1624-23 October- registered

p.2

Anne,

I'm summarizing the record below. As you can see on the scans, the record is a mess with lots of strike-throughs, insertions, and margin notes, making it very difficult to get all nuances. However, I believe I was able to capture the gist of it.

High level:

On 23 October 1624 appeared before notary Johan van Beest, public notary and the witnesses named hereafter, Mathijs Andriesz, living on 't Oostende, 33 years old, and Cornelis Henricxsz, living at the corner of the Haersteech [today: Clarenstraat], 23 years old, both plateelbackersknecht, testify at the request of Lijsbeth Cornelisdr, widow of Gerrit Pietersz plateelbacker, that it is true that today they were at the requestor's house where they met with Sipriaen Jorisz, Dirck Jeronimusz, Jacob Pietersz, Stoffel Jansz, Harman Willemsz, Abram Pietersz, Jan Gerritsz, Willem Willemsz, Andries Joosten, Jac (?) Jacobsz, Floris Jansz, Andries Willemsz, and also Willem Jansz de Rieu and others to find out who had the key of the requestor's veruwhuijs (= paint/dye house; modern Dutch for veruw is verf). Witnesses: Sipriaen Jorisz and Stoffel Jansz.

Some additional details, but with less certainty due to the mess:

1) It seems that somebody had engaged Gerrit Gerritsz slootmaecker (= lock smith) at the corner of the Gasthuijslaen  to make a copy of the key. Probably for nefarious reasons.

2) If I read it correctly, 55 pounds of porcelain was inside the paint house and the paint had been vervalscht, which litterally means falsified, but could also mean it was destroyed or ruined.

3) They also had the lock smith's wife come over to be questioned; it seems she was not helpful even though she was encouraged to answer.

4) It appears Willem Jansz de Rieu was involved with the key reproduction but this is not entirely clear. This could be the reason why he was named last in the list of people present at the house and his name was preceded by the word oock (also). This is a bit of an odd ending to a list of attendees, suggesting there was something different about him compared to the others.

Regards,

Marcel

Hi Marcel

Well this is utterly intriguing!

I wonder what could have happened? 

I'll do a bit more digging to see if I can link some of the names to different potteries.

Just a thought...could this be why Willem Jansz de Rieu left Delft so quickly after having agreed to  a contract with the owners of the Porcelyne Schotel factory in 1624 to work for them for another 6yrs, which was never signed and he instead left for Haarlem.

Will report back if I find anything to help uncover the mystery.

Many thanks for your help, much appreciated.

very best wishes

Anne

That is certainly a possibility. I don't think there is any kind of confession within this record but it sure look like he was suspected of mischief. I'll need to find some time in the next few weeks to see if I can make a more complete transcription as I think that will be the only way to potentially figure out everything the record tells us. Of course, if he did something criminal he could be in (criminal) court records as well; I have not checked if those have been digitized for Delft. Maybe he was either forced out of the city or he opted to get out to avoid further trouble. Who knows.

So a quick update on the above.

Gerrit Pietersz (Durven) was the owner of De Porcelyne Schotel. His wife was Lisbeth Cornelisdr (Suycker). They had married in 1618, he was a potter living in Molslaan, she also lived in Molslaan.

As we know from my next posting, Gerrit Pietersz died on 19 September 1624. So whatever happened in the above record was only one month after he died. It's his widow Lisabeth who is calling all the witnesses to her factory De Porcelyne Schotel.

Nearly all of the names of the men listed are potters. In fact Dirck Jeronimusz (van Kessel) went on to purchase the Porcelyne Schotel in 1647. 

And of course Willem Jansz de Rieu was their star worker.

If and when you have the time to look again at the record I'd love to hear the outcome.

very best wishes

Anne