1766 Nicolaas Heijns
This is a case of a slave who was caught in the midst of a matrimonial dispute between her owners. Nicolaas Heijns hit Flora several times, causing severe wounds to her head, for reasons which were not clear to any of those who witnessed the scene. She complained to the authorities, and the supporting testimonies, which included those of Heijns’s son, seemed to back Flora’s claims. The fiscal was sympathetic, calling for Heijn’s punishment with a fine. But Heijns’s claims to the Court of Justice that his wife had put Flora up to making the complaint gave them pause for thought and Heijns does not appear to have been penalised.1
The case contains some incidental details of interest, such as Flora’s job of selling almonds in the streets of Cape Town, a task at which she had little success,2 and her role of serving at table in the Heijns household.
Footnotes
-
Heijns was brought before the court on 13 February 1766, and claimed both that Flora ‘seer brutaal teegens mij geweest’ (was most insolent towards me) and that his wife had done everything in her power to oppose him, including inciting his slaves against him and encouraging Flora van Bengalen to make her complaint to the authorities. He produced a letter written to him by his wife, which was full of insults and curses (printed in Ponelis 1993: 79 and, in Afrikaans translation, in Schoeman 2002a: 76; Raidt 1994: 196 and 202 discusses its linguistic features). The court stated that this had nothing to do with the case, which was concerned with whether or not Heijns had maltreated Flora. Heijns admitted that he had hit her, ‘dog dat het in sijne drift geweest, en daarin door de assurantie dier slavin gebragt was’ (but that this was in anger and that he had been brought to it because of the insolence of this slave). The court held the case over, but there is no record that it came before them again, CJ 48, f. 25. ↩
-
See the discussion of koeli geld in 1718 Doulat van Balij, n. 6. ↩
CJ 387 Criminele Process Stukken, 1766, ff. 127-28.
Dictum ter rolle.
Honourable lord and lords,
As verification of this dictum the eijschereijscherLiterally ‘claimant’ or ‘petitioner.’ The prosecutor who drew up and delivered the crimineelen eijsch ende conclusie, usually either the fiscal or a landdrost (magistrate). has the honour, in his official capacity, to inform your honours that, on the 10th of the previous month January, a slave 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.’, by the name of Flora van Bengale, bondswoman of the defendant, the burgher Nicolaas Godfried Heijns,1 brought a complaint to the eijschereijscherLiterally ‘claimant’ or ‘petitioner.’ The prosecutor who drew up and delivered the crimineelen eijsch ende conclusie, usually either the fiscal or a landdrost (magistrate)., viz. that, shortly before noon, her said owner suddenly came into the kitchen from the room where he, without her being aware of this, had been lying asleep, when he, not only without any cause and merely under the pretext of saying: “Why do you shout like that! I cannot sleep!”, first gave her a few slaps with his hand, but also, shortly thereafter, when she was standing in the kitchen by the hearth, the defendant again came to her from the room and hit her with an iron ash shovel on the right-hand side of her head in such a way that the blood came streaming from the inflicted wound so that she became faint due to the heavy bleeding. Yet, a short while thereafter, the defendant even returned for a third time from the room and tried to give her a second blow with the same ash shovel, but was, however, prevented from doing this through the intervention of his son, Hendrik, who said that she, Flora, was already bleeding heavily from the first blow she had received. Which can be seen in greater detail in the statement of the wounded slave Flora, attached herewith under the letter A.2
For which reason the eijschereijscherLiterally ‘claimant’ or ‘petitioner.’ The prosecutor who drew up and delivered the crimineelen eijsch ende conclusie, usually either the fiscal or a landdrost (magistrate). considered it prudent to send 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.’ to the guardroom and to have her wounds dressed there by one of the chief surgeons from the honourable Company’s hospital. Which is when, as shown in the statement of the second chief surgeon, attached herewith under the letter D, it was found that the deep wound, fully two fingers big, caused by the aforementioned blow given to this slave, penetrated the top part of the back skull on the right-hand side, exposing its bone, being accompanied with heavy bleeding and bruising of the surrounding parts.
