1741 Alexander van Couchin
This is an unusual case, since the recommendation of the landdrost that the accused slave be sentenced to death was overturned by the Council of Justice.2 Alexander van Couchin was accused of threatening to attack his owner, but he made no actual assault. Tensions were running high on this Klapmuts farm and the case reveals the complex conflicts of interest between the slave-owner who wants to whip one of his female slaves, on the one hand, and his wife, one of his slaves and the knechtknechtLiterally ‘male servant,’ but because most European knechten at the Cape were used as slave overseers, this original meaning gradually eroded and the word ended up meaning primarily (as in modern Afrikaans), ‘farm foreman.’ working on the farm, on the other. It is not clear whether Alexander was acquitted because the court had some sympathy with his circumstances or because the evidence was unclear. It is striking that, although rejecting the death sentence, the court did not impose any punishment at all, but neither did it order him to be sold to prevent his owner from retaliation, as was usually done in such cases.3
Footnotes
-
Cochin on the Malabar coast. In another case in which he appeared as a witness in 1746, he is named Alexander van Mallebaar, an indication of the variability of slave toponyms, 1/STB 3/8, 24 January 1746. ↩
-
The landrost called for the death sentence by hanging, on the grounds that the Statutes of the Indies mandated death for all slaves who laid hands on their owners. He recognised that Alexander had not actually attacked his master, but pointed out that he had threatened to do so with a knife, being a ‘verwoedenend mensch’ (enraged person) and that such ‘booswigten’ (villains) were widespread in the colony and could not be tolerated, CJ 346, ff. 112v-13. ↩
-
The court decided after perusing the evidence that Alexander be freed and returned to his owner, but gave no reasons, CJ 23, ff. 38-9. The documentation included the material transcribed here, as well as the evidence of three of the other slaves on the farm, Silvia van Madagascar, Pieter van de Cust Coromandel and Isaac van de Cust Coromandel, CJ 346, ff. 117-28. Alexander was still on the farm in 1746 when he gave testimony in another case on Daniel van der Lith’s farm concerning the maltreatment of the Khoi worker Claas by another knechtknechtLiterally ‘male servant,’ but because most European knechten at the Cape were used as slave overseers, this original meaning gradually eroded and the word ended up meaning primarily (as in modern Afrikaans), ‘farm foreman.’, Christoffel Esterhuijsen Willemsz, 1/STB 3/8, 24 January 1746. ↩
CJ 346 Criminele Process Stukken, 1741, ff. 115-16.
Statement given on the requisition of the landdrost, Sieur Pieter Lourensz, by the former heemraadheemraadThe origin of this word is uncertain, but is connected to the Dutch words heem (‘homestead’) and raad (‘councillor’). This was the title of a free burgher who served on the Collegie van Heemraden in the rural districts of the Cape, usually for a term of two years. Daniel van der Lith, the same being of the following contents, namely:
That on the afternoon of the 18th of the past month February, when the testifier wanted to tie up a certain slave named Aurora on the suspicion of having committed theft, he first of all had his slave jongenjongenLiterally ‘boy.’ In Dutch it was common to use this word also to refer to male servants, irrespective of age. At the Cape, however, this usage was extended to slaves and then became exclusive, so that jongen (also in the deflected form jong) came to mean ‘male slave’, such that Afrikaans lost the use of the word to mean ‘boy’ and instead uses seun (from Dutch zoon) for both ‘boy’ and ‘son.’ In this primary meaning, the word has become obsolete in modern Afrikaans, except for the archaic terms tuinjong (‘garden boy’) and plaasjong (‘farm boy’), in the sense of male workers of colour. named Alexander, who has a relationship with the aforesaid meijdmeijdLiterally ‘girl.’ This word developed among the same lines as jongen, the word coming to mean ‘female slave.’ However, its trajectory diverged from that of jongen in that it eventually was used more widely to refer to indigenous women, so that meid still survives in modern Afrikaans as a pejorative term for women of colour. As with jongen, the word was no longer available to refer to European girls, but instead of the difference between girl and daughter disappearing, the diminutive form, meijsje (Afrikaans, meisie), came to be used for ‘girl.’ Aurora, tied up as a cautionary measure. However, as the testifier’s wife was appalled by this, the testifier had Alexander untied again, likewise allowing the aforesaid meijdmeijdLiterally ‘girl.’ This word developed among the same lines as jongen, the word coming to mean ‘female slave.’ However, its trajectory diverged from that of jongen in that it eventually was used more widely to refer to indigenous women, so that meid still survives in modern Afrikaans as a pejorative term for women of colour. As with jongen, the word was no longer available to refer to European girls, but instead of the difference between girl and daughter disappearing, the diminutive form, meijsje (Afrikaans, meisie), came to be used for ‘girl.’ Aurora to go as she had seized his wife around her waist and had begged for mercy.
