Documents in Source

Abstracted from 61/12684: Proceedings of Stühlingen district, 1730-1732.


1730-04-14Schmuly Weyl claims payment for a house and some pieces of land which he has sold on 13.03.1730.
1730-04-25Marum Weyl der Junge, a resident of here and Donaueschingen, declares he has six years ago bought a man´s and a woman´s seat (Mann und Weiberstuhl) in the Synagogue from Daniel Bickert who had been under protection here, but now lives in Wangen near Stein am Rhein, in the presence of three witnesses and the Rabbi of Gailingen (who issued) a document. Now Jonas Gugenheimb also claims to own this chair, pretending he has bought it from the heirs of Daniel´s brother two years after. Plaintiff applies to interrogate said Daniel Bickert, whom he had inexpectedly met on the market yesterday, under oath. Jonas Gugenbeimb refers to the Jewish ceremonis and claims he has a better right to this chair, and Daniel Bickert was not authorized to sell this chair because the younger brother always owned it (allzeiten in diesem Stuhl gestanden). Daniel Bickert refers to Meyer Bloch, Isaac Bickert and Reb Salmele who will say that this chair belonged to his father and that the older brother had had the other and lower chair. Rabbi Salmele remembers well that Alt Schmuly stood in the upper and Daniel Bickert´s father in the lower chair. When Schmuly died, his son Isaac, Daniel´s father, stood in the upper one, and when Isaac died, Hirtzel stood in the upper and Daniel in the lower chair. The matter will depend on both parties presenting the purchase documents, and these documents are to be compared/balanced (gegeneinander gehalten). Lehmann Bicker says the same. Decision: As both brothers, Hirtzel and Daniel, have sold the upper chair, thus plaintiff and defendant are to bring up evidence which of the sellers has taken over which chair from their parents, and present the purchase documents, which are to be translated and explained by an unpartial Rabbi. In the meantime, plaintiff and defendant are to alternate in the use of the upper chair. (Chair is the translation of Germnan Stuhl, although the object rather seems to have been a place to stand).
1730-04-28Hans Gasser of Unterhallau sues the Jewish community for payment of 65 fl. according to a document of 31.03.1723. Marumb Weyl as a representative of the Jews says they had urgently needed the money at that time to pay for the extension of their protection (a long matter). The claim is refused because plaintiff has not sufficient evidence.
1730-05-05Appears Marum Weyl Ticker and applies to decide the chair quarrel by an appearance (Augenschein). The bailiff hereupon rendered himself to the Synagogue and found that the questionable chairs are next to each others (with mention of Lehmann and Hirtzel as chair neighbours). Jonas Guggenheim suggests that Daniel renders an oath. The court decides that if Daniel Bicker physically swears that he sold the upper chair to Marum Weyl Ticker and has bought such chair from his (Daniel´s) mother, then this upper chair will belong to Marum Weyl. Daniel Bikkert hereupon rendered such an oath, and it was decided that the upper chair at left side, between Lehemann Bickert and Jonas Gugenheimb, pertains to Marumb Weyl Samuels Sohn. The court fees are shared as every party had reason to believe he/it would own the chair.
1730-05-08Schmuly Weyl, as on 13.03.1730.
1730-05-12Elias Meyer claims payment for a cart.
1730-05-17Jonas Gugenheimn, quarrel after a cow trade.
1730-06-02Elias Meyer, the cart matter.
1730-06-14Marumb Weyl Sandels Sohn wants to break a hole through the wall of his house as an outlet for his toilet. The site was inspected, and it was found that the excrements would run into the so-called Mistgässle lane in which a lot of dung is lying and which is not used as a way to the church, so the request is permitted. (A long matter).
1730-06-27Jonas Gugenheimb of Randegg acquires trespassing for a year for 1.5 florins.
- Same (Handelsgeleit) by Schmuly Weyl of Emmendingen in Durlach Dominion for 3 florins.
1730-06-30Within the last two years, some Jews have married and were exempted from paying protection fee for the subsequent two years. As the exact dates of marriage were not recorded, the Jews were summoned and interrogated. Salomon Weyl Marumben Sandels Sohn is due protection fee from 29.09.1731 (Michaelis) onwards, Meyer Gugenheimb Faistels Sohn from 23.04.1731 (Georgii) onwards, Abrahamb Bloch, whose exempted two years are mentioned in his letter-of-protection, from 23.04.1730 (Georgii) onwards. Marumb Weyl Sandels Sohn and Jossel Gugenheimb object that never before the months were calculated, but one only used the two terms between Easter and Michaelis and subsequently Michaelis and Easter. The Jews may file a complaint against the new method if they want so.
