Translation Help Please? Hardanger og Voss sorenskriveri, SAB/A-2501/1/1A/1Ag/L0014: Tingbok for Voss, 1842-1852, p. 64b-72a

[Sue Olson Winckler]

I'm looking for help in translation of a court document concerning my g-g-grandfather Steffen Oleson Æn (farm name Æn; En near Voss, Hordaland). I have read in the bygdebok for his farm, that in 1844, after he had planned to emigrate to America (I have found those out-migration church records) he was caught passing counterfeit money, & instead of emigrating, was arrested & sentenced to 2 years in jail/prison for his role in the scheme, along with another person named Erik Oddson Gjelle, who was sentenced to a longer sentence for actually making the counterfeit bills. Until I started on genealogy research, I had never heard this, so I don't know if my father even knew, but he passed away at a young age in 1976 & no other siblings/parents of his are living to ask... so I'm very intrigued by these records and would love to find out more, so it can be included in the biographies of my ancestors. These court records are not "searchable" at digarkivet website, but they are scanned, so I have been searching through many court documents, page by page looking for their names & finally found at least some of them. I am hoping that someone might be so kind as to translate these pages (hoping for word-for-word, so I fully understand what happened & where he was jailed & hopefully released, but I understand if that's not possible).  If you can help me, I can provide email, or facebook. Between this point in time & his marriage in July, 1855 (Uppheim, Hordaland_& birth of his son in Dec, 1855 (Voss, Hordaland)... & then his subsequent records I've found in 1860, West Lisbon Parish, Lisbon Township, Kendall County , Illinois, USA, documented records have escaped me. I am including a link to the pages 64b-72a that involve this record... if there is more, I've been unable to find find them. The only thing I think I've deciphered is that Steffen got 2 1/2 years sentence, & Erik got 10 years. I so appreciate any help that can be provided, or a referral to someone who might be able to help me. If it's easier for someone to type out the records in Norse language, I'd be able to then translate them myself... but I can't do this myself at this point, because I have no inkling what the words are.  I am brand new to this forum, as I didn't even know it existed until someone referred it to me.  Sorry if I haven't done something right...Thank you so, so much.... here is the link that starts the pages, & I have found the records starting at page 64b, & through 72a:  

https://media.digitalarkivet.no/en/view/105865/68

[Even Stormoen]

Hi, Sue.

 

Welcome to the forum!

 

According to forum rules you need to change your ‹nick› into your full name.

Here’s how:

https://www.digitalarkivet.no/en/content/change-display-name

 

I can certainly try to transcribe [type] the pages you linked to. It will take time, though. Several days, as I have a job to attend, on the side 😉

I am not a translator, but might try to do a probably incomplete and ‹rough› one. And more days added . . . 🙂

 

Regards

Endret Mars 17, 2023 av Even Stormoen

[Even Stormoen]

Well, no reponse sofar – but . .

 

01 Fortsettelse af Justitssag mod Erik Gjelle og Steffen Æen

02 Aar 1844 den 31 Juli blev Extraret sat paa Wangens Thingstue til videre Behandling af

03 Justitssagen mod Erik Gjelle og Steffen Æen, og betjent paa Sorenskriverens Wegne af hans

04 eedsv. Fuldmægtig Chr. (??) i Overvær af undertegnede Retsvidner. –

05 Hvorda Procr Lund mødte og irettelagde Continuationsstævning af 20de Dennes i forkyndt Stand.

06 hvorefter han var begjærende de Tiltalte og Vidnerne paaraabte og de sidste examinerede

07 efter nærmere givendes Anledning. Ligedan fremlagde han en Skrivelse fra Søndre Bergen-

08 huus Amt af 11te Dennes tilligemed de deri paaberaabte Acter i Krigsretssagen mod Ole Gullik-

09 sen Kindem(?) og Erik Aadsen Gjelle, samt Høiesteretsacten i bemeldte Sag saavelsom 6 andre

10 i Skrivelsen ommeldte Bilage. Stævningen og Skrivelsen indtages saal. # De øvrige

