Info Panel
You are here:   Home  /  Home Page  /  THE THIRD GENERATION
  • Hoogend in Sneek. Foto after 1885.
Source: S. ten Hoeve. Sneek photographed 1863-1900 (Leeuwarden 1999).

THE THIRD GENERATION

Hoogend in Sneek. Foto after 1885.
Source: S. ten Hoeve. Sneek photographed 1863-1900 (Leeuwarden 1999).

Joseph Noyon (1675-1709)

Simeon Noyon (1681-1755)

 (from the book “De geschiedenis van de familie Noyon, Utrecht – Sneek, 1668 – 1856″, written by Tjerk Frederik Noyon, chapter 10)

Archives

An incredibly large number of records can be found in the city and provincial archives about Joseph and his six years younger brother Simeon [84]. They married early (respectively 22 – and 25-years of age; Joseph even three times), were active businessmen, bought many properties in the city, acted as agent and trustee for tutelage children and were, last but not least, several times cited as a witness in court cases, which were held for the Court of Friesland.

The often detailed records of these criminal and civil processes, running from the first half of the 16th century until 1811, are preserved in the National Archives, and naturally contain a wealth of information about the then living people who were cited. For the individual researcher, who hopes to find herein something about his ancestors, this would be a hopeless task, were it not for the unsurpassed RS Roarda, a Frisian teacher and amateur genealogist who after years of hard work, had indexed all the names cited in these court cases as from 1700. He did likewise with the so-called life annuity registers, in which the persons were registered who had paid a sum of money to the provincial government, which the annual 7% interest rate payable throughout the whole life of the designated beneficiary. The date of death of the beneficiary was noted in the margin.

 

This allowed me to find four dated entries for Joseph and three for Simeon, whereby as usual their age was mentioned. Some calculation yields the birth years 1675 for Joseph and 1681 for Simeon. In the absence of their baptism information we would otherwise never have known these. Some curious passages, which shed a nice light on life during this period, will be discussed hereafter.

 

Their purchases of property are easily reconstructed through the records which were required by the city government when owner of land or houses were sold. The bill of sale was recorded and validated only after this sale had been publicly announced for three consecutive weeks, this in order to avoid any disputes. Because of the lack of an official cadastre, the plots were not universally accepted as well as the possible servitudes [85]. Moreover, there existed inFrieslanda “ niaar “. That is, the right for an interested family member or neighbour to purchase the plot under the same conditions as the prospective buyer. This gives us another interesting court case in 1747 as Simeon, who wants to retire to the country, is apparently at odds with his cousin Pytter, when he wants to sell his house and dye-factory to third parties.

 

For the sake of clarity, we have put the purchases of Joseph and Simeon in list, and added also the purchases of Joseph’s son Pytter which eventually culminated with the full ownership of the complex « the Swaen », now Grootzand 48 [86].

 

JOSEPH (1675 – 1720)

1) 26 Sep. 1700(with HylkjeAnnes) House with courtyardin the Oosterdijk 300.– à 20 st.
2) 6 Nov. 1700(same) Farm, carriage house and plantation east of house nº 1), from the street till the harbour 192,– à20 st.+ 1 goldenducat
3) 21 Nov. 1700(same) Two inhabited houses on thebackyard of house nº 1) 198,– à20 st.
4) 31 Dec 1711(alone) Half room, half warehouse, half court in theDoedHaitse Lanewith a free exit to the Stronghold 20,– à28 st.
5) 5 Feb. 1712(with TrijntjeSytses) House, shed, yard and well in the Groot Suidend 60,21 (gold money)
6) 8 Feb. 1712(alone) Half house back on the Singel, cornerDoedHaitse Lane 78,07 (gold money)
Half room, half warehouse in theDoedHaitse Lane 20,– (gold money)
Half yard in theDoedHaitse Lane 29,– (gold money)
7) 20 Jan. 1713(alone) House, garden, trees and plantation in the Groot Suidend 55,– à28 st.
8) 19 Oct. 1713(with TeetskeEelkes) Warehouse, basement, barley house and cowshed with two attics behind “de Swaen” (= Grootzand) 250,7 à28 st.
9) 4 Nov. 1715(alone) House with two rooms, shed and yard, back on the Singel andnext DoedHaitse Lane 78,7 (gold money)