- The Jews were required to keep horses ready for use of the officials, but have poorly observed this (with some details). One has agreed that dyer Peter Kreitler keeps his horse ready for the officials and is refunded by the Jews.
1730-07-07Jossel Gugenheimb claims 112 fl.
- Salomon Weyl claims 80 fl. according to the proceedings of 26.01.1723. He has ceded 50 florins of this as a marriage endowment to his son Jonas Weyl. As Salomon is to endow his other children, he is now claiming payment of the remaining 19 fl.
1730-07-28Marumb Weyl Sandels Sohn sues the flayer about a horse (a long matter).
1730-08-16Marumb Weyl, horse trade matter.
1730-08-18Lehmann Weyl, same, with a deposition of his father Marumb Weyl.
1730-09-01Mencke (alias Meyer) Bloch, mutual account.
1730-09-12Jacob Häffele, wagon-maker in Horheim, owns a house in which Meyer Hebrew is currently living, but which is to be rent to sergeant Monsieur Haixaire. Meyer Bernheimb of Tiengen has a claim against the owner.
1730-09-22Jossel Gugenheimb claims 76 fl. with reference to the proceedings of 05.05.1725.
1730-10-27The wife of Lang Jossel (Gugenheimb) is fined for slander about an official.
1730-11-24Meyer Bloch Jung, cession of a claim.
1730-12-05Salomon Weyl, same unless the right of first emption will be claimed.
1730-12-15Meyer Weyl, protected Jew in Horheim, quarrel with the wife of sergeant Haixaire about broken window panes. Meyer´s pregnant wife was pushed by the sergeant´s wife.
1731-01-05Dorothea Kopp has loaned Schmuly Weyl 50 florins and applies for an arrest on his assets as he intends to move away. Schmuly is fined for presenting a receipt which has nothing to do with this claim.
1731-01-08Salomon Weyl Marumben Sohn des Ältern has loaned out 72 fl.
1731-01-12Mencke Bloch is sued after a bull trade.
- Salomon Weyl of Stühlingen cedes a claim of 13 fl. to his son-in-law Jonas Gugenheimb in Randegg.
- Meyer Gugenheimb here has loaned out 100 fl. and accepted 108 Lot of silverware as a pawn. (One Lot is about half an ounce).
1731-01-23Leib Gugenheimb is to pay extant interest.
- Faistel Gugenheimb claims 40 fl. and 65 fl.
1731-02-09Elias Meyer cannot conduct his trade due to his high age. He is a widower, has no own fireplace (Rauch) and wants to live with his son Marx Meyer. Disregarding this, the Jewish community claims all contributions from him. His complaints were neglected as was his request to transfer the case to the Jewish Ceremonies. Decision: Plaintiff is to nominate two unpartial Rabbis and the community is to nominate the third one, and they are to carry out the matter.
1731-02-16The claim of 100 fl. (see 12.01.1731) by Jossel Gugenheimb has gotten to his son-in-law Meyer Gugenheimb. (A long matter).
- Considerations within the Jewish community about the Elias Meyer case. They are afraid of high excpenses for consulting three Rabbis, so the matter is to be described and sent to Frankfurt for a decision by Rabbinic scholars.
- Schmuly Weyl is willing to move away from here and establish himself in Wangen am Untersee where he has protection. He cannot pay 6 florins of extant protection fee. Thus Marumb Gugenheimb (on the margin: unmarried), son of protected Jew Joseph Gugenheimb here, promises to be a warrantor for this amount.
1731-02-21Feistel Gugenheimb here has paid several amounts for his father-in-law Lemble Weyl and secured his claim on the extant house. In the meantime, it has happened that this Lemblin´s widow Schenilin Gugenheimb has conveyed this house to her son Schmuly Weyl in return for lifelong support and at the condition that he pays (auslöst) his siblings their shares. Faistel has now directed his claim to Schmuly, and after a quarrel, they agreed upon a contract of four paragraphs.
1731-02-23Meyer Weyl of Horheim sues (his former landlord) Jacob Häffele to spread slander and to injure his (public) credit and business.
1731-03-16Summary of the contract of 21.02.1731 between Faistel Gugenheimb and Schmuly Weyl (and some supplements?).
1731-05-29Meyer Bernheimb of Tiengen claims 17 fl.
