct - iv.150 Herry Breser, plaintiff v/s Reinier Wisselpenninck, defendant. Plaintiff's wife entering demands four beavers from defendant. defendant admits the debt. The W : Court order defendant to pay the plaintiff. [The records of New Amsterdam from 1653 to 1674 anno Domini,New York: 1857] 1663 - Tues 27 Nov - iv.336 Henry Breser, plaintiff v/s Dirck Clazen Pottebacker, defendant. Defendant in default. Plaintiff's wife appearing complains, that defendants hogs break through her fence, * requesting that this may be provided for, as she suffers great loss thereby and one of her children must constantly be in attendance. Burgomasters and Schepens commission and authorize Abraham Verplanck and Jan hendricksen stelman to make ocular inspection of the fence in presence of scepen Jan Vinge, whether the same be in good order or not and to dispose absolutely of the case, as they shall think proper. [The records of New Amsterdam from 1653 to 1674 anno Domini,New York: 1857] *The properties of these parties adjoined each other. Breser had 33 acres near Franklin Square and Pottebacker (the potter) was his neighbour on the East, his land extending further East to Skipper Louw, afterwards Hughsens Point near the present junction of Cherry and Roosevelt Street. [Valentine, Manual, 1861, p.595 : Hoffman, Estate and Rights, ii., 230.] 1664 Manhattan map showing two of Henry Brazier's properties. [Eric Homberger - The Historical Atlas of New York City] Maps->USA->NewYork->NewAmsterdam-1664.jpg 1667 - 9 Jan - vi.53 On this day, is Herry Breser ordered by a Warrant under the Mayor's hand to deliver unto William Broune, certain coat with one pair of stockings, & one pair of shoes, now in the custody of the said Breaser, out of the goods & effects of George Jones late deceased : whereas the said Joanes before his death hath bought the said goods of the aforesaid broune, but never made payment for the same. [The records of New Amsterdam from 1653 to 1674 anno Domini,New York: 1857] 1667 - 15 Jan - vi.53 At the Mayors Court held at New York. Patrick Hayes, Onfrie Cley & Herry Bresers wife sworn to what they shall declare to the secretary Bayard touching the estate of George Joanes. [The records of New Amsterdam from 1653 to 1674 anno Domini,New York: 1857] 1667 - 26 Mar - vi.65 Capt. Silvester Salisbury, plaintiff v/s Herry Breser, defendant. The plaintiff : as administrator of the estate of George Joanes declares that the defendant hath several goods & bills in his hands belonging to the said estate, whereof this plaintiff demands restitution, except this defendant : could made appear, that the said bills by the said George Joanes where assigned over to him. The defendant replies that no assignemnet was made upon the bills, but can prove by witnesses that the said bills where assigned over to him by the said Joanes. It is ordered that the defendant shall deliver the goods as are in his hands belonging to the estate of the said Joanes, & bring in his just debt the next Court day. [The records of New Amsterdam from 1653 to 1674 anno Domini,New York: 1857] 1667 - 16 Apr - vi.70 Capt. Silvester Salisbury Executor of George Joanes deceased, plaintiff v/s Herry Breser, defendant : After some debates, it is ordered that the plaintiff shall draw his declaration against the defendant & deliver it in the next Court day. [The records of New Amsterdam from 1653 to 1674 anno Domini,New York: 1857] 1667 - 7 May - vi.71 Capt. Silvester Salisbury, plaintiff v/s Herry Breser, defendant : The plaintiff presenting his declaration, it is ordered that the defendant shall give his answer thereunto the next Court day. [The records of New Amsterdam from 1653 to 1674 anno Domini,New York: 1857] 1667 - 18 Jun - vi.80. Herry Breser presents a note from Adrian Dirksen whereby the said Adrian Dirksen doth declare that he had paid the 20 shill ; or 4 Schippels wheat of George Joanes to the said Breser by the special order of the said George Joanes. whereupon the Honourable Court did order that the said 20 shill : should be allowed to the said Breser. [The records of New Amsterdam from 1653 to 1674 anno Domini,New York: 1857] 1667 - 9 Jul - vi.83 At a Court held at New York. Upon the complaint of John Sharp attorney of Capt. Salisbury; it is ordered that in case the defendant Herry Breser doth not appear the next Court day for to answer the complaint of the said Sharp, that the said Breser shall pay costs of suit. [The records of New Amsterdam from 1653 to 1674 anno Domini,New York: 1857] 1667 - 16 Jul - vi.88 John Sharp requesting judgment against Herry Breser, for the charges in the action betwixt Capt. Salisbury and the said Breser, it is ordered that the accompts of charges shall be brought into Court, the next Court day. [The records of New Amsterdam from 1653 to 1674 anno Domini,New York: 