1792 Francois de Wet
The evidence in this case was collected by the Stellenbosch landdrost after he received a complaint by the slave David van de Caab about the actions of his owner, Francois de Wet. David accused De Wet of causing the deaths of the young child of the slave Jacomijn, David’s partner, and, three years earlier, that of his sister, Stijn.
The case shows the difficulties encountered by a slave family. David formed part of a slave kinship network on the farm, albeit one which was devastated by the actions of his owner. Jacomijn, as a young mother, had been working as a wet nurse on another farm and was accused of neglecting her own child. Stijn had tried to abort her child and was whipped for being the suspected carrier of a venereal disease.1
It appears that no action was taken against De Wet. Possibly the landdrost considered that the evidence was uncertain, and that Stijn may have died from her attempted abortion.
Footnotes
-
Infanticide was a form of resistance amongst slave women, since it deprived their owners of the benefit of new slave property, although its emotional and psychological effects on the women should not be forgotten. Venereal disease was widespread in the colony, not least because of its spread by sailors and soldiers aboard vessels visiting Table Bay. The authorities attempted, somewhat ineffectually, to control infanticide especially, for example Kaapse Plakkaatboek II: 171 (1740) and 246-47 (1753). See on this De Kock 1950: 184-86; Shell 1994: 312-14; and Van der Spuy 1993: 152-98. ↩
1/STB **3/12** Criminele Verklaringen, 1786-1793, unpaginated.
Statement, given in the presence of the undersigned deputised heemradenheemradenThe 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., the honourables Pieter Gerhard Wium and Christman Joël Ackerman, and on the requisition of the landdrost here, the honourable koopmankoopmanThe administrative or civil sector of the VOC was divided into six categories of rank, with the governor-general at the head of the first one. Most of the titles used for these ranks were derived from the merchant origins of the VOC, but in practice a rank did not equate with a person’s function. Koopman, literally meaning ‘merchant,’ was a rank in the third category, senior to onderkoopman (‘junior merchant’), but below an opperkoopman (‘chief merchant’). Hendrik Lodewijk Bletterman, by and on behalf of David van de Caab, thirty years old at a guess, bondsman of the former burgher lieutenant, the manhaftemanhafteThis word is related to Dutch manhaftig, ‘manly, manful, valiant.’ It was the title held by officers of the various citizen militias (each district had one). It seems as if it only entered common usage late in the eighteenth century. Francois de Wet, which goes as follows: That after having been with and on the farm of the manhaftemanhafteThis word is related to Dutch manhaftig, ‘manly, manful, valiant.’ It was the title held by officers of the various citizen militias (each district had one). It seems as if it only entered common usage late in the eighteenth century. Johannes de Waal for about four months to suckle the youngest child of the said De Waal,1 the slave of the testifier’s owner, by the name of Jacomijn and with whom the testifier has a relationship, returned home on a certain Sunday, about fourteen days before the last New Year. Whenever the said Jacomijn picked up her child, who that whole day had been doing nothing but crying, and held it to her bosom, the testifier’s owner forbade it, saying in essence: “You shouldn’t think you’re with De Waal where you can sit all day long with the child on your lap”, which utterance he repeated a couple of times and when he did so again on the Tuesday thereafter, the said Jacomijn then answered him: “At Sieur De Waal’s I at least always had somebody to look after my child, but now there’s nobody; one day she will cry herself to death”. Whereupon the testifier’s owner became so angry over this that he took the 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. for the back horses, which was hanging in the kitchen, and dealt the aforementioned Jacomijn, while she was holding the child in her arms, several blows with it, besides also dealing some blows to the child (in particular two visible wounds on its forehead) on this occasion, as a result of which the testifier’s child, who before this had been well and healthy, passed away the night of that very Tuesday, and was buried the following day. At which incident were present: the widow Jan Theron, a 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. of the said widow Theron, by the name of Goliad, a female Hottentot living at his owner’s, by the name of Anna, and a fellow slave of the testifier’s owner, named Fortuijn.