Moreover, the eijschereijscherLiterally ‘claimant’ or ‘petitioner.’ The prosecutor who drew up and delivered the crimineelen eijsch ende conclusie, usually either the fiscal or a landdrost (magistrate). also, in order to be more fully informed of the truth and circumstances of this case, and whether or not it squares with the truth, viz. that the defendant had given 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.’ a blow with an ash shovel and that she thus received the wound, collected the testimonies, attached herewith under the letters B and C, of the members of the defendant’s household who were present and to whom it would be known best. In which your honours too will be able to see most clearly the anger and wrath of the defendant.
In this way the defendant has entirely exceeded the level of chastisement which is permitted to an owner in accordance with our laws, viz. to punish his slaves with the hand, stick or sjamboksjambokThis word entered seventeenth-century Dutch via Malay (tjambok) or Javanese (sambok) from Persian (châbuk). It is a whip cut from thick animal skin, usually hippopotamus or rhinoceros, and was already known in the Dutch East Indies as an instrument for punishing slaves. At the Cape it was also used to beat draught animals with. etc., but in no way to maltreat them, or to injure them bloodily with ash shovels or other similar instruments; even to such an extent that this blow may have caused a mortal wound, or at least that death, through an additional accident such as that it may not have been attended to in time, could easily have resulted from it, seeing that the blood which flowed from the wound could hardly be stanched, and that fainting had already followed it.3 For this reason the eijschereijscherLiterally ‘claimant’ or ‘petitioner.’ The prosecutor who drew up and delivered the crimineelen eijsch ende conclusie, usually either the fiscal or a landdrost (magistrate)., in his official capacity, presumes to conclude with good justice against the defendant, as follows:
Concluding with this that the defendant, Nicolaas Godfried Heijns, with certain judgment by your honours, be sentenced to a monetary fine of one hundred rixdollars pro fisco and, moreover, to be sharply reprimanded in court, with sentencing to the costs, and further that the slave 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.’ Flora be sold, for the defendant’s profit, in public so that she may never again fall into the hands of the defendant or his [family]. Or to any other similar end as your honours would deem just and fair.
[signed] J.W. Cloppenburg.
Exhibit in court, 13 February in the year 1766.
CJ 387 Criminele Process Stukken, 1766, ff. 129-31.
Statement given, on the requisition of the honourable independent fiscal, Jan Willem Cloppenburg, by the slave Flora van Bengalen, bondswoman of the burgher Nicolaas Godfried Heijns, going as follows:
That on a certain morning, at about ten o’clock, one month ago now at a guess, without knowing the precise day or date, the testifier went out, on the order of her mistress, to sell green almonds and then arrived back home after eleven o’clock when her mistress came from the front room to her in the voorhuijsvoorhuijsLiterally the ‘front house’, this referred to the first area entered from the main door or stoep (porch). In most houses this was a room, although in the later design of some Cape houses it referred to a narrower passage (like a hall or vestibule) flanked by one or more front rooms. and asked the testifier if she had sold anything. When the testifier answered this with: “No”, her mistress ordered her to go to the kitchen.
That while the testifier was busy in the kitchen, her owner who, without her knowing this, had been lying asleep in the front room, suddenly came from that room and gave her about three slaps with his hand, saying: “Why are you screaming like this, I cannot sleep”.
That her said owner then returned to the front room, while the testifier remained in the kitchen, but that, shortly thereupon, he again came from that room into the kitchen and went to the testifier, who was standing at the hearth in the presence of both her owner’s sons, Hendrik and Nicolaas, and on this occasion hit a hole in the right-hand side of her head with an iron ash shovel lying there; whereupon her owner went back to the room for the second time, but shortly thereafter returned to the kitchen and tried to deal the testifier a second blow with the ash shovel.
That the testifier’s owner – who had been prevented from accomplishing this by his aforementioned son Hendrik, who said that the testifier was already bleeding from the first blow – then ordered her to serve at the table upon which the testifier’s fellow slave Dela had meanwhile laid the meal; but that the testifier, because the blood streamed from the inflicted wound down her face, became faint and, on the repeated threat of her owner, went to the room and stood there leaning against the post of the door.
That the testifier remained standing in the door of the room during the meal, with the wound continuing to bleed steadily, that after the meal her owner had his aforementioned son Hendrik cut her hair and wash out the wound with brandy, which did not, however, succeed in stanching the blood; for which reason the testifier lodged her complaint concerning this with the honourable petitioner.
There being nothing more to relate, the testifier asserts to be convinced of the accuracy of her statement as in the text, with presentation to subsequently confirm the same, if so required.