- Jonas (on the margin: Marumb Jonas) Gugenheimb from Randegg, holding trespassing rights (Geleitjude), quarrel after a calf trade.
- Mauschi Bloch, unmarried son of Mencke Bloch (with an almost verbal description of his trading with a farmer).
1731-06-22Marumb Weyl Tickers Sohn, horse trade matter.
1731-06-27Jonas Weyl here claims 50 fl.
1731-07-24Jonas Gugenheimb claims 13 fl.
1731-09-26The woollen-weavers complain that Salomon Weyl Sandels Marumben Sohn is unlawfully importing woollen stuff from Nördlingen. The Jews respond that according to their letter-of-protection, they are allowed to trade in any merchandize exept steel, iron, and salt. Decision: The Jews are obliged to buy the cloth from the local woollen-weavers.
1731-09-28Jonas Gugenheimb, quarrel after a calf trade.
- Isacc Bickert claims 5 fl.
1731-10-12Lehmann Bickert, quarrel after a horse trade.
- Salomon Weyl Marumben Sohn has traded against a term of the letter-of-protection.
1731-10-19Moysis Weyl Tickers Sohn, quarrel after loaned money and bull trade.
1731-10-26Isacc Bickert, quarrel after a cow trade.
- Salomon Weyl (der) Ältere, mutual account.
1731-11-09According to the proceedings of 21.02.1731, Schmuly Weyl has set his house as a pawn for a claim of 320 florins, with some more terms. Now Schmuly has agreed with Marumb Weyl Samuels Sohn to rent this man´s house to Moisis Weyl Marumben Sohn for a year. Faistel Gugenheimb complains against this and claims either the house or payment according to said proceedings. Marum Weyl declared to fulfil the+ complaint of Faistel until next Easter unless Schmuly (is unable to redeem the house??).
- Meyer Gugenheimb, small claim.
1731-11-23Jonas Gugenheimb, two claimns.
1731-12-07Jossel Gugenheimb, two claims.
1731-12-11Same, claim after a bull trade.
1732-01-18Marum Weyl claims 400 fl. from Heinrich Stoll of Lembach according to the proceedings of 13.06.1713, 07.03.1727 and 05.12.1730, including 100 fl. which he has ceded to his son Salomon Weyl. The son claims additional 150 fl. according to the proceedings of 17.09.1729 and 50 more florins.
1732-01-22Marum Weyl Sandls Sohn loans out 10 fl.
1732-02-01Salomon Weyl Älterer, mutual account.
1732-02-04Penalty of Mencke Bloch.
1732-02-29(Crossed out: Salomon, replaced by) Isac Bloch, son of Reeb Salomon, is willing to move away and marry in Gailingen. He is granted protection in Stühlingen Dominion to collect his claims and conduct trade at an annual fee of 1.5 florins, but may only stay for 2 or 3 days in Stühlingen each time.
1732-05-28Marumb Weyl Samuels Sohn has bought hay which turned out to be rotten.
- The servant of Jonas Gugenheimb, bull trade matter.
1732-06-13Simon Weyl, protected Jew in Donaueschingen, is granted trespassing and trade license in Stühlingen Dominion for three years for 1 fl. 45 Kr. per year.
1732-07-11Simon Weyl, protected Jew in Donaueschingen, complains that he has made up a marriage contract with Mencke Bloch of Stühlingen for his daughter Vögele and his son Moisis. The contract includes the time of wedding which has actually elapsed in April. He has urged several times about this but was always answered that defendant Mencke has a claim to plaintiff´s brother Marumb Weyl in behalf of just this wedding, according to which said man is to effect (auswirken) protection in Stühlingen for the groom or pay him 100 Dukaten instead. This has been defendant´s reason to delay the wedding. Marumb Weyl Samuels Sohn responds and declares that he has issued a written obligation to effect either protection for the groom in Stühlingen or after the "Hebr. Abbreviation" in Donaueschingen, but this did not include a certain date. He will have to render the agreed payment if he cannot accomplish it when His Grace will be back (or: will arrive), so this promise, depending in his person and undated, cannot be an obstacle to the wedding. Mencke Bloch as a plaintiff from his side responds that there was no mention of protection in Stühlingen or optionally Donaueschingen. When Marum Weyl wanted to interpret the Hebrew abbrevation in this way, he (probably Mencke) has shown the bond to knowledgeable Rabbis which/who did not understand the letters in this way. The lack of a date in the bond means that the promise is to be kept (by paying) cash. Marumb Weyl replies that the option is positively included in the contract and the presentation to the Rabbis by just one party does not prejudice anything, but in all such quarrels, both parties are to be heard. The bond does not include that he is to render protection cash or by a certain date, and common sense says that a matter which depends on the grace of the ruler cannot be immediately accomplished. Decision: As the marriage contract provided wedding at a certain date, which has elapsed, thus Mencke and his son are obliged to perform the wedding within four weeks, and fulfil the mutual duties which were promised each others. A decision if the contract means optionally Stühlingen or Donaueschingen is referred to the Jewish Ceremonies, which are to be arranged within two months. The one who hinders this will not be heard any more, but the text will be interpreted to the favour of the other side. When the sentence of the Rabbis will be made, Marum Weyl will be obliged to observe it and accomplish protection within six months or pay 100 Dukaten. The brothers Simon and Marumb Weyl were content with this sentence and accepted it. Meyer and Mencke Bloch, however, said that the son would rather run away, and if one wants to have him, one is to search him in the Breisgau region. In order to pervent such obstinacy, one has ordered Meyer Bloch as the grandfather and Mencke Bloch as the father that they both keep the son Moisis Bloch (in town) and present (? herstellen) him within this time on pain of losing their protection, and that they are to obey the decisions.