11 fremlagte Documenter følger Sagens Act. Begge de Tiltalte bleve i dere Frihed

12 fremstillede for Retten, og Tiltalte Erik Aadsen Gjelle erkjendte at være den i de frem-

13 lagte Acter og øvrige Documenter omhandlede Person af samme Vare??, in specie, ved-

14 kjendte han sig Ansøgningen om en Politiibetjentpost, dat. 22 Augt. 1837, som skreven af ham egenhændig

15 Videre forklarede han paa Examination med Hensyn til den Femdalerseddel, hvorom han

16 har forklared sig i sidste Session, at han i Vaar fik den af Knud Tungeteigen eller Bio(?)

17 ( : nu reist til Amerika : ) af hvem Inqvisiten havde tilgode omtrent et saadant Beløb

18 deels for 3 Dages Slaat og deels for laante Penge Tid efter anden, dog løb det ikke

19 op til fulde 5 Daler, men Knud vilde at Inqvisiten skulde erholde dette Beløb uden

20 Afkortning, Der var ingen som saae paa at Inqvisiten modtog Pengene, som skete i

21 Knuds Huse paa Bio(?), og han veed ikke at gjøre det beviiseligt at Knud var ham

22 noget skyldig. Seddelen, der som meldt blev borte den omhandlede Aften her paa Wan-

23 gen, uden at han veed paa hvad Maade, var ægte og af det nyeste Slags. At han

24 foreviste 20de Vidne den, erindrer han ikke. – Vidnerene mødte, undtagen Farveren

25 ved Broen, og bleve, forsaavidt de ikke forhen ere eedfæstede i Sagen, forberedede til

26 Vidnesbyrds Aflæg ved at forelæses Edens Forklaring og betydes Straffen for Meeneed. –

27 Beynæld(?) Andersen Ullestad, afhørt som 1ste Vidne, forklarede paa Examination, i Kraft af

28 forhen aflagt Eed, at da han fulgte Tiltalte Steffen til Gjelle for at foretage den sidste

29 Inqvisition gik de gjennem Skoven ved Gjernæs, og ovenfor Gjernæs-Broen søgte Steffen

30 at gjenfinde de 2 Steder hvor Erik Gjelle skulde have lagt de falske Sædler fra sig. Efterat

31 Steffen havde seet sig noget om udpegede han en Birkestue(?), som det  ene Sted, og det

32 andet Sted paaviste han kort derfra i noget smaat Kratskov, men han erklærede

33 sig dog ikke aldeles sikker paa at det var de rette Steder før %de kom% han havde seet sig om noget længere

34 oppe i Skoven. Herved maae Vidnet bemærke, at Skoven er saa tæt bevoxet og forøvrigt

35 saa beskaffen, at det for En som ikke var desto nøiere kjendt der, ikke var let at

36 gjenfinde et enkelt Træe eller et enkelt Punct. Anders Hellesnæs, som var et af

37 Vidnerne under Inqvisitionen, var ikke tilstæde ved den omhandlede Paaviisning. –

38 Tiltalte Erik Gjelle fremlagte skriftlig Qvæstion til Vidnerne, saaled. #

39 Ole Andersen Ullestad, afhørt som  2det Vidne, forklarede sig eenstemmig med første Vidne

40 angaaende tiltalte Steffens Paaviisning af de ommeldte Steder ovenfor Gjernæs-Broen. –

41 Til den af Tiltalte Erik fremsatte Qvestion svarer 1ste og 2det Vidne, at  de aldrig have seet ham

42 have mange Penge, men derimot at han oftere har villet laane noget Smaat naar han

43 har været her paa Wangen, ligesom de ogsaa vide at han er i meget smaa Omstændig-

44 heder, hvilket rigtignok følger af den slette Anvændelse han gjør af sine Evner og

45 sin Tid. – Tiltalte Steffen Æen bemærker med hensyn til 1ste og 2det Vidnes nu

46 afgivne Prov, at han ved Forhøret tog feil forsaavidt han sagde at det var 2 Birke-

47 stuver(?) hvorpaa Erik lagde Sedlerne, thi ved at eftersee paa Stedet i Overvær af be-