Besides which the testifier declares that, about three years ago, without wanting to determine the precise date, there had been residing at his owner’s a certain Hottentot, whose name the testifier cannot recall, who, before having served his agreed time,2 ran away from there, and when he was captured again after some time and brought home by the slaves of the testifier’s owner, he was suffering from a venereal disease. That the testifier’s owner then asked the said Hottentot where he had got this disease, and received as answer that it was the sister of the testifier, viz. the slave Stijn, with whom he had been having a relationship. Upon this, the testifier’s owner immediately gave the said woman slave, who was already ill, but still up and about, a thrashing with a back 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. that afternoon; after which the testifier’s sister, immediately after receiving this hiding, took to bed and came to pass away that very same evening, when, after a short while, the testifier’s owner had the corpse of this slave transported from the house to an outside room and, on the following day, had her buried by the testifier, the aforementioned Fortuijn and two other fellow slaves whose names the testifier cannot recall because of the length of time.
At that time, when the testifier went on his way here in order to inform the honourable petitioner of this incident with his sister, and at the same time to complain about the harsh treatment of his said owner, the brother-in-law of his owner, named Jacobus du Toit, followed the testifier with two horses, caught up with him in the vicinity of the farm of the burgher Charl Theron, and convinced him to go and sit on one of these horses and to ride back home with him, which the testifier also did.3
The testifier says that when he recollects the misfortune his family has had to endure, already twice now, as a result of the strict treatment of his owner, it is impossible for him, on account of his regret and grief, to continue serving the same, and he therefore in addition requests the honourable petitioner not to be returned again to his said owner.
There being nothing more to relate, the testifier asserts to be convinced of the accuracy of his statement as in the text, declaring it to be the whole truth.
Thus related at the office of the secretary at Stellenbosch on 10 January 1792.
This cross X was made by the testifier with his own hand.
As delegates, [signed] P.G. Wium, C. Joël Ackerman.
In my presence, [signed] J.P. Faure, secretary.
1/STB 3/12 Criminele Verklaringen, 1786-1793, unpaginated.
There appears before us, the undersigned deputised heemradenheemradenThe 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., the honourables Johan Bernhard Hoffman and Pieter Gerhard Wium, the Bastaard-Hottentot Anna, 30 years old at a guess, who, on the requisition of the landdrost, the honourable koopmankoopmanThe administrative or civil sector of the VOC was divided into six categories of rank, with the governor-general at the head of the first one. Most of the titles used for these ranks were derived from the merchant origins of the VOC, but in practice a rank did not equate with a person’s function. Koopman, literally meaning ‘merchant,’ was a rank in the third category, senior to onderkoopman (‘junior merchant’), but below an opperkoopman (‘chief merchant’). Hendrik Lodewijk Bletterman, declares it to be the truth:
That about three years ago, without the deponent being able to determine the exact date, when the manhaftemanhafteThis word is related to Dutch manhaftig, ‘manly, manful, valiant.’ It was the title held by officers of the various citizen militias (each district had one). It seems as if it only entered common usage late in the eighteenth century. Francois de Wet, at whose place the deponent had already been living twelve or more years, was going to drive to Stellenbosch with his wife, the slave of the said De Wet, named Steijn, wanted very much to go with them. And since 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. did not want to take her with them since she was already four months pregnant, Stijn then drank vinegar mixed with gunpowder and soot from the chimney in order to abort her fetus, and, seeing that this did not meet her objective, she then, to this end, drank and ate once or twice a good quantity of brandy with lye,4 raisins and snake-skin. That the said slave became ill from this and, when asked by 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. what the matter was with her, replied that she did not know. Whereupon the deponent’s 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. a couple of times gave the said Steijn medicine to use, yet this did not help at all, as, on the contrary, the same Steijn continued to vomit constantly; while Steijn, after having been weak like this for three days, started menstruating very heavily, which is when she told the deponent in essence: “I must burst now and die”, as she then did pass away that very evening and was buried the day thereafter.
