WILLIAM TELLER'S QUARREL WITH THE MAGISTRATES
(Teller and Related Families)
In April, 1656, Willem Teller had a lively row with magistrates over the closing of Abraham Vosburch's footpath to the river. Suit was brought against him by Johann Deckere, one of the magistrates for that year. The charge against him made by his personage may be quoted at some length, not only for their biographical interest, but as the self-importance assumed by village magistrates of that time, elected for short terms from among their fellow villagers using toward a person charged with insubordination against authority the style of language that might be employed from European King's Bench toward a leading rebel.
"April 25th, 1656, Johann de Deckere, plaintiff, and Willem Teller, defendant. The plaintiff says, and it is the truth, that the defendant in the week before Easter, did not necessitate to close and fence off at both ends with boards and palisades a certain common or public road, alley or foot path situated opposite the house of Abraham Pietersz Vosburch, going to the river, as the party most directly concerned. Also that upon inspection made by the honorable court, and the survey made by the surveyor, it was found that the aforesaid defendant had includes within the fence of his garden about four and a half feet ground of the aforesaid foot path from the wagon road to the river and consequently lessened the width aside from the fact the defendant has encroached a foot or two along the public road outside the old palisades, and thereby narrowed the public wagon road. All of which being seen and considered by the honorable court, and the groundbrief of the defendant's garden being also examined, it appeared clearly that the defendant had unjustly taken of the aforesaid four and half feet of land, as well as of the one or two feet, and added them to his garden in bad faith.
"The surveyor being thereupon, with the advice and consent of the magistrates who were present, ordered by the plaintiff to saw off and tear down the fence or boards at the end of the defendant’s garden, according to the tenor of the groundbrief, the defendant began to address not only the plaintiff, but also the magistrates in very angry, abusive and threatening terms, putting himself with face not only in posture of defense, but actually becoming aggressive, trying either to break the saw, or by force or violence to wrest it from the hands of the surveyor. To this must be added that the defendant some time ago has not hesitated to state even in court that the building o f the block house, or certain proceedings of the court concern it, would cry to heaven for vengeance; all of which this spewed out, spoken or attested in the face or presence of the plaintiff and the magistrates, while they were exercising their functions, and therefore representing the supreme authority of this province, and consequently in the high degree injurious, intolerable and of evil consequence. The plaintiff, in the crazy above mentioned, demands therefore that the defendant shall immediately and without the formal of a regular trial, as in this matter there is no need of any evidence or testimony, and no further investigation is required, be condemned to pay a fine of 600 florins.
"The defendant gave for answer that he did not care anything about the aforesaid matter and thereupon left immediately."
"The defendant having again come into court has openly accused and told the president, Johann de Dickere, that he had forcibly deprived him of the aforesaid foot path or alley and given it to another person."
The president protests against this slanderous charge and demands honourable and profitable reparation."
The court then adjourned the case to another court day.
The case was resumed in court on the following 30th of May. Johann de Deckere continued in the same style, denounced Willem Teller as one who in contempt and disobedience of his lawful superiors"-- who in this case were fellow villagers of lower social position than himself, elected to village office for one year terms--"has in the most unjust, violent and forcible way tried to possess himself of the said foot path, and in bad faith tried to fence off and use the same, in regard to which he, the plaintiff has instituted a special action this honorable court."
Willem Teller's statement at the last session, that De Deckere had robbed him of that foot path was referred to as "a very villainous, hateful and slanderous accusation," and considered himself in the highest degree, injured, affronted and wounded in his honor, reputation and office, by the aforesaid false and impudent libel, slander and accusation:" demand therefore " that the defendant shall be condemned to make honor and pecuniary reparation for the aforesaid villainous and false slander, namely, honorable reparation by appearing in court and there bareheaded and with folded hands and bended knees pray to God, the court and the plaintiff, if he desires to be present for forgiveness, confessing that he has unjustly and contrary to the truth made the aforesaid accusation, and that he knows nothing but what is honorable an virtuous, and that he has in the aforesaid particular exercised the functions correctly and that he is therefore heartily sorry about it all, but promises not to do the like again." Next came the important part, as Willem Teller's less prosperous neighbors who happened to constitute the "lawful authority" for that year were concerned: "pecuniary reparation" was demanded by De Deckere to the extent of six thousand guilders. This made the total of one thousand, two hundred guilders demanded by the court; his fellow villagers in "authority" knew that he had money, and were determined to get all they could.
Willem Teller would not make reparation; instead, he disregarded the majesty of the village court as to repeat the former statement which had caused the wrath; i.e. that he was robbed.
The case lasted through a third hearing; Willem Teller legally settled for one hundred guilders to De Deckere, and fifty florins to the poor fund.