Thus related at the office of the secretary of justice of the Castle of Good Hope on 30 January 1766 in the presence of the clerks Jochem Hendk. Borgwedel and Pieter Caspar Broedersz, as witnesses, who have properly signed the original of this, together with the testifier and me, the sworn clerk.
Which I declare, [signed] L.S. Faber, sworn clerk.
CJ 387 Criminele Process Stukken, 1766, ff. 129-31.
Today, 3 February 1766, there appears before me, Lucas Sigismundus Faber, sworn clerk in the office of the secretary of justice of this government, in the presence of the witnesses named below, the slave Dela van Bengalen, belonging to the burgher Nicolaas Godfried Heijns, of competent age, who, on the requisition of the honourable independent fiscal, Jan Willem Cloppenburg, declares it to be true:
That fully a month ago now, probably on a certain Monday, without however being able to remember the date, the deponent’s fellow slave, Flora van Bengalen, went out in the morning to sell green almonds, and returned home again at eleven o’clock, when she stood in the voorhuijsvoorhuijsLiterally the ‘front house’, this referred to the first area entered from the main door or stoep (porch). In most houses this was a room, although in the later design of some Cape houses it referred to a narrower passage (like a hall or vestibule) flanked by one or more front rooms. and reported about the sale of these almonds to her 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., the wife of the aforementioned Heijns, who was sitting in the room.
That the reporter’s owner, who had been lying in that room on a bed, and who was somewhat drunk, thereupon started swearing and, while the aforementioned Flora went to the kitchen, got up from the bed and also went to the kitchen, which is when the said owner of the deponent, as soon as he had entered through the kitchen door, asked the aforementioned Flora whether she knew he had been sleeping on the bed in the room.
That when Flora answered: “No” to this, the deponent’s owner gave the said Flora about four slaps in her face. When the aforementioned slave then retreated to the hearth, which was at the other side of the kitchen, the deponent’s owner took up an ash shovel lying by the hearth, and gave the said Flora a blow with it on the right-hand side of her head, whereupon the deponent’s owner wanted to continue with a further blow, but was prevented from it by his son, Hendrik Heijns, who grabbed his hand while saying: “Oh, father”.
That the deponent’s said owner then went to the room, sat down at the table, on which the deponent had meanwhile laid the meal, and called the slave Flora from the kitchen to come and serve at the table. However, the said Flora, who was bleeding heavily from the blow she had received on her head, became faint, and stood leaning with her head against one of the posts [of the door], which is when the aforementioned owner of the deponent asked Flora if she wanted to have a second blow, but that she answered: “No” to this. When the deponent’s owner had eaten and afterwards went to rest, his son, by the name of Hendrik, cut Flora’s hair from her head and cleaned her wound with wine, but since this bleeding could not be stanched, Flora went from the house out of fear and went to the honourable petitioner in order to complain about this incident.
There being nothing more to declare, the deponent asserts to be convinced of the accuracy of her statement as in the text, with presentation to subsequently confirm the same.
Thus recorded at the office of the secretary of justice of the Castle of Good Hope in the presence of the clerks Pieter Caspar Broedersz and Frederik Wilhelm Allemann, as witnesses, who have signed the original of this together with the deponent and me, the sworn clerk.
Which I declare, [signed] L.S. Faber, sworn clerk.
Footnotes
-
Nicolaas Godfried Heijns was a troublesome character. Born in 1725 as the son of a free black woman and a German settler, he was organist of the Cape Town church, but was sacked in 1753 because of his ‘obstinacy’ and ‘insolence’ (Leibbrandt 1905: 253-56). In 1764 he married his second wife Alida Maria de Swart, but they had ‘marriage problems’ and around the time of this incident got separated. It seems as if Heyns lived as a music teacher, but he died indigent. He later played a role in the Patriotten movement of the 1780s (Beyers 1967: 126-28). ↩
-
Flora’s statement is that transcribed here. In addition to what is printed here, the documentation in this case also includes the evidence of Hendrick Heijns, Nicolaas Heijns’s son, and a surgeon’s report on Flora’s wounds, CJ 387, ff. 135-37. ↩
-
The fiscal is referring to legislation which permitted slave-owners to punish their slaves ‘domestically’ but not to maltreat them or cause their death, see Kaapse Plakkaatboek I: 36-7 (1658) and II: 149-50 (1731). See Shell 1994: 207-11 on the effectiveness of this, and compare 1707 Jan de Thuilot for another example. ↩
Dictum ter rolle.