48 meldte Vidner anseede han, at der ikke var nogen Stuve(?) i det Smaakrat hvor Erik sidst

49 lagde de 2 %sidste% Sedler. –

50 Anders Hellesnæs, afhørt som 16de Vidne bemærker at han vel var Vidne ved

51 sidste Inqvisition paa Gjelle,  men at han ikke var med ved den af 1ste og 2det

52 Vidnes nu omforklarede Leilighed, da han gik en anden Vei  igjennem Skoven.

53 27de Vidne Knud Larsen Rokne, 58 Aar gl og Gaardmaand paa Rokne, vidste paa Exa-

54 mination intet at forklare til Oplysning. –

55 28de Vidne Anfind Sjursøn Mondal, 33 Aar gl, forklarer at han en Dag i sidsleden

56 April Maaned var her paa Wangen tilligemed tiltalte Erik, 20de Vidne og Sk?? [Skiur – Sjur?]

57 saae Vidnet ham da i Besiddelse af en Femdalerseddel, men eller har Vidnet hver-

58 ken da elller til andre Tider erfaret noget til Oplysning i denne Sag. At Tiltalte og

57 20de Vidne samtaledes under fire Øine lagde Vidnet ikke Mærke til.

58 29de Vidne Erik Nielsen Bondal [Rondal?], 27 Aar gl, forklarede, at effterat det var blevet bekjendt

59 at Steffen Æen var fængslet i Anledning falske Penge og Erik Gjellen mistænkt, talede

60 Vidnet herom med Godskalk Brynjeldsen Rondal(?), som sagde at han havde hørt være

61 en Anden, der mistænktes, nemlig «Sjur den Lange der paa Bøe» og betægnede ham først

62 som En «der alt var rejst tilskibs» ( : Sjur Mylle, boende paa Bøe, havde da tiltraadt sin

63 Rejse till Amerika : ) Af hvem Godskalk havde hørt saadant Rygte opgav han ikke. Her-

64 om udlod Vidnet sig engang for tiltalte Erik Gjelle. –

65 30te Vidne Knud Andersen Ullestad, 31 Aar gl, forklarer, at engang for længere Tid siden

66 yttrede tiltalte Erik noget til Vidnet om en «Guul»(?) idet han sagde «laan mig en» eller

 

[next page]

 

Oookeey –  First page, transcribed!

 

Praise the Heavens and Earth, – this scribe is quite understandable/readable. Not always the case . . .

But, I might have been slightly optimistic concerning translation . . .

You said in the initial posting you could be able to translate this yourself. Nothing would be better! But if this means by the ‹help› of Google Translate e.g. – Be Warned! 😉 

I don’t know how well you are versed in the norwegian language (and history) – this is not contemporary norwegian. Far from it.

So pardon me for lecturing a bit, but just in case:

This is arcaic danish. Which was the written language in Norway for approx. 400 ys. Written by ‹the ruling class› –  civil servants and the clergy who were mostly danish.

Having no problems understanding the text in the original language – the wording and sentences are winding along in a way which is really hard (at least for me) to make any reasonably sense of in english. And adding the ‹legal›, court-of-justice-wording . . . Pheeww.

This is nothing new, … I should have known better.

So a word-by-word translation is regrettably out of the question – Out of my league 😉 

 

BUT. I am not a quitter 😉. 

May I suggest giving you a kind of ‹resumé/extract› instead? Though I might be having second thoughts in the ‹process›.

In order to do an extract I need to transcribe the whole. s**t – it’s a long way to Tipperary and elsewere. . . 😉

But for now: The above transcribed text clearly indicates a couple of things: A: This is a continued Trial/Interrogation. So . . .

And B: The ‹theme› is somehow countrefeit money. As you already have in ‹your files› 🙂

More details will follow, but now I’ll hit the hay.

 

All the best

Endret Mars 17, 2023 av Even Stormoen

[Sue Olson Winckler]

Thank you so so very much.  I think I have the display name changed.  I'm not a very computer savvy person, so I do appreciate any help and hints!  Please take the time you need... I am so grateful that you are willing to help translate this for me... or at least type it in Norwegian so I can use a translator service, such as google translate.  I'm leaving this in your hands, and again, thank you so very much.   

