Colonial days in old New York

								

the sweets and the sours as becomes a Christian spouse: Requesting all
differences which had ever existed between them both may be hereby
quashed and brought no more to light or cast up, as she on her side
is heartily disposed to. Their Worship of the Court Recommend parties
on both Sides to observe strictly their Reconciliation now made, and
the gentleman at New York will be informed that the matter is so far
arranged.”
We can certainly add the profound hope, after all this quarrelling
and making up, after all those good promises, that Anneke’s home was
no longer “unregulated and poorly kept,” as was told of her by the
Labadist travellers during their visit to Albany at that time. The
appointing of “two good men” as arbitrators or overseers of conduct was
very usual in such cases; thereby public adjustment in open court of
such quarrels was avoided.
Tender parents could not unduly shelter a daughter who had left her
husband’s bed and board. He could promptly apply to the court for an
order for her return to him, and an injunction to her parents against
harboring her. It has been plain to see in all such cases which I have
chanced upon in colonial records that the Court had a strong leaning
towards the husband’s side of the case; perhaps thinking, like Anneke
Schaets, that the wife should “share the sweets and the sours like a
Christian spouse.”
In 1697 Daniel Vanolinda petitioned that his wife be “ordyred to go
and live with him where he thinks convenient.” The wife’s father was
promptly notified by the Albany magistrates that he was “discharged to
shelter her in his house or elsewhere, upon Penalty as he will answer
at his Perill;” and she returned to her husband.
In the year 1665 a New Amsterdammer named Lantsman and his wife,
Beletje, were sorely estranged, and went to the courts for settlement
of these differences. The Court gave the matter into the hands of
two of the Dutch ministers, who were often assigned the place of
peacemakers. As usual, they ordered the parents of Beletje to cease
from harboring or abetting her. The husband promised to treat her well,
but she answered that he always broke his promises to her. He was
determined and assiduous to retrieve her, and finally was successful;
thus they were not made “an example to other evil housekeepers.”
A curious feature of this marriage quarrel is the fact that this
Lantsman, who was so determined to retain his wife, had been more
than recreant about marrying her. The banns had been published, the
wedding-day set, but Bridegroom Lantsman did not appear. Upon being
hauled up and reprimanded, his only proffered excuse was the very
simple one that his clothes were not ready.
When Anniatje Fabritius requested an order of court for her husband
to vacate her house with a view of final separation from him, it was
decided by the arbitrators that no legal steps should be taken, but