 

 

 

SIMEON (1681 –1755)

1) 21 Dec. 1708(with SjoukeSydses) House and yard at the Hooghend 1100,– à28 st.
2) 25 Dec. 1713(same) Warehouse and room in the Knibbel lane 290,– à 20 st.
3) 2 Dec. 1718(same) House and yard east of pole N2 210,21 à28 st.
4) 8 Sep. 1724 Rent of land on the city canal outside the small poles, for five years at an annual rent to the city and orphanage of Sneek 15,–
5) 16 mrt 1725 Is allowed to build a house on plot nº 4 with the size of feet long, walls of10 feethigh, leased from the same 2,–
6) 21 jan 1727(alone) Two inhabited houses with yard from the street to the rear the dwarsstaket 300,– à20 st.

 

 

PYTER (1707 – 1760)

1) 8 jan 1728(with AntjeGonggrijp) House and yard “de Swaen” on the  Grootzand (nowadays nr. 48) 1025,– à20 st.
2) 17 apr 1750(through family claim) Room with box bed, stables with box bed, barn , free passage to use rainwater tank tank and secretion in the alley, in addition to a house, at the Achterom 200,– (gold-guilder)
3) 1752? Two rooms, shed and attics behind the Swaen on the Achterom now the Canal 65) ?

NOTE: The Carolus Guilder contained 20 nickels, the Gold Guilder 28 nickels.

 

Joseph

Genealogy

Joseph Noyon, born (Possibly in Wieuwerd) 1675, freeman, draper and manufacturer of a variety of woollen fabrics in Sneek, Attorney (Sneek sworn in on 18 August 1699), died there 9 November  1720, first marriage in Sneek 2 May 1697 with Hylkjen Agnes, babtised in Sneek  26 May 1676, died there 12 June 1709, daughter of Anne Reyners and Yffke Yppes, second marriage Sneek 31 August 1710 with Tryntje Sytses, baptised Sneek 26 January 1683, died there 23 January 1712, daughter of Sytse Jarichs and Pyttie Gerrits, third marriage in Sneek 13 November  1712 with Taetske Eelkes, baptised in Leeuwarden 17 Febuary 1675, moved from Sneek to Leeuwarden 3 March 1723, died. ?, daughter of Eelke Douwes and N.N.

 

From the first marriage:

  1. Antoni Noyon, bap. Sneek March 17, 1699, died. young.
  2. Antoni Noyon, bap. Sneek April 15, 1701, died there 28 May 1725.
  3. Jissyna (Josyna) Noyon, bap. in Sneek 28 January 1703, died there 15 January 1726, marries Sneek 24 September 1724 Harmanus Thomas Gonggrijp, born Harlingen 8 March 1698, freeman of Sneek 24 May 1726, cloth manufacturer, governor and judge from Sneek, died there 12 March 1739, son of Thomas Harmens and Aagtie Sybrands, he remarries in Sneek 1 May 1729 Antie Louws Fopma.
  4. Peter, follows IV.

 

From the second marriage:

  1. Pyttie Noyon, bap. Sneek 22 November 1711, died there 9 March 1712.

 

From the third marriage:

  1. Eybertie Noyon, bap. Sneek 30 May 1715, died there 4 June 1715 [83].

 

Weddings, houses and offices

Joseph’s birth in 1675 that we guess to be, (plus or minus a few months), coincides with the time when the Labadists themselves came to settle in Wieuwerd. We cannot be sure whether he was born inGermanyor not. He must have been an energetic lad, who supported himself already early in his life, because already three years after he arrives in Sneek at the age of 19 with his parents, he married on 2 May 1697 with the Sneker young daughter Hijlkje Annes, who is a year younger than he. Before she died at the age of 33, she gave him four children, as mentioned above.

 

Two years after his marriage, Joseph is 24 years, he lodged on 20 July1699 apetition to the Magistrate in which he indicates that he « liked to serve for Y.H. law-court as attorney postulant» and requests that he to be examined in order to be sworn in [87]. A committee is composed, consisting of mayor Edema and judge Pruisbeek, to which are added as experts Attorney Gorp (also Town Clerk!) and Notary Ferst. The result of the examination was apparently satisfactory and already on 18 August 1699, may the new attorney take his oath from the presiding mayor and start his practice [88].