1857] 1667 - 30 Jul. - vi.90 The honourable Court having seen& examined the Courts charges in the case late depending between Capt. Salbury Executor of George Joanes Plaintiff & Herry Breser defendant they did order that the defendant should pay the said charges to wit to the Clerk of the Court as appears by accompt Silr. Ł0: 16 to John Sharp attorney of the plaintiff : as appears by accompt, Wamp : fl.18. [The records of New Amsterdam from 1653 to 1674 anno Domini,New York: 1857] 13 Sep 1667 - Deed - Henry purchased a lot of ground in the Smith’s Valley, without the water port. [New York Patents - Bk.2, pg 100] - Full abstract 1669 - 12 Jan - vi.160 Herry Breser, plaintiff : v/s Egbert Myndersen, defendant : The plaintiff declareth that the defendant hath taken up out of the woods, & killed an oxe of this plaintiff : Without any consent or knowledge of the plaintiff : Which oxe this plaintiff computeth to be worth six pounds besides 5lb damages this plaintiff sustained in seeking of the said oxe, loss of time etz. Upon which this plaintiff : commenced his suite, and prayeth judgment accordingly. The defendant replies that he by mistake took up out of the woods an oxe of the plaintiff in stead of his own, which now is found & brought up, and proves the same by three witnesses that it was done by mistake, but proffers to give satisfaction to the plaintiff to the value of the said oxe. the Court did order that the plaintiff should bring in & prove the next Court day what damages he hath sustained by the want of the said oxe, until which time this Court do adjourn to pass judgment : in this cause. [The records of New Amsterdam from 1653 to 1674 anno Domini,New York: 1857] 1669 - 26 Jan - vi.162 At the Mayors Court held at New York.. Herry Breser, plaintiff : v/s Egbert Myndersen, defendant : Upon hearing of both parties this Worshipful Court did decree & order that the defendant should pay this plaintiff for the ox killed by the defendant : the sum of five pounds, and should likewise to repay all such charges, as the plaintiff shall prove that he hath disbursed, towards looking up of the said ox with cost of suit. [The records of New Amsterdam from 1653 to 1674 anno Domini,New York: 1857] 1669 - 16 Feb - vi.167 Herry Breser appearing in Court for to prove what expenses he had been at and disbursed towards looking up of the ox of Egbert Myndersen, did say, that Egbert Myndersen was a thief, and that he would prove it : which the Worshipful Mayor, ordered that it should be entered and ordered the said Breser to make his saying good. [The records of New Amsterdam from 1653 to 1674 anno Domini,New York: 1857] 1669 - 2 Mar - vi.170 Herry Bresers attorney appearing this day in Court produced three Certificates by which it appeared that he hath disbursed towards fetching up of the ox that belonged to Egbert the slaughter the sum of fl.37. Wampum. Whereupon the Worshipful Court ordered in pursuance of an order of Court bearing date the 26th of Jan last past, that he the said Egbert Myndersen should make restitution of the said sum unto Herry Breser aforesaid. [The records of New Amsterdam from 1653 to 1674 anno Domini,New York: 1857] 1669 - 16 Mar - vi.173 At the Mayors Court held at New York.. Egbert Myndersen plaintiff : v/s Herry Breser, defendant. The defendant : 1st. defaut. [The records of New Amsterdam from 1653 to 1674 anno Domini,New York: 1857] 17 Mar 1669 - Deed - Henry purchased a parcel of valley or meadow ground at Maspeth Hills. [New York Patents - Bk.3, pg 90] - Full abstract 1669 - 6 Apr - vi.174 At the Mayor's Court held at New York Egbert Myndersen plaintiff : v/s Herry Breser, defendant. In an action of disfamation (defamation). Upon the desire of both parties, it is ordered that this cause should be tried by a jury, the ensuing Court day. [The records of New Amsterdam from 1653 to 1674 anno Domini,New York: 1857] 1669 - 6 Apr - vi.175 At the Mayor's Court held at New York Herry Breser, plaintiff : v/s Wm Pattisson, defendants. In an action of debt. The plaintiff declareth that this defendant accepted to pay to this plaintiff for the account of George Woolsey fl. 100 guilders. Wampum for which he craves judgment : With cost of suit. Upon hearing of both parties this Worshipful Court did decree and order that this defendant should pay the said sum of fl.100 zewant with cost of suit. [The records of New Amsterdam from 1653 to 1674 anno Domini,New York: 1857] 1669 - 27 Apr - vi.178 At the Mayor's Court held at New York Egbert Myndersen plaintiff : v/s Herry Breser, defendant. In an action of disfamation (defamation). The plaintiff declared that the defendant on the 16th of feb last past had declared in open Court as may appear upon the record, that this plaintiff was a thief, and prayeth that the Court for reparation of his honour and