That early in the morning of the following day, the testifier’s knechtknechtLiterally ‘male servant,’ but because most European knechten at the Cape were used as slave overseers, this original meaning gradually eroded and the word ended up meaning primarily (as in modern Afrikaans), ‘farm foreman.’, Christoffel Jansz, informed him that he had understood from certain slaves that on the previous day, after the slave Alexander was untied again, he had taken a knife in his hand and apparently threatened to kill the testifier with it. Since the testifier had some people [i.e. visitors] with him, he allowed this slave Alexander to go free in the meantime, until Friday, the 14th of the said month February, which is when the testifier had the same trussed and had him delivered into the hands of the petitioner and then also informed him of what had happened.
There being nothing more to relate, the deponent1 asserts to be convinced of the accuracy of his statement as in the text, while offering to subsequently confirm this, his statement, at any time, if so required.
Thus recorded at the office of the secretary of justice at the Cape of Good Hope on 5 April 1741 in the presence of the clerks Adriaan van Schoor and Hendrik Emanuel Blanckenberg, as witnesses, who have properly signed the original of this, together with the deponent and me, the secretary.
Verification
There appears before us the undersigned delegates from the honourable Council of Justice of this government, the former heemraadheemraadThe origin of this word is uncertain, but is connected to the Dutch words heem (‘homestead’) and raad (‘councillor’). This was the title of a free burgher who served on the Collegie van Heemraden in the rural districts of the Cape, usually for a term of two years. Daniel van der Lith who, after this, his statement given, had been read out word by word, plainly and clearly, declares to fully persist by it, therefore not desiring that anything more be added to or taken from it, and testifies in the presence of his bondsman, Alexander van Couchien, the above to be the whole truth.
Thus verified at the Cape of Good Hope on 6 April 1741 before the honourables Cl. Brand and Jan de With, members from the honourable Council of Justice, aforementioned, who have properly signed the original of this, together with the testifier and me, the secretary.
Which I declare, [signed] D.G. Carnspek, secretary.
CJ 346 Criminele Process Stukken, 1741, ff. 121-22.
Today, 13 May 1741, there appears before me, Arnold Schephausen, secretary of Stellenbosch and Drakenstein, in the presence of the witnesses named below, the soldier Christoffel Jansz, currently on loan as knechtknechtLiterally ‘male servant,’ but because most European knechten at the Cape were used as slave overseers, this original meaning gradually eroded and the word ended up meaning primarily (as in modern Afrikaans), ‘farm foreman.’ to the former heemraadheemraadThe origin of this word is uncertain, but is connected to the Dutch words heem (‘homestead’) and raad (‘councillor’). This was the title of a free burgher who served on the Collegie van Heemraden in the rural districts of the Cape, usually for a term of two years., Daniel van der Lith, who on the requisition of the landdrost, Sieur Pieter Lourensz, declares to be the certain truth:
That on a certain Saturday in the month February, without however knowing the exact date, the deponent was on his master’s farm, situated around Klapmuts, when his master ordered him around midday to tie up a certain slave of his, named Alexander, without the deponent being aware of the reasons.
That the deponent tied up this jongenjongenLiterally ‘boy.’ In Dutch it was common to use this word also to refer to male servants, irrespective of age. At the Cape, however, this usage was extended to slaves and then became exclusive, so that jongen (also in the deflected form jong) came to mean ‘male slave’, such that Afrikaans lost the use of the word to mean ‘boy’ and instead uses seun (from Dutch zoon) for both ‘boy’ and ‘son.’ In this primary meaning, the word has become obsolete in modern Afrikaans, except for the archaic terms tuinjong (‘garden boy’) and plaasjong (‘farm boy’), in the sense of male workers of colour. Alexander in the kitchen, and then went to his work. Shortly thereafter there came to him in the wagon-house (where he was busy putting together a wagon) one of his master’s slaves, named Pieter, who said to the deponent: “It is good that you have come from over the mountain,2 because that jongenjongenLiterally ‘boy.’ In Dutch it was common to use this word also to refer to male servants, irrespective of age. At the Cape, however, this usage was extended to slaves and then became exclusive, so that jongen (also in the deflected form jong) came to mean ‘male slave’, such that Afrikaans lost the use of the word to mean ‘boy’ and instead uses seun (from Dutch zoon) for both ‘boy’ and ‘son.’ In this primary meaning, the word has become obsolete in modern Afrikaans, except for the archaic terms tuinjong (‘garden boy’) and plaasjong (‘farm boy’), in the sense of male workers of colour. wanted to have killed the baasbaasIn seventeenth-century Dutch this was used both in the sense of ‘head’ (e.g. ‘head carpenter’) and ‘master’. In South Africa the second meaning developed further, and thus baas came to be a synonym for meester (‘master’). It was the form that slaves (and Khoikhoi) would use to address male Europeans.”, to which the deponent replied: “My God! That must not be”, after which he again went to the kitchen, where he heard his master speaking very loudly to this jongenjongenLiterally ‘boy.’ In Dutch it was common to use this word also to refer to male servants, irrespective of age. At the Cape, however, this usage was extended to slaves and then became exclusive, so that jongen (also in the deflected form jong) came to mean ‘male slave’, such that Afrikaans lost the use of the word to mean ‘boy’ and instead uses seun (from Dutch zoon) for both ‘boy’ and ‘son.’ In this primary meaning, the word has become obsolete in modern Afrikaans, except for the archaic terms tuinjong (‘garden boy’) and plaasjong (‘farm boy’), in the sense of male workers of colour. Alexander. Further, as soon as the deponent came into the kitchen, he said to this jongenjongenLiterally ‘boy.’ In Dutch it was common to use this word also to refer to male servants, irrespective of age. At the Cape, however, this usage was extended to slaves and then became exclusive, so that jongen (also in the deflected form jong) came to mean ‘male slave’, such that Afrikaans lost the use of the word to mean ‘boy’ and instead uses seun (from Dutch zoon) for both ‘boy’ and ‘son.’ In this primary meaning, the word has become obsolete in modern Afrikaans, except for the archaic terms tuinjong (‘garden boy’) and plaasjong (‘farm boy’), in the sense of male workers of colour.: “Alexander, go to your work”, to which the same answered: “I don’t want to work today”, after which the deponent again went to his work, without anything else concerning this matter being known to him, declaring besides that he did not see that this jongenjongenLiterally ‘boy.’ In Dutch it was common to use this word also to refer to male servants, irrespective of age. At the Cape, however, this usage was extended to slaves and then became exclusive, so that jongen (also in the deflected form jong) came to mean ‘male slave’, such that Afrikaans lost the use of the word to mean ‘boy’ and instead uses seun (from Dutch zoon) for both ‘boy’ and ‘son.’ In this primary meaning, the word has become obsolete in modern Afrikaans, except for the archaic terms tuinjong (‘garden boy’) and plaasjong (‘farm boy’), in the sense of male workers of colour. Alexander had had a knife.
There being nothing more to declare, the deponent asserts to be convinced of the accuracy of his statement as in the text, while offering to subsequently confirm this, his deposition, at any time, if this may be required.
Which I declare, [signed] A. Schephausen, secretary.
Verification
There appears before us, the undersigned delegates from the honourable Council of Justice of this government, the soldier Christoffel Jansz, who, after this, his given deposition, had been read out word for word, clearly and plainly, declares to fully persist by it, therefore not desiring that anything more be added to or taken from it, and testifies in the presence of the slave Alexander van Coutschien all of the above to be the whole truth, and uttered, as confirmation of the truth of this, the solemn words: “Truly so, help me, Almighty God”.
Thus verified and confirmed at the Cape of Good Hope on 18 May 1741.
This X is the mark of the soldier Christoffel Jansz.
As delegates, [signed] Am. Decker, J. de Wit [sic].
In my presence, [signed] D.G. Carnspek, secretary.
CJ 346 Criminele Process Stukken, 1741, ff. 123-26.
Interrogation, in which is to be heard and questioned, on the requisition of the landdrost Pieter Lourensz, the slave Alexander van Couchin, bondsman of the former heemraadheemraadThe origin of this word is uncertain, but is connected to the Dutch words heem (‘homestead’) and raad (‘councillor’). This was the title of a free burgher who served on the Collegie van Heemraden in the rural districts of the Cape, usually for a term of two years., Daniel van der Lith.
There appears before us, the undersigned delegates from the honourable Council of Justice of this government, the slave Alexander van Couchin, who responded to the questions below as are noted in their margins.
Article 1: What is the prisoner’s name, age and place of birth?
Answer: Alexander van Couchin, 40 years old at a guess.
Article 2: Whose bondsman the prisoner is and where he was stationed here?
Answer: Bondsman of the former heemraadheemraadThe origin of this word is uncertain, but is connected to the Dutch words heem (‘homestead’) and raad (‘councillor’). This was the title of a free burgher who served on the Collegie van Heemraden in the rural districts of the Cape, usually for a term of two years. Daniel van der Lith and to have lived on his farm situated around Clapmuts.
Article 3: If, on the afternoon of Saturday the 18th of the recently past month February, when the prisoner was sitting and eating in the kitchen on his owner’s farm situated around Clapmuts, he was tied up by the knechtknechtLiterally ‘male servant,’ but because most European knechten at the Cape were used as slave overseers, this original meaning gradually eroded and the word ended up meaning primarily (as in modern Afrikaans), ‘farm foreman.’ Christoffel on the order of his aforementioned master?
Answer: Yes.
Article 4: If, during this tying up, the prisoner had put an unsheathed knife, which he had held in his hand, in his pocket, and if the same had been taken out again from there by the slave Marinus?
Answer: Yes.
Article 5: If, when the slave Aurora, likewise on the order of the prisoner’s master, was going to be tied up, she had seized her mistress around her waist and begged for forgiveness?
Answer: Yes.
Article 6: If, as the prisoner’s mistress then became very upset, his master had him untied again?
Answer: Yes.