Edelachtbare heer en heeren,
Tot verificatie van dit dictum heeft den ex officio eijsscher d’ eer u edelachtbare ter kennisse te brengen dat op den 10e der jongst gepasseerde maand Januarij een slaven meijd, in naam Flora van Bengalen, lijfeijgene van den gedaagden burger, Nicolaas Godfried Heijns, bij den eijsscher klagten ingebragt heeft dat even gedagte haar lijfheer kort voor de middag schielijk uijt de kamer, alwaar hij te slaapen gelegen had, zonder dat zij Flora zulks wist, in de kombuijs gekomen wesende, haar niet alleen zonder eenige oorsaak, en slegts onder ’t pretext, op ’t zeggen: Waarom schreeuw je soo! Ik kan niet slaapen!, eerst een paar klappen met de hand gegeven, egter kort daarop, wanneer zij in de kombuijs bij den vuurhaard stond, en den gedaagde voor de tweede maal uijt de kamer bij haar gekomen was, met een ijzere asschop soodanig een gat aan de regter zeijde van ’t hoofd geslagen had, dat het bloed tappelings uijt de g’infligeerde wonde geloopen, en zij door ’t sterk bloeden flaeuw geworden was. Maar dat den gedaagde ook, een kort poosje daarna, voor de derdemaal uijt de kamer gereverteert wesende, getragt had haar nog een tweede slag met dezelfde asschop toe te brengen, dog, door de tusschenkomst van des gedaagden [sic] zoon Hendrik, onder ’t zeggen dat zij Flora door den ontfangen eersten slag reets sterk bloedde, daarin was verhindert geworden. Omstandiger te zien bij het, sub littera A, hiernevens g’annecteerde relaas van de gequetste slavin Flora.
Weshalven den eijsscher raadsaamst heeft g’oordeelt deze meijd naar de ghijzelkamer1 te zenden, en dezelve aldaar door een opperchirurgijn uijt ’s edele Compagnies hospitaal te laten verbienden [sic]. Als wanneer, uijtwijsens de, onder littera D, hierbij gevoegde, chirurgicale verklaaring van den tweeden oppermeester bevonden is dat de, door den voorverhaalden slag, aan die slavin toegebragte diepe wonde, ter lengte van ruijm twee vingeren breedte, aan de bovenkant des agterhoofds beens, ter regter zeijde, met ontblooting desselfs beens, verzelt met zwaare bloedinge en kneusinge der ommeleggende deelen, gepenetreert is.
Hebbende den eijsscher daarenboven nog, omme van de waarheijd en toedragt dezer saak, dan wel of het ook met de waarheijd quadreerde, dat den gedaagde die meijd met een asschop den slag toegebragt, en zij dus de wonde ontfangen had, wat nader g’informeert te sijn, de, sub litteris B en C hierbij gevoegde, declaratoiren van des gedaagden [sic] huijsgenooten, die maar allen daarbij present geweest sijn en aan dewelke het best bekent was, ingewonnen; zulks u edelachtbare des gedaagden woede en gramstoorigheijd daaruijt ten klaarsten mede zullen kunnen b’oogen.
Den gedaagde dus de maate der kastijdinge – die volgens onse wetten aan een lijfheer, met de hand, stok of sjambok etc. tegens zijne slaaven wel, maar geensints omme dezelven te mishandelen, ofte ten bloede te quetsen [sic] met asschoppen, of andere diergelijken instrumenten, toegestaan werd – ten eenemaale te buijten gegaan hebbende, zelfs in soo verre, dat die slag wel een doodwonde had kunnen geven, ten minsten den dood, door een daarbij koomend accident, soo wanneer niet in tijds daarna gezien geworden was, ligtelijk daarop had kunnen volgen, nademaalen het, uijt de wonde gevloeide, bloet quaalijk heeft kunnen gestelpt werden, en ook reets flaeuwtens daarop gevolgt sijn; soo vermeijnt den eijsscher amptshalven tegens den gedaagden, met goed regt, te moogen en moeten concludeeren; soo als:
Concludeert bij dezen, dat den gedaagde, Nicolaas Godfried Heijns, bij definitive vonnisse van u edelachtbare mag werden gecondemneert: in een pecunieele amende van eenhondert rijxdaalers pro fisco, en daarenbooven in judicio scherpelijk gereprimendeert te werden, met condemnatie in de kosten; en dat vervolgens de slavenmeijd Flora, ten profijte van den gedaagde, sodaanig publiquelijk zal werden verkogt, dat dezelve nooit ofte ooit wederom in handen van den gedaagden ofte de zijnen kome te vervallen. Ofte tot alzulken anderen fine als u edelachtbare naar regt en billijkeijd zullen vinden te behooren.