punishment according to the merits with cost of suit. The Jury brought in their verdict & found for the plaintiff : that the defendant : pay Cost of Court, and further they do not find Egbert Myndersen to be a thief in this case. The Worshipful Court ordered that judgment should be entered according to the tenure of the said verdict and the defendant to pay cost of suit. [The records of New Amsterdam from 1653 to 1674 anno Domini,New York: 1857] 1670 - 8 Feb - vi.217 At the Mayor's Court held at New York Herry Breser, plaintiff : v/s Guilliam d'honeur & Martin Hofman , defendants. The Worshipful Court ordered that the defendants should bring in their proof at the next Court day. [The records of New Amsterdam from 1653 to 1674 anno Domini,New York: 1857] 1670 - 1 Mar - vi.221 At the Mayor's Court held at New York Herry Breser, plaintiff : v/s Guilliam d'honeur & Martin Hofman , defendants. the deft: 2. defaut. [The records of New Amsterdam from 1653 to 1674 anno Domini,New York: 1857] 1670 - 15 Mar - vi.225 At the Mayors Court held at New York.. Herry Breser, plaintiff : v/s Guilliam d'honeur & Martin Hofman , defendants. The plaintiff declares that the defendants are indebted unto him for hire of his Boot (Boat?) fl.207 Seaw. The defendants produce an account whereby there remaineth due to the plaintiff : f.78: 12 : Wampum which they tender in Court. The Worshipful Court ordered that the money should remain in the custody of the Sec. Bayard, and do suspend the trial of this cause until next Court day, when the defendants are to prove the Demorrage occasioned bt the plaintiff. [The records of New Amsterdam from 1653 to 1674 anno Domini,New York: 1857] 1670 - 12 Apr - vi.229 At the Mayor's Court held at New York Herry Breser, plaintiff : v/s Guilliam d'honeur & Martin Hofman , defendants : upon the defendants complaint, that they had no due warning of the Court day, to the end they could get their witnesses summoned, desiring time till the next Court day for to prove that the demurrage was occasioned by the plaintiff : or by want of sufficient proof they would pay the whole debt, according to the plaintiff's demands, Whereupon the Court allowed the defendants time till the next Court day to prove the same. [The records of New Amsterdam from 1653 to 1674 anno Domini,New York: 1857] 1670 - 10 May - vi.232 At the Mayor's Court held at New York Herry Breser, plaintiff : v/s Guilliam d'honeur & Martin Hofman , defendants. In an action of debt to the sum of f.207 in Seawant. Upon hearing of the debates of both parties, the Worshipful Court did decree & order that the defendants should pay the said debt of f.107 : deducting for goods paid to the plaintiff:, as also for 3 days demurrage which was occasioned by the plaintiff : in all the sum of four score and eight guilders & eighteen stivers and the Court charges to be paid the 2/3 thereof by the plaintiff : & the 1/3 by the defendants. [The records of New Amsterdam from 1653 to 1674 anno Domini,New York: 1857] 1670 - 23 Aug - vi.250 Warnaer Wessells, plaintiff vs. Herry Breser defendant. The plaintiff declares that he hath seized upon two ancors and 5 Kan of Rom of the defendant for which the defendant : making a profession of tapping or selling of drink by retail, therefore the plaintiff : demands six time the value besides the forfeiture of the said Rom; The defendants wife appearing in Court, answered that the said Rom was to be sent for Nevesincx, and that she had given notice thereof to the plaintiff : before seizure was made. Herry Nuton deposeth that before seizure was made he heard the defendant say that the said Rom was to go for Nevesincx. The Worshipful Court do recommend unto Mr. Jacob Leiseler, Thimothy Gabrie, Phillip Johns, & John Garland to endeavour a composure betwixt both parties, and to make a return thereof at the next Court day. [The records of New Amsterdam from 1653 to 1674 anno Domini,New York: 1857] 1670 - 6 Sep - vi.253 Warnaer Wessells, plaintiff vs. Herry Breser defendant. The Court do suspend this case till the arbitrators have brought in their report according to the last order of Court. [The records of New Amsterdam from 1653 to 1674 anno Domini,New York: 1857] 1670 - 27 Sep - vi.255 Warnaer Wessells, plaintiff vs. Herry Breser defendant. Suspended until the arbitrators have brought in their report. [The records of New Amsterdam from 1653 to 1674 anno Domini,New York: 1857] 1670 - 18 Oct - vi.264 Warnaer Wessells, plaintiff vs. Herry Breser defendant. Suspended by a former order of Court. [The records of New Amsterdam from 1653 to 1674 anno Domini,New York: 1857] 1670 - 29 Nov - vi.269 Warnaer Wessells, plaintiff vs. Herry Breser defendant. The persons to whom this case referred this day making their report, that they could not bring the business to a composure, wherefore