Article 7: If the prisoner, after he had been untied, went to the slave house,3 put on a jacket there, and again went back to the kitchen with the unsheathed knife in the pocket of his trousers?
Answer: Yes.
Article 8: Where the prisoner had found that knife and with what intention he again returned with it to the kitchen?
Answer: I found my old knife on the window sill in the jongensjongensLiterally ‘boy.’ In Dutch it was common to use this word also to refer to male servants, irrespective of age. At the Cape, however, this usage was extended to slaves and then became exclusive, so that jongen (also in the deflected form jong) came to mean ‘male slave’, such that Afrikaans lost the use of the word to mean ‘boy’ and instead uses seun (from Dutch zoon) for both ‘boy’ and ‘son.’ In this primary meaning, the word has become obsolete in modern Afrikaans, except for the archaic terms tuinjong (‘garden boy’) and plaasjong (‘farm boy’), in the sense of male workers of colour. house and, with this and a piece of tobacco in my hand, went to the kitchen to cut it there.
Article 9: If it had been to kill his master, or somebody else, with it?
Answer: I did not have this in mind.
Article 10: If, when the prisoner wanted to leave the slave house to go to the kitchen, he had been held back by the slave Marinus, but that the prisoner nonetheless, while saying: “What do you have to do with me, just let me go”, went to the kitchen?
Answer: The old jongenjongenLiterally ‘boy.’ In Dutch it was common to use this word also to refer to male servants, irrespective of age. At the Cape, however, this usage was extended to slaves and then became exclusive, so that jongen (also in the deflected form jong) came to mean ‘male slave’, such that Afrikaans lost the use of the word to mean ‘boy’ and instead uses seun (from Dutch zoon) for both ‘boy’ and ‘son.’ In this primary meaning, the word has become obsolete in modern Afrikaans, except for the archaic terms tuinjong (‘garden boy’) and plaasjong (‘farm boy’), in the sense of male workers of colour. Pieter wanted to keep me back, and I said to him then: “I am tired, you just go on to your work, I won’t be coming now”.
Article 11: If, when the prisoner got into the kitchen, his master told him: “Go to your bed and sleep, you have after all come from the Cape and are tired”, and if the prisoner answered to this: “I don’t want to do that”?
Answer: My baasbaasIn seventeenth-century Dutch this was used both in the sense of ‘head’ (e.g. ‘head carpenter’) and ‘master’. In South Africa the second meaning developed further, and thus baas came to be a synonym for meester (‘master’). It was the form that slaves (and Khoikhoi) would use to address male Europeans. ordered me, since I did not want to sleep, to go and fetch a basket with peaches from juffrouwjuffrouwStrictly speaking this contraction of jonkvrouw was the form of address for a noble lady (as with jonker, the contraction of jonkheer, ‘lord’), but at the Cape it was more generally used by settlers for women with some social status. Moreover, in the eighteenth century this was also the term slaves used to address their female owners, alongside nonje. Cloeten, to which I answered: “Yes, baasbaasIn seventeenth-century Dutch this was used both in the sense of ‘head’ (e.g. ‘head carpenter’) and ‘master’. In South Africa the second meaning developed further, and thus baas came to be a synonym for meester (‘master’). It was the form that slaves (and Khoikhoi) would use to address male Europeans., that is good”, and this was done in the presence of the slave of the heemraadheemraadThe origin of this word is uncertain, but is connected to the Dutch words heem (‘homestead’) and raad (‘councillor’). This was the title of a free burgher who served on the Collegie van Heemraden in the rural districts of the Cape, usually for a term of two years. Cloete, named Isacq.
Article 12: If the prisoner, after his master told him a second time that he should go to bed, again said: “I don’t want to do that” and then went to sit on a chest in the kitchen?
Answer: I know nothing of this.
Article 13: If the prisoner, while speaking to his master, continually advanced towards his master?
Answer: No.
Article 14: If the prisoner did this in order to pierce the same with the knife he had with him?
Answer: No, I did not do that.
Article 15: If the prisoner, shortly after he had left the kitchen for the first time, immediately returned again to the kitchen with a knife in his hand?
Answer: Yes, with the old knife and a bit of tobacco.
Article 16: If the prisoner, after he had sharpened the knife on the threshold of the kitchen, said: “Yes knife, you will stab into my soul, or into another soul”?
Answer: Yes, I said that because of being disheartened.
Article 17: If the meijdmeijdLiterally ‘girl.’ This word developed among the same lines as jongen, the word coming to mean ‘female slave.’ However, its trajectory diverged from that of jongen in that it eventually was used more widely to refer to indigenous women, so that meid still survives in modern Afrikaans as a pejorative term for women of colour. As with jongen, the word was no longer available to refer to European girls, but instead of the difference between girl and daughter disappearing, the diminutive form, meijsje (Afrikaans, meisie), came to be used for ‘girl.’ Silvia then said to the prisoner: “Fie, jongenjongenLiterally ‘boy.’ In Dutch it was common to use this word also to refer to male servants, irrespective of age. At the Cape, however, this usage was extended to slaves and then became exclusive, so that jongen (also in the deflected form jong) came to mean ‘male slave’, such that Afrikaans lost the use of the word to mean ‘boy’ and instead uses seun (from Dutch zoon) for both ‘boy’ and ‘son.’ In this primary meaning, the word has become obsolete in modern Afrikaans, except for the archaic terms tuinjong (‘garden boy’) and plaasjong (‘farm boy’), in the sense of male workers of colour., shame upon you, if somebody gets to hear that, you’ll be damned”?