[Sue Olson Winckler]

I apologize for not responding sooner... I had to figure out how to get back into this forum and then find my post.  Please bear with my lack of knowledge in these areas.  And I honestly didn't think I'd receive  such a quick response.  Yes, I've come to the understanding that there doesn't seem to be a translation website that does this language very well, because it is old, but oh so interesting.  Google translate was at my disposal, so have been using that, and realize it is very imperfect, but sometimes I can understand some things.  🙂 So again, that is why I am so very appreciative of you for trying to help me out, and for taking all of the time.  Please, take the time you need.  I must close now as I have to get to my job this morning, so I will end by just saying "Thank You!!"

[Sue Olson Winckler]

And it's fine... I totally understand that you can't do word for word (I knew that was a far stretch to hope for)... so I'm hoping to understand the general wrongs that Steffen did, if he plead guilty or not, where he passed these bills (if it says), what some of the witnesses testified to), where he was in jail at, and if there are any hints as to additionaldocuments (either earlier or later).  According to the bydgeok of his farm, it said Erik Oddsen Gjelle made the money, and Steffen passed them. I'm wondering if there is any indication that more people were involved, or only these two?  Also, if they had to pay everyone back, or what restitution they had to provide.  Thank you!! 

[Roy-Petter Askim]

Some background information and where they served:

 

Erik (Knudsen) Aasen Gjelle was found not guilty of making counterfeit in a military court in 1838 despite they suspected Gjelle had made them on his accomplish Ole Gullichsen Kindem Stang’s request. He was sentenced to 10 years labor at a fortress. They found 23 ten-“daler” bills at his house. In a newspaper article about the court case Ole denied any knowledge, but his wife said he had told her about having counterfeit and after that the money was found hidden in the roof.

 

 

Landvernet was originally a public initiative that was only randomly organized in the event of an enemy attack to protect Norway from an external enemy.

Steffen Olsen Æen, born Nordl. had legdsnumber 26. He did not meet at the Landvern-session in January 1841, and was wanted in the newspaper. https://www.digitalarkivet.no/view/255/pd00000040377476

 

The prison protocols are not on-line, only a register-file.

Eric Erichsen Gjelle prisoner at Tukthuset, Bergen: https://www.digitalarkivet.no/view/84/pc00000000371401 (page 39, 1845?)

Steffen Olsen Æen, Tukthuset, Bergen: https://www.digitalarkivet.no/view/84/pc00000000373468 (page 129, 1845?) and https://www.digitalarkivet.no/view/84/pc00000000373467 (page 84?). Appears that he was a prisoner there twice, but I it can also be that two transcriptions of the same register have been made.)

 

History and picture of the prison: https://www.bergenbyarkiv.no/bergenbyleksikon/arkiv/1422192

 

 

[Even Stormoen]

Oh My, after seriously being tired of Google Translator I put the text in – translating from Danish to English , mind you – and Eureka! A lot made sense. Needs some ‹fine tuning› though. Or whatever, but made me optimistic again. Good thing 🙂

 

Contemplating: – it might be best to take this to PM or email in the future. Not to bother our fellow members with endless transcipts and embarrassing ‹translations›. What do you think?

 

 

Anyhow:

 

The first page in a very, very crude fashion . . .:

 

01 Continuation of the legal case against Erik Gjelle and Steffen Æen

02 Year 1844 on 31 July the extra court was set in Wangen's Thingstue [courtroom] for further processing of

03 The legal case against Erik Gjelle and Steffen Æen, and on behalf of the Magistrate by his

04 sworne Clerk Chr. (??) in the presence of the undersigned legal witnesses. –

05 Where Procr [solicitor]  Lund met and presented to the court Continuation summons of 20th this month in proclaimed status.