 

Although this concerns only a lower court (crimes and of course appeals were reserved to the Court of Leeuwarden), for the function there was a certain knowledge required of the law and the common Latin terminology. The « postulant » acted as agent (attorney) in court and was the sole responsible to present any conclusions [89]. We do not know how Joseph mastered this knowledge. We must assume that he has received an education from the Labadists which went above his father’s level of wool comber. Perhaps he had been an apprentice in Sneek with an Attorney (Gorp?) [90].

 

Although he was occasionally called Attorney (and at the baptism of his daughter Jissyna even Notary) were his legal pursuits not his principal occupation. Already in its request of 1699 he calls himself manufacture of fabrics and it is therefore mostly referred to as merchant or purchaser of fabrics. One gets the impression that we have to do with an active businessman, through whose hands flow a lot of money throughout the twenty years of his short working life.

 

The nine real estate acquisitions that he did and which must have cost him 1500 Carolilish guilders focus on four areas:

 

  1. House with land and outbuildings on the Oosterdijk. (three purchases in 1700) fl 690, -
  2. Some small (business?) buildings in the DoedHaitse lane. (three purchases in 1711-1715) fl 250, -
  3. Two small houses on the Grootzand. (Two purchases in 1712-1713) fl 160, -
  4. Land with buildings behind the Swaen on the Grootzand (bought in 1713) fl 350, -

 

We should not be forget that his mother Josine Bonte survived him six years, and continued to live in the house at the Grootzand until her death in 1726, where they had established themselves on their arrival in Sneek with her husband and children. When Joseph got married, he had to go and look therefore for a different house. He found that in another house on the Grootzand, where he lived as a tenant until his death [91]. Remarkable is that he never lived in the house on Oosterdijk which remained in the possession of the family for a long time. Was this a real estate investment?

 

As already stated, a part of the family Hagedoorn fromUtrechtwas housed in at least one of the smaller houses on the Grootzand. At least the Registary indicates that the spouses Antoni Hagedoorn and Hilletje Hogenbrug, who already occupied this house as tenants, could buy the house for 143 Carolus guilders fifteen nickels from the heirs of Fedde Wykes. They were creditors of the late Joseph Noijon after « right of abandon » by Simeon Noijon, who acted as trustee for Joseph’s children [92].

Although I unfortunately have not been able to discover other pieces on the curatorship of Simeon I, according to this it appears that Joseph’s affairs were not flourishing upon his death in 1720, and that perhaps he had taken too much leverage. Anyway, his brother Simeon seems to have duly cleared the situation, because there will be no noticeable change in the standard of living of the family.

Joseph’s last purchase in 1713 is probably again business premises: a « delicious warehouse, basement, barley house and cowshed with two attics behind the house the Swaen » [93]. These buildings were thus in the backyard and were used by the mayor, an ensign and grits maker. The (blue) dye factory is also undoubtedly based here, which will later prove to be owned by his son Pytter when this one acquired in 1728 the house the Swaen on the Grootzand.

 

Joseph has been married three times. When, after a 12-year marriage, his first wife Anne Hylkje dies on 12 June 1709, he stays behind with three children, aged eight, five and two years old. Already on August 31, 1710 he again enters into marriage with the 27 year old Tryntje Sytses born in Sneek. But unfortunately this marriage does not last long. The daughter of  Tryntje, called Pyttie after her grandmother (born 22 November 1711, deceased 9 March 1712) probably cost her mother’s life because Tryntje herself dies on 23 January 1712. Joseph’s marriage life is truly not easy. The same year he finds a new wife in the person of Teetske Eelkes, an already somewhat older young-daughter (they are now both 37 years old), born inLeeuwarden. She lived since1705 inCornjum, located in the north ofLeeuwarden, as one of the two handmaids of Sir Valerius van Glinstra, former Lord of Gaasterland [94].