Answer: Yes.
Article 18: If the prisoner then gave this meijdmeijdLiterally ‘girl.’ This word developed among the same lines as jongen, the word coming to mean ‘female slave.’ However, its trajectory diverged from that of jongen in that it eventually was used more widely to refer to indigenous women, so that meid still survives in modern Afrikaans as a pejorative term for women of colour. As with jongen, the word was no longer available to refer to European girls, but instead of the difference between girl and daughter disappearing, the diminutive form, meijsje (Afrikaans, meisie), came to be used for ‘girl.’ as an answer to this: “That has nothing to do with you, I want my death, just let me be dead”.
Answer: It could well be, but I would not be able to say that for sure.
Article 19: If, after the prisoner again put the knife in his pocket, he went to the slave house and shortly thereafter returned yet again?
Answer: I put the knife down in the kitchen and thereafter went with the slave Isacq of Jacob Cloeten to his master’s house in order to fetch peaches.
Article 20: What the prisoner wanted to do or execute on each occasion in the kitchen with that knife?
Answer: I wanted to cut a piece of tobacco with that knife.
Article 21: For what reasons the prisoner opposed his master in such a fashion and why he wanted to wound the same? Answer: I was not angry with my sinjeursinjeurIt is uncertain whether sinjeur came into colonial Dutch from French seigneur or Creole Portuguese sinjoor (both from Latin, senior, ‘older’). The word was commonly used by slaves at the Cape to address European males but was also the official title for lower-ranking VOC officials. The word lived on in Afrikaans in the form of seur until the early twentieth century but is now obsolete. and I also did not want to wound him.
Article 22: If the prisoner must not admit that he is punishable in the extreme for his maliciousness and atrocious intention?
Answer: I was not malicious towards my master, also I did not have any evil intention against the same.
Thus questioned and answered at the Cape of Good Hope on 6 April 1741 before the honourables Cl. Brand and Jan de Wit, members from the aforementioned Council, who have properly signed the original of this, together with the interrogatee and me, the secretary.
Verification
There appears before us, the undersigned delegates from the honourable Council of Justice of this government, the slave Alexander van Couchin, who, after the above questions with the answers he had given to them, had been read out word by word, clearly and plainly, declares to fully persist by them, therefore not desiring that anything more be added to or taken from it, except only that when he, on the order of his master, as he answered on articles 11 and 19, went to fetch a basket of peaches, he did not get it from juffrouwjuffrouwStrictly speaking this contraction of jonkvrouw was the form of address for a noble lady (as with jonker, the contraction of jonkheer, ‘lord’), but at the Cape it was more generally used by settlers for women with some social status. Moreover, in the eighteenth century this was also the term slaves used to address their female owners, alongside nonje. Cloete, but in fact picked them from the very garden of his baasbaasIn seventeenth-century Dutch this was used both in the sense of ‘head’ (e.g. ‘head carpenter’) and ‘master’. In South Africa the second meaning developed further, and thus baas came to be a synonym for meester (‘master’). It was the form that slaves (and Khoikhoi) would use to address male Europeans. and handed them over to the jongenjongenLiterally ‘boy.’ In Dutch it was common to use this word also to refer to male servants, irrespective of age. At the Cape, however, this usage was extended to slaves and then became exclusive, so that jongen (also in the deflected form jong) came to mean ‘male slave’, such that Afrikaans lost the use of the word to mean ‘boy’ and instead uses seun (from Dutch zoon) for both ‘boy’ and ‘son.’ In this primary meaning, the word has become obsolete in modern Afrikaans, except for the archaic terms tuinjong (‘garden boy’) and plaasjong (‘farm boy’), in the sense of male workers of colour. of the said Cloete, named Isacq, and testifies all of the above to be the whole truth.
Thus verified at the Cape of Good Hope on 7 April 1741 before the honourables C. Brand and Jan de Wit, members from the aforementioned Council, who have properly signed the original of this, together with the interrogatee and me, the secretary.
Which I declare, [signed] D.G. Carnspek, secretary.
Footnotes
Relaas gegeeven, ter requisitie van den landdrost, sieur Pieter Lourensz, door den oud heemraad Daniel van der Lith, zijnde hetselve van deese volgende inhoud, als:
Dat hij relatant op den 18e der gepasseerde maand Februarij, des middags, seekere slavinne, Aurora genaamt, over presumptie van begaane dieverije heeft willen laaten vast maaken, vooraff zijn relatants slave jonge, genaamt Alexander, die bij voorseijde mijd Aurora hield, voorsigtighijdshalven heeft doen vastbinden, dog aangesien zijn relatants huijsvrouw daarover seer verschrikte, heeft hij relatant gemelte Alexander weederom doen los maaken, laatende voorseijde mijd Aurora, wijl die zijn relatants huijsvrouw om het lijff viel en om genade smeekte, insgelijx gaan.