06 after which he requested the accused and the witnesses to be called and the last examined

07 upon further notice. Likewise, he presented a letter from Søndre Bergen-

08 huus Amt af 11te this month together with the acts referred to therein in the court-martial case against Ole Gullik-

09 sen Kindem(?) and Erik Aadsen Gjelle, as well as the Supreme Court act in the reported Case as well as 6 others

10 in the Letter re-notified attachments. The summons and the writ are taken in court. # The remaining

11 Documents presented follow the Act of the Case. Both defendants remained at liberty

12 presented to the Court, and the Defendant Erik Aadsen Gjelle acknowledged being the one in the

13 filed acts and other documents referred to Person of the same Item??, in specie, he admitted

14 he acknowledged the Application for a Police Officer post, dat. 22 Aug. 1837, as written by him in his own hand

15 Furthermore, he explained during the examination with regard to the five-dollar note, about which he

16 has explained in the last session that he got it last spring from Knud Tungeteigen or Bio(?)

17 ( : now traveled to America : ) from whom the questioned owed approximately such an amount

18 partly for 3 days of work and partly for borrowed money from time to time , but it didn't work

19 up to the full 5 Daler, but Knud wanted the questioned  [Erik] to receive this amount without

20 reduction. There was no one who saw that the questioned  receiveing the money, which happened in

21 Knud's houses at Bio(?), and he did not know how to prove that Knud owed him

22 something. The note, which as reported was lost on the evening in question here on Wan-

23 gen, without him knowing how, was genuine and of the newest kind. That he

24 showed it to the 20th Witness, he does not remember. - The witnesses met, except The Dyer

25 at the bridge, and were, provided they are not previously sworn in the matter, prepared for

26 Testimony by reading the Explanation of the Oath and explaining the punishment for perjury. –

27 Reynold Andersen Ullestad, questioned as 1st witness, explained at Examination, by virtue of

28 previously sworn oatht, that when he followed Defendant Steffen to Gjelle to undergo the last

29 interrogation they went through the forest by Gjernæs, and above the Gjernæs Bridge Steffen sought

30 to find the 2 places where Erik Gjelle should have left the fake banknotes. After

31 Steffen had looked around, he chose a Birch-stump as the first place, and the

32 second place he demonstrated a short distance from there in some small undergrowth, but he declared

33, however, that he was not entirely sure that these were the right places until %they came% he had looked around somewhat further

34 up in the forest. Hereby, the witness must note that the forest is so densely overgrown and otherwise

35 in such a condition that it was not easy for one who was not acuainted with the terrain

36 to find one single Tree or one single Point. Anders Hellesnæs, who was one of

37 the witnesses during the questioning were not present at the inspection in question. –

38 Defendant Erik Gjelle presented a written question to the witnesses, as follows. #

39 Ole Andersen Ullestad, questioned as the 2nd witness, explained himself unanimously with the first witness

40 concerning the defendant Steffens' proof of the reported places above the Gjernæs Bridge. –

41 To the Qvestion put forward by the Defendant Erik, the 1st and 2nd witnesses reply that they have never seen him

42 having a lot of money, but on the other hand that he has often wanted to borrow a little when he

43 has been here on Wangen [Vossevangen], just as they also know that he is in very small [poor] circumstances-

44 which really follows from the bad use he makes of his abilities and

45 his time. - Defendant Steffen Æen notes with regard to the 1st and 2nd Witnesses given

46 testimonies, that he was wrong at the hearing insofar as he said it was 2 Birch-

47 stubs which Erik placed the bills, because by inspecting the place in the presence of said

48 witnesses, he considered that there was no stump in the scrub where Erik last

49 laid the 2 %last% Banknotes. –

50 Anders Hellesnæs, questioned as the 16th Witness, notes that he was certainly a Witness at

51 the last Inquisition at Gjelle, but that he was not present at the by 1st and 2nd

52 Witness reported occation, because he walked another path through the forest.

53 27th witness Knud Larsen Rokne, 58 years old and farmer at Rokne, knew on Exa-

54 mination nothing to explain to Information. –

55 28th witness Anfind Sjursøn Mondal, 33 years old, explains that some day last

56 April he was here on the Wangen together with defendant Erik, 20th witness and Sk?? [Skiur – Sjur?]

57 the witness then saw him in possession of a five-daler note, but otherwise the witness has never

58 then or at other times experienced anything for information in this case. That the Defendant and

57 20th witness had a private conversation, the witness did not notice.