The intended marriage is proclaimed in Cornjum and in Sneek on 13 November 1712: Thye married in Sneek just ten months after the death of her predecessor Trijntje. How Joseph met this woman remains a mystery. Grietman Glinstra probably will not have belonged to his close friends, but possibly they had a business contact. It will not have been a marriage of passion, but the family had another housekeeper and Teetske could swap her position as handmaid to that of independent wife of a wealthy citizen of Sneek. She also gave Joseph a child, the daughter Eybertie who was born on 39 May 1715, but died already within a week.

 

That Joseph exercised his textile business partly with his brother Simeon, we can deduct from a statement from the Resolution Book 1713-1719, which refers to the arrest of one Willem, who apparently did something criminal and had to be transferred to Leeuwarden and is defined as « labourer Nojons » in plural [95].

 

Another criminal case, which went before the Court of Friesland served in 1710, also sheds some light on the activities of the family [96]. Joseph declares on 19 May 1710, that Albert Willems  had stolen a piece of cloth [97] two years before, but after that he had confessed his theft that he had repaired this by tanning and other work as they had agreed. From another testimony it appears further that the accused Albert Willems had requested Arjaantje Nicholaas, aged 30 years, to sell for him from house to house various pieces of cloth, which he said to have bought from Joseph. They sold it together for over five Carolus guilders.

 

Joseph himself was, despite his official position as Attorney for several times in litigation with the city council. According to the same Resolution Book, the fiscalist van den Uil was instructed on 26 May 1716 to assign Joseph (merchant and weaver over here) « unjust handling of Deborah Hornsma, housewife of Peter George, weaver here ». Apparently she had complained about « crimes committed to her » by three of Joseph’s named servants who apparently had acted on his behalf and were also indicted. The case came some months later to the Court of Friesland, where it ends with a whimper. This appears from the following passage, translation of which is displayed in its entirety:

 

« Josephus Noyon, cloth merchant from Sneek, 44 years old, sworn in and in answer to the questions, declares that all the accusations are true, that the marriage couple Pytter Joris and Debora Harmsma lived for some time in Sneek, and having been of very bad behaviour, which existed by swearing, insulting, shouting, fighting and other extraordinary acts which were so bad that all which before mentioned persons have made themselves guilty of can hardly be told, that also before mentioned persons have cheated people by taking their money without ever paying them back, and after they stayed some time in Sneek they had left there since, after leaving  a debt to some persons among which to himself, and that he had not heard of them since, the only thing he was told was that they were begging in Amsterdam, but since he did not know more of this he closed his witness statement herewith.

Act. the 26 November 1716  »

 

A final proof of Joseph’s forcefulness is illustrated by the dispute which broke out in 1716 between him and the city council about the payment of 45 pennies which he was supposed to owe to the city’s peat carriers. What was the case? To acquire the necessary fuel the citizens of Sneek had to contract the official peat diggers and carriers, who were directly appointed by the city council. They could also purchase probably cheaper peat directly from the manufacturer outside the city and have it shipped to his house by boat. In such case however, he was suppose to pay half the fee to the official peat meters, as a kind of compensation for lost income.

Joseph, who in the autumn of 1716 had shipped some loads of peat has to his house, refuses to pay this fee however, to which the peat diggers and carriers, addressed a petition to the Magistrate on 20 February 1717, after repeated vain claims. They referred to the regulations, as they had been confirmed in 1655 and 1670, and they asked the enforcing of payment. Mayor Frieswijk condemns Joseph to pay 45 pennies on 26 February 1717. Joseph does not accept this and after several letter to and fro he informs the Magistrate on 22 January 1718 by letter from Notary Van der Uijl, that he will appeal to the Court of Friesland.

And law and behold on 20 September 1718 this Court destroys the decision of the lower court and denies the peat meters their request, free of legal charges!

One wonders how the Court had reached this decision. The (undated) Regulations, which are still present in the pleading’s file, is very clear on this point as is per article three. Joseph must have brought forward strong arguments. Were the peat carriers impolite, or too greedy, had been argued?

Or did Joseph with this judgement enforce the annulment of these old regulations? Anyway, his stubbornness and legal insight gave him a principle victory over his own city council after two years of litigation over a sum of 45 pennies. The city council must not have been happy and it must have cost himself a multitude in legal fees.