Dat des anderen daags morgens vroeg zijn relatants knegt, Christoffel Jansz, hem berigt heeft dat van eenige slaaven verstaan hadde dat den slaaf Alexander des voorigen daags, nadat weederom los gemaakt was, een mes in de hand genoomen en daar meede soude gedrijgt hebben hem relatant te dooden, laatende hij relatant dien slaaff Alexander, terwijl eenige menschen bij sig hadden, solange vrij gaan tot Vrijdag, den 24 van even gemelte maand Februarij, als wanneer hij relatant denselven heeft doen vleugelen, en in den handen van den requirant heeft laaten overleeveren, en voorts van het gepasseerde aan deselve kennisse gegeeven.
Anders niet relateerende, geeft den comparant1 voor reedenen van weetenschap als in den text, met presentatie van dit, zijn gerelateerde, ten allen tijden, sulx vereijscht werdende, nader te sullen gestand doen.
Dat aldus passeerde ter justitieelen secretarije des Casteels de Goede Hoop, den 5e April 1741, ten overstaan van de clercquen Adriaan van Schoor en Hendrik Emanuel Blanckenberg, als getuijgen, die de minute deeses, beneevens den comparant, ende mij, secretaris, meede behoorlijk hebben onderteekent.
Recollement
Compareerde voor ons, ondergetekende gecommitteerdens uijt den edelagtbare Raad van Justitie deeses gouvernements, den oud heemraad Daniel van der Lith dewelke dit, zijn gegeevene relaas, van woorde tot woorde claar en duijdelijk voorgeleesen zijnde, verclaarde daar bij volkoomen te persisteeren, oversulx niet begeerende datter iets meer bijgevoegt ofte van gedaan werden sal, en betuijgde, in presentie van desselfs leijfeijgen, Alexander van Couchien, het boovenstaande de suijvere waarheijd te zijn.
Aldus gerecolleert aan Cabo de Goede Hoop den 6e April 1741 voor d’ edele Cl. Brand en Jan de With, leeden uijt den edelagtbare Raad van Justitie, voornoemt, die de minute deeses, beneevens den relatant ende mij, secretaris, meede behoorlijk hebben onderteekent.
’Twelk ik getuijge, [get.] D.G. Carnspek, secretaris.
CJ 346 Criminele Process Stukken, 1741, ff. 121-22.
Huijden, den 13e Maij 1741, compareerde voor mij, Arnold Schephausen, secretaris van Stellenbosch en Draakensteijn, in ’t bijweesen van den naartenoemene getuijgen, den soldaat Christoffel Jansz, thans als knegt in leening sijnde bij den oud heemraad Daniël van der Lith, dewelke, ter requisitie van den landdrost sieur Pieter Lourensz, verklaarde de waarachtige waarheijd te zijn:
Dat hij comparant sig op seekeren Saturdagh, in de maand Februarij, sonder egter den precisen datum te weeten, heeft bevonden op sijn meesters plaats, geleegen omtrent de Klapmuts; dat gemelte sijn meester hem alsdoen teegens den middagh, gelast heeft seekere slaaf van hem, Alexander genaamt, vast te binden, sonder dat hem comparant bewust is om wat voor reedenen.
Dat hij comparant dien jongen Alexander in de combuijs vast gebonden hebbende, sig voorts naar sijn werck heeft begeeven, komende kort daaraan bij hem comparant, bij het waagenhuijs (alwaar beesig was, een waagen in te schuijven), een van sijn meesters slaven, genaamt Pieter, dewelke teegens hem comparant seijde: ’t Is goed, dat ghij van over de bergh gekomen bent, want die jonge wou de baas vermoorden; waarop hij comparant repliceerde: Mijn God! dat moest niet geschieden, gaande voorts weederom naar de combuijs, hoorende alsdoen dat sijn meester seer hard teegens die jongen Alexander was spreekende, seggende hij comparant voorts, soo dra in de combuijs quam, teegens dien jongen: Alexander! gaa na jouw werk toe; waarop denselven antwoorde: Ik wil vandaage niet werken, begeevende hij comparant sig voorts weeder naar sijn werck, sonder dat hem comparant iets anders van deese zaak bekend is, betuijgende voorts, niet gesien te hebben dat dien jongen Alexander een mes gehad heeft.
Voorts verklaarde den comparant niets meer, geevende voor reedenen van weetenschap als in den text, met presentatie van dit, sijn gedeposeerde, ten allen tijden, als sulx mogte werden vereijscht, met solmneelen eede nader te bevestigen.