That another slave of the aforementioned De Wet, by the name of Jacomijn, after having been at Vier en Twintig Rivieren at Johannes de Waal, the brother-in-law of her owner, to suckle the child of De Waal, again returned home on a certain Sunday during the recently passed month of December. Among other things, some days thereafter she went out to cut pig leaves,5 leaving her sick child at home, and when this work was done and she had come back, she pitifully abused this child who, during the absence of its mother, had been doing nothing but screaming, by beating it, so that even her husband, the slave David, asked her why she was beating the child so much, adding: “One day you will beat it to death”, and received as answer in essence: “It has nothing to do with you!”
The deponent’s 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., who upon this noise had come from 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. into the kitchen, gave with a back horse 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. the aforementioned Jacomijn two or three lashes over the arms while she was carrying the child in her arms, whereupon the said slave hurriedly ran into 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 was followed by her owner, but that the deponent’s mistress then intervened and pleaded on behalf of the same, so that she did not receive any more lashes.
That the aforementioned Jacomijn that evening went to bed in an outside room with her child, who was by then even more ill than before, and when she again got up the following morning, and also when she came into 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., she did not say that her child had become any worse but, on the contrary, upon the deponent’s question about how her child was, she answered that it had slept well that night, although when this slave, after about an hour had passed, again went to the aforesaid outside room to fetch the child and bring it into the house, she found it lying dead on the bed; without the deponent having been able to discover on the body of that child anything but a small scratch on its forehead, which the deponent supposes to have been caused by the fall which this Jacomijn had with the child when she received the lashes from her said owner.
There being nothing more to declare, the deponent asserts to be convinced of the accuracy of her statement as in the text, declaring this to be the whole truth.
Thus recorded at the office of the secretary at Stellenbosch on 11 January 1792.
This mark X was put down by the Bastaard-Hottentot Anna with her own hand.
As delegates, [signed] J.B. Hoffman, P.G. Wium.
In my presence, [signed] J.P. Faure, secretary.
1/STB 3/12 Criminele Verklaringen, 1786-1793, unpaginated.
There appears before the undersigned deputised heemradenheemradenThe 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., the honourables Johan Bernhard Hoffman and Pieter Gerhard Wium, Fortuijn van Bengalen, forty years old at a guess, bondsman of the manhaftemanhafteThis word is related to Dutch manhaftig, ‘manly, manful, valiant.’ It was the title held by officers of the various citizen militias (each district had one). It seems as if it only entered common usage late in the eighteenth century. Francois de Wet, who, on the requisition of the landdrost here, the honourable koopmankoopmanThe administrative or civil sector of the VOC was divided into six categories of rank, with the governor-general at the head of the first one. Most of the titles used for these ranks were derived from the merchant origins of the VOC, but in practice a rank did not equate with a person’s function. Koopman, literally meaning ‘merchant,’ was a rank in the third category, senior to onderkoopman (‘junior merchant’), but below an opperkoopman (‘chief merchant’). Hendrik Lodewijk Bletterman, declares it to be true:
That on a certain evening about three years ago, without being able to determine the exact date, the deponent went from his work, which he had done elsewhere on the fields that day, to the house and, when he entered the kitchen, he saw with amazement that the slave of his said owner, named Stijn, who was well and healthy when the deponent had left that morning, was lying dead there in the kitchen, without the deponent being able to say how or from what the same passed away, being only able to discover from the remains that she had shortly before been vomiting a lot. On that same evening this slave was taken, on the order of his said owner, to an outside room by the deponent, his fellow slave David and some other fellow slaves belonging to his owner, whose names the deponent is unable to recollect because of the long duration and time, and was buried in the morning of the following day.