they returned the said parties back to this Court to be decided by the Court aforesaid. Whereupon the Worshipful Court having heard and examined both parties and their witnesses, did decree and order, Whereas the defendant had committed an error by taking wine in his house without a permit from the plaintiff and the plaintiff having upon his own authority taken away the said wine and conveyed it to his house, That the one half of a dobble ancor of wine should be forfeited to the use of the plaintiff and no more, and the charges to be paid equally betwixt them. [The records of New Amsterdam from 1653 to 1674 anno Domini,New York: 1857] 1673 - New York - A list of the principal citizens and the value of their estates, compiled by the burgomasters and schepens at the Stadthuys :- Henry Bresier 300 Guilders. [The American metropolis, from Knickerbocker days to the present time; : New York City life in all its various phases, / by Frank Moss. With an introd. by Rev. Charles H. Parkhurst, an historiograph of New York - Author: Moss, Frank, 1860-1920 - pg's 46-7.] 10 July 1673 - Henry purchased a house & lot of ground in New York - Full abstract 1674 - List of the owners in the City, about the year 1674, at the final cession of the English, the property being classified according to its relative value, as first, second, third and fourth; with the national descent of the persons named - given to illustrate the condition of the population at that era - and their estimated worth :- On the West side of the present Pearl Street, between Franklin Square and Wall Street; known at that time as 'The Smith's Valley'. - Henry Brazier....... Third ......... Dutch ........$1,500. [pg.319] On the South side of the present Wall Street, between Broadway and Pearl Street, then known as 'The Walls'. - Henry Brazier....... Third ......... Dutch ......... [pg.322] ['History of the City of New York' by David Thomas Valentine - 1858] 1676 - An Assessment and Tax made the 10th day of November 1676 for ye defrayinge of the Charges of the New docke & payinge the Citty debts and other publique dutyes att one penny halfe penny per pound :- Of the City of New York :- Henry Brasier - 12s 6d. [Minutes of the Common Council of the city of New York, 1675-1776 : in eight volumes. New York: Dodd, Mead, 1905, 3774 pgs.] 1677 - Rate of Taxacion (sic) made this 24th day of July :- 1 - Henry Brayier ..... 0 5 6 1 - Henry Brazier ..... 0 6 6 - The Walls Henry Brazier, 29 foot front, 30 foot deep ..... 0 6 0 (Vacant places) ['Historical Index to the Manuals of the Corporation of the City of New York' - NY Common Council, Samuel J. Willis etc. - 1848] Henry died between 23 Apr 1689, when he made his will, and 4 Feb 1690/1, when it was proved :- Henry Brasher, New York - In the name of God Amen the 23rd day of April 1689. I Henry Brasher, turner.... leaves - to son Henry 10 shillings, other 2 sons Isaac & Abraham 5 shillings, my daughters each 5 shillings, rest to wife Susannah, executor. [Surrogate Court Will extracts 1661-1743 - NY Hist. Soc, 1893.] He was married to Susanna Walters widow, nee Spicer, on 9 Oct 1644. Susanna SPICER. 1st husband William Walters. NB. I have seen Susanna's first marriage name also referred to as Wathens & Watkyns. 1664 - Tuesday the 8th April 1664; In the City Hall. Susanna Bresar, plaintiff, v/s Symon Janzen Romein, deft. Plaintiff demands, that the defendant, as attorney of Pieter Lucasen van der Goes, shall repair the fence of the aforesaid Pieter Lucasen's lot as she suffers much damage in her garden from the hogs. Defendant promises to do so and to make the fence close this week. Burgomasters and Schepens order defendant to observe his promise. [Court Minutes of New Amsterdam - 'The Records of New Amsterdam from 153-1667' edited by Berthold Fernow, pg.41] In 1691 Susanna sold a lot of ground lying and being upon Manhattans Island to the South of Wolpherts Meadow - Deed Susanna made her will on 10 July 1694 - see will abstract. Children were: child i. Mary, christened 29 Sep 1645 Reformed Dutch Church of New York1. child ii. Willem, christened 18 Nov 1646 Reformed Dutch Church of New York1. child iii. Rebecca, christened 26 Apr 1648 Reformed Dutch Church of New York1. child iv. Breser, christened 9 Feb 1653 Reformed Dutch Church of New York1. child v. Marchtelt, christened 21 Nov 1655 Reformed Dutch Church of New York1. child vi. Martha, christened 20 May 1657 Reformed Dutch Church of New York1. child vii. Sara, christened 14 Dec 1659 Reformed Dutch Church of New York1. child viii. Henry, christened 29 Jul 1663 Reformed Dutch Church of New York1. child ix. Isaac, christened 16 May 1666 Reformed Dutch Church of New York1. child i. Abraham BRASIER, christened 25 Nov 1668 Other Sources 1. Register transcripts of the Reformed Dutch Church of New York. END