 

With this process, we will terminate the description of Joseph’s life. When he died on 9 November 1720 at the age of 45, he left behind his third wife Teetske Eelkes and two sons (17 and 23) and a daughter (19). His youngest son Peter (Pytter) mentions this as the first entry in his family Bible:

 

« 1720 The 9 November morning between

10 and eleven has my dear Father

rested in The Lord, Josep Nojon »

 

Grandmother Josine Pied continued to live in her own home to the Grootzand and Uncle Simeon, 39 years old and was since living at the nearby Hoogend, looked after those left behind.

 

 

Simeon (1681-1755)

Genealogy

Simeon Noyon, born probably in Wieuwerd 1681, baptised Reformed Church in Sneek 25 September 1705, cloth maker and dyer in Sneek, left 16 June 1748 for Rauwerd died there in 1755, marries in Sneek 15 August 1706 with Sioukjen Sydses, baptised in Leeuwarden 12 June 1670, mentioned in Sneek 16 March 1725, died there probably before for  11 January 1729, daughter of Sydse Piers and Reinscke Simens [101]. ‘

 

From this marriage:

a)      Tytia Noyon, baptised in Sneek 26 August, 1708, died there 16 March, 1779, marries in Rauwerd  29 October 1747 Reverent Theodore Mentes, born in Bergum 21 February 1712, reformed pastor in Rauwerd and in Imsum, died in Rauwerd 24 July, 1773, son of Reverent Hillebrandus and Lammechien Adriani and widower of Henrica Maria Reen.

b)      Janneke Noyon, baptised in Sneek 6 April, 1710, died there 21 May, 1712.

c)       Antoni Noyon, baptised in Sneek 17 September 1713, died there 26 June, 1721 [102].

 

Childhood and marriage

As we said Simeon was thirteen years old, when his parents came to Sneek. We can assume therefore that he grew up in the parental home on the Grootzand. He was 23 when his fatherAntonydied there. A year later we find in the records of theMartiniChurchthat he is baptized before becoming a member of the Dutch Reformed Church [103]. These, so-called adult baptisms, was an exception at that time, and a strong indicator that he was born in the Labadisten group and therefore remained un-baptized. The relationship of Simeon with the church has always remained close. From the acts that are in the archives of the Dutch Reformed Church in Sneek, we read that the Church Council discussed a dispute on 14 November 1714, between Simeon and the Architect Feenstra. Unfortunately, it is not clear what the dispute was about, but it will be shown below that Simeon had a serious dispute with the builders in 1717. On 21 January, 1717, the church council thanked Simeon for his donation of 100 Carolus guilders to the parish.

On 1 January, 1730, he was elected in the parish along with the merchant Harmen Gonggrijp [104] on 1 January 1736 he was appointed in the church council.

On 15 August, 1706 follows his marriage to Sjoukje Sydses fromLeeuwardenwho was eleven (!) years older then him [105]. This large age difference places us for a mystery. After two years the first child, Tytia was born on 26 August, 1708! Sjoukje was than 38 years old.

The family lived possibly with his mother Josine, because only on 21 December, 1708 he made his first purchase together with Simeon Sjoukje buying the house at the Hoogend, in the Knibbelsteeg for the high amount of 1540 Carolus guilders. Behind the house he will establish his dyeing factory which he will expand at the other side of the canal. As mentioned two more children were born in this house: Janneken who died at the age of two, and Antoni. At his birth his father was 32 and his mother already 43. On 26 June 1721 the branch of Simeon dies in male line with the death of Antoni.

 

About the death of Sjoukje we are unfortunately not fully informed. She is still named in a real estate deal of 16 March 1725, which will be discussed below. She is then 54 years old. However when Simeon buys again a property in 1729, he does so under his name only so that we may assume that his wife had died between these two dates. She would have been not yet 60 years old. Simeon, at 50, is left with daughter Tytia of 19 and will never remarry.

 

The dye-factory

As we can read above, Simeon expands in 1713 his property with the purchase of a warehouse on the Knibbelsteeg next to his house on the expensive Hoogend. He also obtained concessions in 1725 to move his company to the other side of the city canal behind his present factory, since he apparently became a big nuisance there. We will tell more about this later. The purchase of a house with yard follows in 1718, and finally in 1729, the purchase of two separate houses with yard, for which I do not have been able to determine the correct location. In total Simeon spends 2125 Carolus guilders for these purchases not including the investment in his new factory building on the other side of the canal.