That about fourteen days before the last New Year, when the slave Jacomijn went out to collect so-called pig leaves, she left her suckling child, who had returned home ill with her, shortly before this, from the brother-in-law of the deponent’s owner, the manhaftemanhafteThis word is related to Dutch manhaftig, ‘manly, manful, valiant.’ It was the title held by officers of the various citizen militias (each district had one). It seems as if it only entered common usage late in the eighteenth century. Johannes de Waal, with the other slave children in the kitchen; which child did nothing but constantly scream. That when the said Jacomijn returned, she chastised this child over this to such an extent that the aforesaid David, with whom the said Jacomijn has a relationship, addressed her with this question: “Why are you beating the child like that, you will beat it to death one day”. That when the aforesaid owner of the testifier [sic] came in upon this, he gave Jacomijn, who was carrying her child in her arms, three lashes with an ordinary 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., whereupon she ran inside to 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.. The day thereafter, while busy slaughtering cattle, he understood from his other fellow slaves that the child of Jacomijn was dead, without being able to say what had been the cause of her death; while the corpse was buried that same day by David and the deponent.
There being nothing more to declare, the deponent asserts to be convinced of the accuracy of his statement as in the text, declaring this to be the whole truth.
Thus recorded at the office of the secretary at Stellenbosch on 13 January 1792.
This cross X was put down by the slave Fortuijn with his own hand.
As delegates, [signed] J.B. Hoffman, P.G. Wium.
In my presence, [signed] J.P. Faure, secretary.
Footnotes
-
For this practice, see 1788 David Malan Davidsz, n. 11. ↩
-
This suggests an arrangement whereby the Khoi worker was contracted for a fixed period of time. It may be that this person was in fact a Bastaard-Hottentot, who was indentured until the age of twenty-five after 1775 (see 1752 April van de Caab n. 1). But there was no fixed system for Khoi labourers, and possibly this was a specific arrangement for this case. ↩
-
David was setting out to complain to the landdrost. It appears from this that Jacobus du Toit did not force him to return, but rather attempted to persuade him to do so by less forceful means. It is also notable that Du Toit was De Wet’s brother-in-law. Exposure to the authorities in this way would have brought shame and dishonour, not only on the slaveowner (who was a former burgher lieutenant with the title manhaften, and would have had some standing in the community), but also on his relations. On honour and its operation in the Stellenbosch slave-owning community, see Dooling 1992 and 1994. ↩
-
In this case it was probably produced by mixing water and ash. ↩
-
That is, South African arum lilies, still called varkore or varkblomme in Afrikaans. ↩
Relaas gegeeven, ten overstaan van de ondergeteekende gecommitteerde heemraden, d’ edele Pieter Gerhard Wium en Christman Joël Ackerman, ende ter requisitie van den koopman en landdrost alhier de heer Hendrik Lodewijk Bletterman, door ende van weegens David van de Caab, oud naar gissing dertig jaaren, lijfeigen van den oud burger lieutenant, de manhafte Francois de Wet, luijdende hetzelve als volgt:
Dat de slavinne van des relatants lijfheer, in naame Jacomijn, met wien den relatant verkeering houd, na circa vier maanden bij en ter plaatse van de manhafte Johannes de Waal geweest te zijn om het jongste kind van gemelde De Waal te zuijgen, op zeekeren Zondag, omtrent veerthien dagen voor het laatste Nieuw Jaar wijder te huijs gekomen zijnde, des relatants lijfheer gemelde Jacomijn telkens, wanneer zij haar kind, dat des gantschen dag niets anders deede als schreeuwen, van de grond en aan de borst nam zulx was komen te verbieden, zeggende in substantie: Jij moet niet denken dat jij bij De Waal bent om des geheelen dag door met het kind op de schoot te zitten; en dit zeggen een en andermaal, mitsgaders op Dingsdag daaraan herhaald hebbende, gemelde Jacomijn des relatants voormelde lijfheer alstoen had toegevoegd: Bij sieur De Waal heb ik het wel ook altoos iemand gehad om mijn kind op te passen maar nu niemand, zij zal zig nog dood schreeuwen; wanneer des relatants lijfheer hierover toornig geworden het agterpaarden sjambok, in de combuijs hangende, genomen en opgemelde Jacomijn, terwijl deselve het kind op de armen droeg, daar meede verscheijde slagen gegeeven, mitsgaders bij die geleegenheid het kind meede eenige slagen <insonderheijd twee zigtbare wonden op het voorhoofd>1 toegebragt hebbende; was gemelde des relatants kind, dat bevorens vris [sic] en gezond is geweest, daarvan dien eigensten Dingsdagnagt overleeden en daags daaraan begraven geworden; bij welke geval tegenwoordig waren geweest de weduwe Jan Theron, een slave jongen van gemelde weduwe Theron met naame Goliad, een, bij des relatants lijfheer woonende, Hottentottin met naame Anna, de meede slaav van des relatants lijfheer, Fortuijn genaamt
Verklarende den relatant wijders dat voor circa drie jaren geleeden, zonder in de preciezen tijd bepaald te willen zijn, bij des relatants lijfheer woonagtig geweest zijnde zeekeren Hottentot, wiens naam den relatant zig niet herinneren kan, denselven, alvorens zijn verbonden tijd te hebben uijtgediend, van daar was weggelopen en, eenigen tijd daarna door de slaven van des relatants lijfheer widers [sic] opgevangen en t’ huijs gebragt zijnde, denselven met de Venus ziekte behebt te zijn. Dat des relatants lijfheer gemelde Hottentot alstoen had gevraagd waar hij aan die ziekte was gekomen, en ten antwoord gekregen hebbende, van des relatants zuster, de slavinne Stijn, met wien hij altoos verkeering zoude hebben gehouden; des relatants lijfheer daarop terstond met een agtersjambok gemelde slavinne, die reeds ziekelijk, edog altoos gaande en staande, was geweest, in den nademiddag een afrossing had gegeven; wanneer gemelde des relatants zuster terstond na de ontfangene slagen zig te bed begeeven hebbende, alsmeede dien eigensten avond was komen te overlijden; terwijl des relatants lijfheer het lijk dier slavinne uit het woonhuijs, een poos daarna in een buijtenvertrek heevt doen transporteeren, daags daaraan door den relatant, voormelde Fortuijn en nog twee andere meede slaaven, welker namen den relatant zig, weegens de langdanigheid van tijd, zig niet te binnen brengen kan, laten begraven.
Dat den relatant destijds na herwaards op weg geweest zijnde om dit voorgevallene met desselvs zuster den heer requirant ter kennisse te brengen, en tevens over de harde behandeling van gemelde zijnen lijfheer te klagen, den zwager van desselvs lijfheer, Jacobus du Toit genaamt, alstoen met twee paarden den relatant was nagevolgd en hem elders, omtrend des plaats van den burger Charl Theron, agterhaald hebbende, denselven den relatant heevt overgehaald om op een dier paarden te gaan zitten en weder terug naar huijs te rijden, hetgeen den relatant ook heevt gedaan.
Zeggende den relatant dat hij zig te binnen brengende het ongeluk dat nu reeds twee malen zijn famille [sic] door de strenge behandeling van desselvs lijfheer is overgekoomen, van spijt en verdriet onmogelijk langer onder denselven kan blijven dienen, en daarom den heer requirant ook heevt versogt niet weder na gemelde zijnen lijfheer terug gezonden te mogen worden.
Niets meer relateerende, geevt den relatant voor reedenen van weetenschap als in den text, betuijgende zulx de zuijvere waarheid te zijn.
Aldus gerelateerd ter secretarije aan Stellenbosch, den 10e Januarij 1792.
Dit kruijsmerk X is door den relatant eijgenhandig gesteld.
Als gecommitteerdens, [get.] P.G. Wium, C. Joël Ackerman.
Mij praesent, [get.] J.P. Faure, secretaris.
1/STB 3/12 Criminele Verklaringen, 1786-1793, unpaginated.