[get.] J.W. Cloppenburg.
Exhibitum in judicio, den 13e Februarij anno 1766.
CJ 387 Criminele Process Stukken, 1766, ff. 129-31.
Relaas gegeeven, ter requisitie van den heer Independent Fiscaal, Jan Willem Cloppenburg, door den slavin Flora van Bengalen, lijfeijgen van den burger Nicolaas Godfried Heijns, luijdende als volgt:
Dat wanneer de relatante, naar gissing nu wel een maand voorleeden, sonder den netten dag of datum te weeten, op een seekeren morgen, de clocke omtrent thien uuren, ter ordre haarer lijfvrouw om groene amandelen te verkoopen uijtgegaan en daarop, over elf uuren, weederom t’ huijs gekoomen was, der relatante lijfvrouw uijt de voorkamer sig bij haar in het voorhuijs had vervoegt, en de relatante afgevraagt of sij relatante wat verkogt had, op ’twelk door de relatante van neen g’antwoord sijnde, had derselven lijfvrouw haar relatante gelast naar de combuijs te gaan.
Dat middelerwijl de relatante sig in de combuijs bevonden had, derselver lijfheer, dewelke in de voorkamer, sonder dat sij relatante sulx had geweeten, te slaapen geleegen had, schielijk van uijt die kamer gekomen weesende, haar relatante onder het seggen: Waarom schreeuw je soo, ik kan niet slaapen; een klap of drie met de hand toegebragt had.
Dat gemelde der relatante lijfheer sig vervolgens naar de voorkamer terug begeeven hebbende, terwijl sij relatante in de combuijs verbleeven was, denselven kort daarop weederom uijt die kamer in de combuijs sig vervoegt, en de relatante, dewelke, ter praesentie van desselfs lijfheers beijde soons Hendrik en Nicolaas, bij den vuurhaard was staande, met een, daar geleegen hebbende, eijsere aschschop een gat aan de regter seijde van het hoofd geslaagen had; begeevende der relatante lijfheer sig ten tweede maale naar de kamer, dan kort daarop in de combuijs gereverteert sijnde, had denselven de relatante eene tweede slag met de aschschop tragten toe te brengen.
Dat der relatante lijfheer, door desselfs voormelde soon Hendrik, in ’t volbrengen derselve, onder het seggen dat de relatante door het ontfangen van den eersten slag soodanig bloede, verhindert weesende, de relatante vervolgens g’ordonneert had, om de tafel, waarop immiddens door haar relatantes meede slavin Dela het eeten gebragt was, te moeten oppassen, dog de relatante, vermits het bloed uijt de ontfangene wonde tappelings langs haar aangesigt liep, flaauw geworden sijnde, had deselve op de herhaalde bedrijging haarer lijfheer sig naar de kamer begeeven en teegens de post der kamerdeur staan leunen.
Dat de relatante geduurende het eeten in de kamerdeur, voormeld, sijnde blijven staan, terwijl nog al gestadig uijt de wond bleef bloeden, derselver lijfheer naar den eeten meergemelde des relatantes lijfheers soon Hendrik haar relatante ’t haijr afgesneeden, en de wonde met brandewijn uijtgewasschen had, hetwelke egter niet in staat geweest was dat bloed te kunnen stelpen; des de relatante haar beklag diesweegens bij den heer requirant had gedaan.
Niets meer relateerende, geeft de relatante voor reedenen van wetenschap als in den text, met praesentatie hetselve, des vereischt wordende, nader gestand te doen.
Aldus gerelateerd ter secretarije van justitie des Casteels de Goede Hoope, den 30e Januarij 1766, ter praesentie der clerquen Jochem Hendk. Borgwedel en Pieter Caspar Broedersz, als getuijgen, die de minute deeses, beneevens de relatante ende mij, geswoore clercq, meede behoorlijk hebben onderteekent.