 

Financially he must not have been badly off. The legal acts he usually called as merchant, dyer and cloth maker. It is remarkable that as early as 1712 when he was only 31 years old, he acted as trustee and agent for minor orphans, whose heritage should be guarded, although he held no official position like his brother. Apparently, he was considered to be a reliable and authoritative man [106]. How one was appointed and whether this work was exercised pro bono, I do not know. However, everything was accurately noted in the « Authorization Books » and one was accountable before  the city council.

 

Simeon’s expanding dye-factory was apparently not very environmentally friendly and must have inconvenienced a lot of neighbours. In 1717 he starts getting trouble. There are written and oral complaints and the Magistrate spends two sessions (8 and 27 March 1717) on the issue.

What had happened?

For quite some years the stronghold (the wall with a reinforced ramparts) had been severely deteriorated. Since these ran behind Simeon’s  plot of land and the fact that he could very well use the extra space for his business. The Builders of the Magistrate reported that « he had on Friday  5 and Saturday 6 March 1717, put to work two named labourers to noticeably lower the Stronghold by excavation, digging and deportation of the earth and other material, without the least consent of  their Excellencies» [107].

Since « the public ramparts were thereby violated and damaged » , was Simeon, his helpers, supporters or workers prohibited from doing any further work, under the penalty of six Carolus Guilders and confiscation of all « shovels and other tools and the barge or barges in which earth or material is found.  » Furthermore, he was ordered to restore all the previous state and to pay all costs thereof. This all was according the deliberation of 8 March, 1717.

 

On the following 27 March the case is again discussed by the Magistrate. This session it is notified that the Builders had undertaken an investigation have knowledge of what Simeon Nojon conducted on these ramparts in response to written and oral complaints. It showed that Simeon had dumped « a very great quantity of sawdust of black bark, both on the stronghold as on the field » so that the « ramparts seemed to be a garbage dump». This could blow into the harbour by the wind to the great detriment of the complainants. Furthermore, there was the danger that during dry summer weather – as already had happened – the sawdust « could be lit by a pipe » [108] and would be a risk to the nearby mill of Marten Minties. But that was not all: « on top of which Simeon had undertaken drive high stakes in the ground in between which he attached his structures and placed daily 40 to 50 loose ones to his own pleasure » , [109].

This was not only harmful to the wall, but also hindered the residents in their right of free passage to and from the Stronghold.

 

Against these complaints, whose reprimands do not seem unreasonable but hinders him considerably in the exercise of his growing business, Simeon comes into opposition and addresses on 3 May 1717 adetailed objection to the Magistrate [110]. He points the five complaints to the jealousy of some citizens and says that he had obtained excavation permission from the  former Architect « to improve the consolidation of the ramparts against the destruction thereof ». The high stakes are in reality only small sticks, he is unaware of any conscious damage to the ramparts, and accessibility has been improved by his « endeavours » rather than decreased. He wishes however to obey the instructions of the Magistrate and has therefore punctually executed their instructions.

Hoping that the Excellencies « would be satisfied with his absolute abeyance », he now asks consent to construct close to the canal « a small recipient of about 2 half feet » in his street, which is very large and wide, and following the example of other citizens and craftsmen, in order to store his sawdust until it can be transported per vessel. Regrettably, this request is rejected and he must remove his recipient within two days!

 

It is clear that the coalition against Simeon was too strong. To make matters worse, he is commanded to also remove his structures on the fifteenth October1717, inorder to enable the repair of the city wall behind his house.

 

Apparently, he still managed to conclude. Seven years later, on 8 September 1724, the Magistrate is in much better mood and rents him a piece of land on the other side of the city canal, which is located behind his house, to install his structures [111]. The rental period is five years renewable, and the annual rent is fifteen Carolus guilders, payable together to the city and the orphanage.

Already six months later, on 16 March 1725, he receives the authorization to build on this land a (factory) building with walls of approximately 18 by20 metersin length, and three meters high, at an annual lease of three Carolus guilders [112].

There is also a provision that if Simeon dies, his widow Sjoukje may continue or terminate the contract at her own choice. [113].