Compareerde voor de ondergeteekende gecommitteerde heemraden, d’ edele Johan Bernhard Hoffman en Pieter Gerhard Wium, de Bastaard Hottentottinne Anna, oud na gissing dertig jaren, dewelke, ter requisitie van den koopman en landdrost, de heer Hendrik Lodewijk Bletterman, verklaarde hoe waar is:
Dat voor omtrend drie jaren geleeden, zonder dat de comparante de juisten tijd weet te bepalen, de manhafte Francois de Wet, bij wien de comparante bereids twaalf en meer jaren is woonagtig geweest, met desselvs huisvrouw na Stellenbosch zullende rijden de slavinne van gemelde De Wet, Steijn genaamt, alstoen gaarne heevt willen meede rijden, haar juffrouw haar niet willende meede neemen omdat se reeds vier maanden zwanger was, deselve Stijn daarop azijn met buskruijt en schoorsteenroet tezamen gemengd, had gebruikt om haar vrugt af te drijven, en ziende dat zulx aan het oogmerk niet voldeet, zij voorts, tot dat einde, een en andermaal <had gedronken en gegeeten>2 een goede quantiteit brandewijn met loog water, rozijnen en slangevel; dat gemelde slavinne hiervan ziek geworden en door haar juffrouw gevraagd zijnde, wat zij manqueerd, zij daarop was komen te anwoorden zulx niet te weeten. Wanneer der comparantes juffrouw genoemde Steijn eenige malen medecijnen ten gebruike gegeeven hebbende, dit nogthans niets heevt geholpen, maar deselve Steijn in tegendeel bij continuatie bleev vomeeren; terwijl meergemelde slavinne Stijn na drie dagen dus onputtelijk geweest te zijn, haar maandstonde zeer zwaar gekreegen hebbende, alstoen tot de comparante in substantie had gezegd: Nu moet ik barsten en sterven; zoals deselve ook nog dien eigensten avond overleeden en daags daaraan begraven geworden was.
Dat de mede slavinne van opgemelde De Wet, in naame Jacomijn, na eenigen tijd aan de Vier en Twintig rivieren bij de zwager van haar lijfheer, Johannes de Waal, geweest te zijn om het kind van hem De Waal te zuijgen op zeekeren Zondag in de laatst gepasseerde maand December weder thuijs gekomen en, onder anderen, eenige dagen daaraan uitgegaan zijnde om elders varkensbladeren te snijden, haar zieke kind t’ huijs laatende; wanneer dat werk verrigt, weeder terug gekomen was, dat kind, hetwelk gedurende het afweesig van de moeder niets anders heevt gedaan als schreeuwen, deerlijk met slagen was komen te mishandelen, zodat zelvs haar man, de slaaf David, haar heevt gevraagd waarom sij dat kind zo sloeg, met bijvoeging: Jij zal het nog dood slaan, en in substantie ten antwoord bekomen hebbende: Dat raakt jou niet!; den comparants baas, voornoemde De Wet, op dat gerugt vanuit het voorhuijs in de combuijs gekomen, meergemelde Jacomijn met een agterpaarden sjambok, terwijl deselve haar kind op de armen droeg, twee á drie slagen over deselve [sic] armen had toegebragt, wanneer genoemde slavinne haastig na binnen in het voorhuijs gelopen is, door haar lijfheer agtervolgd zijnde, der comparantes juffrouw alstoen tusschenbijde is gekomen en voor deselve een voorspraak was geweest, invoege zij dan ook verder geen slagen heevt ontfangen.
Dat meergemelde Jacomijn dien avond met haar kind, hetwelk toen erger ziek als tevooren was geweest, in een buitenkamer na bed gegaan en den volgende morgen weder opgestaan, mitsgaders in het voorhuijs gekomen zijnde, door deselve ook niet heevt gezegt haar kind slegter te weesen maar in tegendeel, op de vrage van de comparante, hoe haar kind zig bevond, heevt g’antwoord, hetselven dien nagt wel geslapen te hebben, terwijl de slavinne, na verloop van omtrend een uur, andermaal na voorseijde buitenkamer gegaan wesende om het kind te halen en in huijs te brengen, hetselve alstoen op het bed dood leggende had gevonden; zonder dat de comparante aan het lighaam van dat kind iets anders heevt kunnen ontdekken als alleen een klijn schraapje aan het voorhoofd, hetwelke de comparante sustineerd veroorzaakt te zijn door een val die Jacomijn met dat kind heevt gedaan wanneer van haren gedagte lijfheer slagen heevt ontfangen.