’Twelk ik getuijge, [get.] L.S. Faber, geswoore clercq.
CJ 387 Criminele Process Stukken, 1766, ff. 132-34.
Huijden, den 3e Februarij 1766, compareerde voor mij, Lucas Sigismundus Faber, geswooren clercq ter secretarije van justitie deeses gouvernements, praesent de naargemelde getuijgen, de slavin Dela van Bengalen, toebehoorende den burger Nicolaas Godfried Heijns, van competenten ouderdom, dewelke ter requisitie van den heer Independent Fiscaal, Jan Willem Cloppenburg, verklaarde hoe waar is:
Dat der comparante meede slavin Flora van Bengalen, nu wel een maand voorleeden, naar gissing op een seekeren Maandag, sonder egter den datum onthouden te hebben, des morgens om groene amandelen te verkoopen uitgegaan en, de clocque elff uuren, weederom te huijs gekoomen sijnde, deselve in het voorhuijs staande, teegens haar juffrouw, ofte de huijsvrouw van voormelde Heijns, die in de kaamer had geseeten, van den verkoop dier amandelen verslag gedaan had.
Dat der comparante leijffheer, dewelke in die kaamer op de kooij geleegen had, en een weijnig beschonken geweest was, daarop aan het vloeken gegaan sijnde, terwijl voormelde Flora naar de combuijs sig begeeven had, denselven van die kooij opgereesen en meede naar de combuijs gegaan was, als wanneer eevengemelde der comparante leijffheer voormelde Flora, soo als den drumpel dier combuijs deur had betreeden, gevraagt had off sij niet wist dat hij in de kaamer op de kooij had geslaapen.
Dat gedagte Flora daarop van neen sijnde koomen te antwoorden, der comparante leijfheer haar Flora een klap of vier in het aangesigt gegeeven had, dog gemelde slavin sig alsdoen naar den, aan het ander eijnd der combuijs staanden, vuurhaard geretireerd hebbende, had geciteerde der comparante leijffheer een, bij de vuurhaard geleegen hebbende, aschschop opgenoomen en gedagte Flora daar mede een slag aan de regter seijde van het hoofd toegebragt, waarop door gemelde der comparante leijffheer dien slag hervat zijnde, was denselven egter door desselfs soon Hendrik Heijns, dewelke zijn hand gevat had, onder het seggen: Och, vader; daarin verhindert.
Dat der comparante meergemelde leijffheer vervolgens naar de camer gegaan, en aan tafel geseeten sijnde, middelerwijl door de comparante het eeten op de tafel was geset geworden, denselven de slavin Flora uijt de combuijs, om de tafel op te passen, geroepen had, dog gemelde Flora – dewelke, door de ontfangene slag op het hoofd sterk bloede, flaauw geworden sijnde – met het hoofd teegens een der posten leunende gaan staan, sulx meergeciteerde der comparante leijffheer haar Flora gevraagt had, off sij nog een tweede slag wilde hebben, dog deselven daar op neen g’antwoord hebbende, was sij Flora, naar dat der comparante leijffheer gegeeten en voorts sig ter rust begeeven had, door de soon van gemelde der comparante leijffheer, in naame Hendrik, het haaijr van het hoofd weggesneeden, en haare wond met wijn gesuijvert geworden, dan nademaal egter het bloed niet had kunnen gestelpt worden, had seij Flora uijt vrees sig ten huijse uijt en, ten eijnde weegens dit geval klagten te vallen, naar den heer requirant begeeven.
Niets meer verklaarende, geeft de comparante voor reedenen van weetenschap als in den text, met praesentatie hetselven nader gestand te doen.
Aldus gepasseert ter secretarije van justitie des Casteels de Goede Hoop, ter praesentie der clercquen Pieter Caspar Broedersz en Frederik Wilhelm Allemann, als getuigen, die de minute deeses, beneevens de comparante ende mij, geswoore clercq, meede behoorlijk hebben gesubscribeert
’Twelk ik getuige, [get.] L.S. Faber, geswoore clercq.
Footnotes
-
A gijzelkamer is not a prison cell: gijzelen means to keep under arrest for a short period, usually in civil cases (e.g. until a debt has been paid); in effect a place where one was kept under guard (see Diederiks 1992: 30-1). It is not known where this was situated, presumably within the Castle and perhaps close to where the fiscal had his offices. ↩