Dat aldus passeerde aan Stellenbosch, ten overstaan van den substituut Jan Hendrik Narb en den geregtsboode Jan van Ellewe, als getuijgen van geloove hiertoe versogt, die de minute deeses, beneevens den comparant ende mij, secretaris, meede behoorlijk hebben onderteekent.
’Twelk ik getuijge, [get.] A. Schephausen, secretaris.
Recollement
Compareerde voor ons, ondergeteekende gecommitteerdens uijt den edelagtbare Raad van Justitie deeses gouvernements, den soldaat Christoffel Jansz, denwelken deese zijne gegeven depositie van woorde tot woorde claar en duijdelijk voorgelesen zijnde, verclaarde daarbij volkomen te persisteeren, oversulx niet begerende datter iets meer bijgevoegt ofte van gedaan werden sal, en betuijgde in presentie van den slaaf Alexander van Coutschien [sic] alle het bovenstaande de suijvere waarhijd te zijn, en sprak, tot bekragtiging der waarhijd van dien, de solemneelen woorden: Soo waarlijk, helpe mij, God almagtig.
Aldus gerecolleert ende beëedigt aan Cabo de Goede Hoop, den 18e Maij 1741.
Dit X is het merk van den soldaat Cristoffel Jansz.
Als gecommitteerdens, [get.] Am. Decker, J. de Wit [sic].
Mij present, [get.] D.G. Carnspek, secretaris.
CJ 346 Criminele Process Stukken, 1741, ff. 123-26.
Interrogatoriën, omme daarop, ter requisitie van den landdrost Pieter Lourensz, gehoord en ondervraegt te werden den slaaf Alexander van Couchin, lijfeijgen van den oud heemraad Daniel van der Lith.
Compareerde voor ons, ondergetekende gecommitteerdens uijt den edelagtbare Raad van Justitie deeses gouvernements, den slaaf Alexander van Couchin, dewelke op deese neevenstaande vraagpoincten sodanig heeft gerespondeert als op dies margine staat aangetekent.
Articul 1: Hoe zijn gevangens naam, ouderdom en geboorteplaats is.
Antwoord: Alexander van Couchin, oud naar gissing 40 jaaren.
Articul 2: Wiens lijfeijgen hij gevangen, en waar alhier beschijden is geweest?
Antwoord: Lijfeijgen van den oud heemraad Daniel van der Lith, en gewoond te hebben op desselfs plaats, geleegen omtrent de Clapmuts.
Articul 3: Of hij gevangen op Saturdag den 18 der jongst gepasseerde maand Februarij, des middags op zijn meesters plaats, geleegen omtrent de Clapmuts, in de combuijs sittende te eeten, niet door den knegt Christoffel op ordre van zijn voormelde meester is vast gebonden geworden? Antwoord: Ja.
Articul 4: Of hij gevangen onder dat vastbinden een bloot mes, welk hij in de hand hadde, in de sak heeft gestooken, en of hetselve daar niet weederom door den slaaf Marinus is uijtgenoomen?
Antwoord: Ja.
Articul 5: Of de slavin Aurora insgelijx op ordre van zijn gevangens meester vast gebonden sullende worden, desselfs lijfvrouwe om ’t lijf gevloogen en om vergiffenis heeft versogt? Antwoord: Ja.
Articul 6: Of zijn gevangens lijfvrouwe, alsdoen seer ontsteld raakende, zijn meester hem niet weederom heeft laaten los maaken?
Antwoord: Ja.
Articul 7: Of hij gevangen sig, naar dat los gemaakt was, niet naar het slaavenhuijs heeft begeeven en naar dat aldaar een baatje hadde aangetrocken, met een bloot mes in zijn broeksak weederom terug in de combuijs is gegaan?
Antwoord: Ja.
Articul 8: Waar hij gevangen dat mes heeft bekoomen, en met wat intentie hij gevangen met hetselve weederom naar de combuijs is gekeert? Antwoord: Ik hebbe mijn oud mes in het jongenshuijs op de vensterbank gevonden, en ben daarmeede in de hand neevens een stuk tobak gegaan naar de combuijs om hetselve aldaar te kerven.
Articul 9: Of het niet is geweest om daer meede zijn meester, dan wel imand [sic] anders te vermoorden?
Antwoord: Ik hebbe het in mijne gedagtens niet gehad.
Articul 10: Of wanneer hij gevangen uijt het slaavenhuijs naar de combuijs wilde gaan, den slaaf Marinus hem gevangen niet heeft willen teegen houden, en of hij gevangen egter niet, onder ’t seggen: Wat hebt jullij met mij te doen, laat mij maar gaan, naar de combuijs is gegaan?
Antwoord: De oude jonge Pieter heeft mij willen teegen houden, en hebbe alsdoen teegens denselven gesegt: Ik ben moede, gaat gij maar naar jouw werk toe, ik zal nu niet koomen.
Articul 11: Of wanneer hij gevangen in de combuijs was gekoomen, zijn meester niet teegens hem heeft gesegt: Gae na jouw kooij en slaapt, gij komt immers van de Caab en zijt moede en of hij gevangen daar niet weederom op g’antwoord heeft: Dat wil ik niet doen?
