Person:Jan Van Cleef (3)

Facts and Events
Name Jan Van Cleef
Alt Name Jan Cornelis VanCleef
Alt Name /Waldike/
Gender Male
Birth? Abt 1627 Amsterdam, Netherlands
Alt Birth? 1628 Rhenish Duchy, Cleve, Rheinland, Preußen, Germany
Marriage 10 MAR 1660/61 New Amsterdam, New Netherlandsto Engeltje Louwerens
Alt Marriage 1669 to Engeltje Louwerens
Alt Death? Bet 1698 and 1701 age 73
Death? Aft 1698 New Amsterdam, Kings, New York, United States

Jan Van Cleef Appears in Court In the City Hall, at New Amsterdam

Monday, 22 February 1655 - Gerritt Van Nent and Jan Van Cleef appeared as plaintiffs against Jan Sybrantsen defendant. Defendant in default. Monday, 1 March 1655 - Gerritt Van Nent vs. Jan Sybrantsen. In as much as defendant borrowed a gun from the plaintiff full two months ago, and has not yet returned it, restoration of the gun is now demanded; or the payment of four beavers, which it cost the plaintiff. Defendant undertakes to deliver the gun, within eight days from the date thereof, to the plaintiff, in as good order as he received it, or in addition to its restitution, six guilders according to its condition. Wherewith both parties are satisfied. (S1Vol. 1 - Pg. 287 & 290)

Tuesday, 19 October 1660 - Burgomaster Allard Anthony, arrestant and plaintiff, versus Jan Van Cleef, arrested and defendant. The plaintiff demands of the defendant a beaver and a half, or so much buckwheat at beaver price, for a hanger, sold to the defendant. Defendant says that the plaintiff did not ask more than two skepals. He brought an ox last year to the plaintiff, and he should not give him over and above two skepals of buckwheat for the hanger. Plaintiff replies that he can prove by his book that he sold the defendant the hanger for one and a half beavers. Demands the costs incurred, and requires that the defendant shall remain here so long as he has not satisfied him. For bringing of the ox he will pay as others. The court orders the plaintiff to prove that he sold the defendant the hanger, the arrest meanwhile remaining valid.

On the same day, 19 October 1660; another charge was pressed. Henry Van Dyck, plaintiff, versus Titus Cyre and Jan Van Cleef, defendants. Plaintiff demands from the defendants payment of 250 florins with costs, for the purchase of a horse-mill. Defendant Titus Cyre says that Jan Van Cleef agreed to pay his part, which Jan Van Cleef being asked, says "yes". Plaintiff replying, demands that the defendant Jan Van Cleef, shall be condemned to pay him 250 florins according to the contract. Micasius DeLille appearing, request that Jan Van Cleef shall remain until he shall have paid, or has released him from the bail bond. The Court orders Jan Van Cleef to pay the 250 florins to the plaintiff according to the contract, with costs, the arrest, meanwhile remaining valid.

And Even in Church Records... NEW YORK HISTORICAL MANUSCRIPTS: DUTCH Old First Dutch Reformed Church of Brooklyn, New York First Book of Records 1660 - 1752 Translated & Edited by: A.P.G. Jos. Van der Linde The Holland Society of New York

September 21, 1661 Jan Thomaszen, summoned by the consistory of Breuckelen together with his son on account of a certain unfortunate incident whereby he had drawn his knife and wounded Jan Van Cleeft in the village of New Utrecht, acknowledged that he, namely the afore-mentioned Jan Thomassen (while enjoying half a barrel of beer on the occasion of the departure of Sir Johannes Verveelen, burgher and brewer of Amsterdam in New Netherland), had gottenen into an argument with a certain Claertie de Mof; that they had even come to blows; and that his shirt had been torn by the aforesaid [Claertie]. Thereupon, however, the aforesaid Kleef had come and had pulled the aforementioned Jan Thomassen's hair, who [then] drew his knife and made four cuts in the afore- mentioned Cleeft's jerkin - indeed, wounding him eventually. His son, Thomas Janssen, declared that because of filial affection he could not bear the fact that his father, Jan Thomassen, was grabbed by the hair and badly maltreated by the aforesaid Jan van Cleeft, so the afore-mentioned Thomas came to the help of his father and pulled Jan van Cleeft off by the shoulders. Thereupon, Van Cleeft grabbed the aforesaid Thomas, too, by the hair and Hendrick Matthijssen grabbed him by his feet; and [they] threw him on the floor. Thomas Janssen hereby contends, however, that he struck neither of the two again but merely grabbed Jan van Cleeft by the hair in order to be let go. After discussing the matter among ourselves, it is [our] judgement , (as Jan Thomaszen strictly speaking is not a member of the Church of Jesus Christ in Breuckelen but so far has partaken of the Lord's supper there at his own request, while belonging to the congreation of Midwout and living in the village of New Utrecht) that because of his conduct, [he] will have to stay away from the Lord's Table in the village of Breuckelen since his case is currently in the hands of the Hon. Lord Director-General and Councillors and since [he] has reconciled himself neither with the afore-mentioned Cleeft, who is seriously injured, nor with this congregation, which would be offended by it. His son, however, who was confirmed as a member in this place and showed more penitence and regret, would be admitted and at the same time warned to be on guard and careful in the future in order not to cause any offense to our congregation with such or other incidents. Both were notified and informed of this.

September 27 {year not given} Jan Thomassen, living in Utrecht in New Netherland, requested to be re-admitted and to partake of the Lord's Supper beside our members, which had been denied him because of a certain knifing incident. [He] said he had settled with Jan van Cleeft to that end. Whereupon we resolved, and do resolve, while the aforementioned Jan Thomassen was standing outside, that it would be best to let his opportunity pass and to keep a special watch on him, and then, at the time of repentance and regret, to re-admit him to our congregation; which was told him when he came in.

Jan Van Cleef was born in Holland, probably in Amsterdam, in 1627 - 28. He was active in civic affairs in the New Utrecht, New York area. He married in New Amsterdam, New York on or prior to March 10, 1661, to Engeltje Louwerens. Her parents were Loweren Pietersen, of Norway and Annetje (Annette) Pieters, from Germany who were married on August 18, 1641. Engeltje was baptized in the New Amsterdam Dutch Church on July the 15, 1646. In 1677, Jan was listed as belonging to the Dutch Church of New Utrecht. Jan's last recording was the 1698 census of New Utrecht, New York. Some researchers believe that his widow remarried in 1701. This issue is still being debated.

Best records indicate that Jan and Engeltje were the parents of thirteen children. I am assuming that there is still some question about Laurens actually being their offspring.

Jan's name is said to have originally been Waldike and he took a new name, the place of his ancestral home, when he came to America.Citation needed He came to New Netherlands (Long Island) in 1653. In 1686, he received a land grant form Govenor Donegan. He took an oath of allegiance to the English government in 1687. He was a resident of New Utecht for 34 years.

  1.   Fernow, Berthold. The Records of New Amsterdam from 1653 to 1674 Anno Domini. (New York, New York: Knickerbocker Press, 1897).