 

These decisions have of course been given to Simeon in written form and are therefore important because they undoubtedly consisted to be the « titles of arrival » that my grandfather had mistakenly cited in his letter of 1873. Moreover, it is strange that a piece of land, with the self-built buildings, given in rent by the city in 1725, could be owned and sold by the family half a century later! It looks like usurpation which had been confirmed with the official establishment of the cadastre in 1832 [114].

 

The labadist

We have thanks Roarda for detecting one of the most remarkable finds, a court case which is conducted for the Court inLeeuwardenbetween captain Martinus Schuirmans and his wife Anna Reinalda in which Simeon is heard as a witness: [115].

 

26 February 1725

Simeon Noijon, Merchant to Sneek, about 43 years old, cited according, sworn in and asked [116] says (….) that the witness, underway by ship to the Amsterdam about two years ago, heard the accused [117], when he, witness, had gone already to rest, asked whether the labadist was already on the ship and that he would receive a hiding; that shortly after that, without previous grievance, seized him, the witness, and pulled his leg of his body, where after the witness cried for help and asked the skipper to restore order, where after the accused refrained of further aggression, however not from cursing and screaming, (….) that the accusedis commonly known as a vituperator, prodigal, and trouble maker, that the accused had been first sergeant, then ensign then captain [118] and session closed after reading.

 

Besides the fact that Simeon travels for his business toAmsterdam, we find the only authentic reference to the « Labadisme » of Simeon.

Although this church had disintegrated more than 25 years ago, and Simeon had already joined the Reformed Church in 1705, the memory of his origins after all these years is still strong enough that the « vituperator and trouble maker » had used the word labadist as an insult.

 

Simeon’s further life

We must assume that his daughter Tytia looked after Simeon all the long years after the death of his wife. Only at the age of 39 she married Rev. Theodore Mentes, the pastor of the nearby village Rauwerd. He is four years younger than she is, and as a widower is left behind with several minor children. The marriage takes place in Rauwerd on 29 October 1747. Father Simeon had already some months before taken the decision to dismantle his company and to retire to the same village where his daughter lived. Unfortunately this sale gave rise to a quarrel with his cousin Pytter who also had a dye-factory behind the house where he lived on the Grootzand. Possibly they could not agree on the price. In any case, there was a court case, which we will discuss in detail in the next chapter.

 

In connection with a proposed change in the tax system in 1749, lists were drawn up throughoutFrieslandof the taxpayers, the so called called Registers for fixing quotas. For Rauwerd we find it stated:

 

- Simeon Nojon, rentier, 2 adults, Assessment 28-7-0

- Théodore Mentes, pastor, 3 adults, 4 children, Assessment 42-15-0

 

Since resident household was counted in the family, both will have had a resident maid.

 

Finally we find Simeon twice back in the annuity registers of the provincial government, who, in exchange for the deposit of a given capital guaranteed an annual annuity of 7% of the amount to the designated person during his whole life [119]. Given the low life expectancy at that time, this was of course a quite speculative element.

Anyway, Simeon buys on 12 October 1750 two annuities of 600 Carolus guilders, respectively, for his married daughter, then 42 years old and his twelve year old nephew Joseph the son of his cousin Pytter, with whom he was in trial three years before. On 24 June 1752 Simeon bought again two annuities of 600 guilders, again for Tytia and the other one for the five-year-old sister of Joseph, Hilkjen. Why only two of Pytter’s four living children benefitted we do not know, but we can conclude however that the quarrel was settled, and that Uncle Simeon had generously reached in his pocket.

Hilkjen died already in 1760 and did not enjoy for long her annuity benefit. Tytia benefitted until her death in 1779 and Joseph benefitted until 1796, when he died at the age of 59.

Since no BMB data were preserved from Rauwerd around that time, we derive Simeon’s death date from the registers of Sneek, where he was taxed until 1756 for a warehouse and two rooms which he still possessed. They were sold by Tytia and her husband that same year. He must therefore have died in1755 inRauwerd, 74 eventful years old, wherein he had contributed much to the family history. His name was hitherto passed on in the family as in the combination Petrus Simeon.

 

  1675  /  Home Page  /  Last Updated June 11, 2013 by cpsnoyon  /  Tags: , , , ,