Niets meer verklaarende, geevt den comparante voor reedenen van weetenschap als in den text, betuijgende zulx de zuivere waarheid te zijn.
Aldus gepasseert ter secretarije aan Stellenbosch, de 11e Januarij 1792.3
Dit teeken X is door de Bastaard Hottentottin Anna eijgenhandig gesteld.
Als gecommitteerdens, [get.] J.B. Hoffman, P.G. Wium.
Mij praesent, [get.] J.P. Faure, secretaris.
1/STB 3/12 Criminele Verklaringen, 1786-1793, unpaginated.
Compareerde voor de ondergeteekende gecommitteerde heemraden, d’ edele Johan Bernhard Hoffman en Pieter Gerhard Wium, Fortuin van Bengalen, oud na gissing veertig jaren, lijfeijgen van de manhafte Francois de Wet, dewelke, ter requisitie van de koopman en landdrost alhier, de heer Hendrik Lodewijk Bletterman, verklaarde hoe waar is:
Dat den comparant op zeekeren avond, circa drie jaaren geleeden, zonder den precisen tijd te kunnen bepalen, van zijn werk, dien dag elders op het land verrigt, naar ’t huijs gegaan en, in de combuijs gekomen zijnde, met verwondering gezien had dat de slavinne van opgemelde zijnen lijfheer, Stijn genaamt, die des morgens, wanneer den comparant uit het huijs was gegaan vris en gezond was geweest, aldaar in de combuijs dood lag, zonder dat de comparant weet te zeggen hoe of waaraan deselve overleeden is; hebbende den comparant alleen aan de overblijfzels kunnen ontwaren dat deselve kort tevoren veel gevomeert had, en was gemelde slavinne nog dien avond door den comparant, de meede slaav David en nog enige der andere meede slaven van desselvs lijfheer, wiens namen den comparant zig wegens de langdurigheid en tijd niet meer te binnen brengen kan, op ordre van gemelde zijn lijfheer na een buitenvertrek gebragt en des volgenden daags in den morgen begraven geworden.
Dat omtrent veerthien dagen voor het laatste Nieuw Jaar, de slavinne Jacomijn uijtgegaan zijnde om zogenaamde varkensbladeren te halen, haar zuigend kind, dat met haar, kort te vooren, ziek van des comparants lijfheers zwager, de manhafte Johannes de Waal, thuijs was gekoomen, in de combuijs bij de andere slave kinderen agterlatende, hetselve bij continuatie niets heevt gedaan als schreeuwen, wanneer gemelde Jacomijn weeder terug gekeerd weesende, dat kind daarover zodanig heevt gekastijd dat voormelde David. met wien deselve Jacomijn verkeering houd, haar al vragende heevt toegevoegd: Waarom slaat jij het kind zo, jij zult het nog dood slaan; terwijl des relatants voornoemde lijfheer daarop toegekomen, met een gewone sjambok Jacomijn, die haar kind op de armen droeg, drie slagen toegebragt hebbende, deselve daarop na binnen in het voorhuijs was gelopen. Had den comparant daags daaraan, terwijl bezig was een beest te slagten, van de andere zijne meede slaven verstaan, dat het kind van Jacomijn overleeden was, zonder te kunnen zeggen wat van deselvs dood de oorzaak is geweest; zijnde het lijk door David en den comparant dien zelven dag begraven geworden.
Niets meer verklarende, geevt den comparant voor redenen van weetenschap als in den text, betuijgende zulx de zuivere waarheid te zijn.
Dat aldus passeerde ter secretarije van Stellenbosch den 11e Januarij 1792.4
Dit kruijsmerk X is door de slaav Fortuijn eigenhandig gesteld.
Als gecommitteerdens, [get.] J.B. Hoffman, P.G. Wium.
Mij praesent, [get.] J.P. Faure, secretaris.