Antwoord: Mijn baas heeft mij belast, terwijl ik dog niet slaepen wilde, dat ik een mantje met persiken van juffrouw Cloeten soude gaan halen, waerop ik g’antwoord heb van: Ja, baas, dat is goed; zijnde sulx geschied in presentie van den slaaf van den heemraad Cloete, Isacq genaamt.
Articul 12: Of hij gevangen, naar dat zijn meester hem ten tweeden maale hadde gesegt, dat naar de kooij gaan soude, niet weeder gesegt heeft: Dat wil ik niet doen, en vervolgens op een kist in de combuijs is gaan sitten?
Antwoord: Daar weet ik niet van.
Articul 13: Of hij gevangen geduurende het spreeken met zijn meester niet steets naar zijn meester is geavanceert?
Antwoord: Neen.
Articul 14: Of hij gevangen sulx niet heeft gedaan om met het, bij sig hebbende, mes denselven te grieven?
Antwoord: Neen, dat hebbe ik niet gedaan.
Articul 15: Of hij gevangen, kort naar dat de eerste maal uijt de combuijs was gegaan, niet aanstonds met een mes in de hand weederom in de combuijs is terug gekoomen?
Antwoord: Ja, met het oude mes en ’t endje tobak.
Articul 16: Of hij gevangen, naar het mes op de drumpel van de combuijs gesleepen hadde, niet heeft gesegt: Ja mes, gij sult in mijn ziel steeken, of in een ander ziel?
Antwoord: Ja, dat hebbe ik door mismoedigheijt gesegt.
Articul 17: Of alsdoen de meijd Silvia teegens hem gevangen niet gesegt heeft: Fouij [sic] jonge, schaamt uw wat, als dat eens ijmand te hooren kreeg, sou jij na den duijvel weesen.
Antwoord: Ja.
Articul 18: Of hij gevangen dien meijd daarop niet ten antwoord heeft gegeeven: Dat raakt jouw niet, ik soek mijn dood, laat ik maar dood weesen?
Antwoord: Het kan wel weesen, maar ik soude het niet vast kunnen seggen.
Articul 19: Of hij gevangen ’t mes weederom in de sak gestooken hebbende, niet naar het slaavenhuijs is gegaan, en kort daar aan weederom terug gekoomen? Antwoord: Ik hebbe het mes in de combuijs neergelegt en ben vervolgens met den slaaf Isacq van Jacob Cloeten naar zijn meesters huijs gegaan om persiken te haalen.
Articul 20: Wat hij gevangen telkens met dat mes in de combuijs heeft willen doen ofte uijtvoeren?
Antwoord: Ik hebbe met dat mes een stuk tobak willen kerven.
Articul 21: Om wat reedenen hij gevangen sig soodanig teegens zijn meester heeft g’opposeert, en waarom denselven heeft willen quetsen?
Antwoord: Ik ben niet quaad om mijn singeur [sic] geweest, en hebbe hem ook niet willen quetsen.
Articul 22: Of hij gevangen niet moet bekennen dat over zijne boosaardigheijt en gruwelijk voorneemen ten hoogsten strafbaar is?
Antwoord: Ik ben niet boosaardig teegens mijn meester geweest, ook hebbe geen quaad voorneemen teegens denselven gehad.
Aldus gevraagt ende b’antwoord aan Cabo de Goede Hoop, den 6e April 1741, voor d’ edele Cl. Brand en Jan de Wit, leeden uijt voormelde Raad, die de minute deeses, beneevens den g’interrogeerden ende mij, secretaris, meede behoorlijk hebben onderteekent.
Recollement
Compareerde voor ons, ondergetekende gecommitteerdens uijt den edelagtbare Raad van Justitie deeses gouvernements, den slaaf Alexander van Couchin, dewelke deese boovenstaande vraagen met zijne daarop gegeevene antwoorden van woorde tot woorde klaar ende duijdelijk voorgeleesen zijnde, verclaarde daar bij volkoomen te persisteeren, oversulx niet begeerende datter iets meer bijgevoegt ofte van gedaan werden zal, als eenelijk dat wanneer volgens ordre van zijn meester, soo als op articuls 11 en 19 komt te seggen, een mantje met persiken gehaalt heeft, hetselve niet bij juffrouw Cloete maar wel uijt zijn baas eijgen thuijn geplukt en aan den jonge van gemelte Cloete, Isacq genaamt, heeft overhandigt, en betuijgde alle het bovenstaande de suijvere waarheijt te zijn.
Aldus gerecolleert aan Cabo de Goede Hoop, den 7e April 1741, voor d’ edele C. Brand en Jan de Wit, leeden uijt meergemelte Raad, die de minute deeses beneevens den g’interrogeerden ende mij, secretaris, meede behoorlijk hebben onderteekent.
’Twelk ik getuijge, [get.] D.G. Carnspek, secretaris.
Footnotes
-
Sic. Should be relatant. ↩