- Quarrel between Christian Schlatter of Schwaningen, Jonas Weyl, Simon Weyl and Jonas Gugenheimb about a sick and deceased cow.
1732-07-15Marumb Weyl Samuels Sohn (on the margin: Ticker), decision after a horse trade quarrel.
- Mencke Bloch refers to the session of 11.07.1732 and objects that the marriage was based upon the promise to obtain protection, and this promise relies on the marriage contract, so they are both connected. So two Jews who happened to be in town, plus Marumb Weyl Sandels Sohn, were summoned to the office and interrogated about the meaning of this bond. They declared unanimously that one matter is connected with the other one, and it is usual amoung Jews to establish such a bond besides a marriage contract, and each one is to be fulfilled with the other one. Especially as Marumb Weyl´s interpretation for Stühlingen or Donaueschingen cannot be read or understood by any Rabbi or Jewish scholar (gelehrten Juden), except by someone who is informed about such an abbreviation of the place names, and that the abbreviation of various place names into one word stands for craftiness and exorbitant demand (für Arglist und Überforderung) rather than sincerity. It had been better to write out the word Donaueschingen in the same way as Stühlingen, so the groom, his parents and the others had understood it correctly and the whole quarrel had been avoided. The authority is not interested in shortening the rights of one or the other side, nor to turn this into an everlasting lawsuit and drop the parties into poverty. So if every side is interested in concluding the matter and no side will deceive the other one, the Rabbis can be called in within 14 days, and as Marum Weyl already gave to understand that if the Rabbi´s decision would be in his favour, he is expecting appeal (by the other side), and an infinite lawsuit might arise from this, thus such difference about the promised protection cannot be carried out apart from the marriage (in the sense of marriage contract?), except that both sides subject themselves to the Rabbi and refrain from appeal, and the 100 Dukaten are deposited (at the court), in which case the matter is to remain at the former decision. In the meantime, the bond remains deposited in the office. Mencke Bloch, however, is to obey anything the Rabbis will decide about the expenses and the marriage endowment, and no side is allowed to file for appeal. (This entry deserves a better translation before being used).
1732-08-01Marumb Weyl Samuels Sohn buys half a house for 300 florins. The magistrate protests, saying that against the former customs (Observanz), the house has not been offered for sale to the public, and the letter-of-protection positively says that no Jew must buy a house without approval of the authority. The magistrate may file appeal to the office or the government. The office may order seller to offer his half house to the citizen at first, and to waive the previous contract. The seller says that the foreman of the town knew about the sale and could have proclaimed it to the citizen. If the sale will be waived, he is forced to keep the house as the citizen have said that none of them will accept him (as a lodger). He has never intended to cause such a quarrel among the citizen. Decision: The sale is suspended and the half house is to be offered for sale to the public within 12 days. Further decision will be made if no acceptable offer will be filed within this time.
1732-08-22The son of Isacc Bickert did not observe a piece of cattle which caused damage. Same son is also accused for an attack. The boy of Abrahamb´s son is nominated as a witness.
- Lehemann Bickert, lawsuit about his windows to be covered by the construction of another house (a long matter).
- Lehemann Bickert, change of stables.


Contact the webmaster
©papaworx 2016  
CCA License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.