58 29th Witness Erik Nielsen Bondal [Rondal?], 27 years old, explained that after it had been known

59 that Steffen Æen was imprisoned for counterfeit money and Erik Gjellen was a suspect, he spoke

60 about this with the witness  Godskalk Brynjeldsen Rondal(?), who said he had heard

61 another who was suspected, namely "Sjur den Lange der paa Bøe" [Sjur the tall guy over at Bøe] and named him first

62 as One "who had already gone to the ship" ( : Sjur Mylle, living on Bøe, had then begun his

63 Journey to America : ) From whom Godskalk had heard such a rumor he did not say. At one time

64 the witness spoke about this to the defendant Erik Gjelle. –

65 30th Witness Knud Andersen Ullestad, 31 years old, explains that once a long time ago

66, the defendant Erik said something to the witness about a "Yellow" (?), [could be referring to the colour of the bill/note?] saying "lend me one" or

 

Oh dear, I have messed up the numbers in the original. From line 58. – Sorry. . .

 

Regards.

 

Endret Mars 18, 2023 av Even Stormoen

[Even Stormoen]

9 timer siden, Roy-Petter Askim skrev:

Some background information and where they served:

 

‹snip>

 

 

Roy-Petter:

 

Darn! Formidable research. 🙂

 

Sue:

 

Could this mean further transcriptions are redundant?

 

Please let me know.

 

Regards.

[Roy-Petter Askim]

Always enjoy your transcript Even, since I fail to understand very much myself. And this story got the all the right ingredients: Counterfeit - Military court – Sentenced due to wife testimony – Another court case – Prisoner in “tukthuset” – Emigration.

BTW:

Knud Knudsen 1798 sold Tungeteigen in 1840 and bought 17,5 “mark” in Nedre Rjodo. He sold in 1844 when he moved to Queean Prærie, then Koshkonong WI where he died 97 years old.

In the estate Mortage register Nedre Rjodo is named Nedre Rio . https://media.digitalarkivet.no/en/view/13130/283

[Sue Olson Winckler]

23 hours ago, Roy-Petter Askim said:

Some background information and where they served:

 

Erik (Knudsen) Aasen Gjelle was found not guilty of making counterfeit in a military court in 1838 despite they suspected Gjelle had made them on his accomplish Ole Gullichsen Kindem Stang’s request. He was sentenced to 10 years labor at a fortress. They found 23 ten-“daler” bills at his house. In a newspaper article about the court case Ole denied any knowledge, but his wife said he had told her about having counterfeit and after that the money was found hidden in the roof.

 

 

Landvernet was originally a public initiative that was only randomly organized in the event of an enemy attack to protect Norway from an external enemy.

Steffen Olsen Æen, born Nordl. had legdsnumber 26. He did not meet at the Landvern-session in January 1841, and was wanted in the newspaper. https://www.digitalarkivet.no/view/255/pd00000040377476

 

The prison protocols are not on-line, only a register-file.

Eric Erichsen Gjelle prisoner at Tukthuset, Bergen: https://www.digitalarkivet.no/view/84/pc00000000371401 (page 39, 1845?)

Steffen Olsen Æen, Tukthuset, Bergen: https://www.digitalarkivet.no/view/84/pc00000000373468 (page 129, 1845?) and https://www.digitalarkivet.no/view/84/pc00000000373467 (page 84?). Appears that he was a prisoner there twice, but I it can also be that two transcriptions of the same register have been made.)

 

History and picture of the prison: https://www.bergenbyarkiv.no/bergenbyleksikon/arkiv/1422192

 

 

Thank you so much for joining in & bringing me this information!  I so appreciate any & all of the news it brings me!!  

[Sue Olson Winckler]

23 hours ago, Roy-Petter Askim said:

Some background information and where they served:

 

Erik (Knudsen) Aasen Gjelle was found not guilty of making counterfeit in a military court in 1838 despite they suspected Gjelle had made them on his accomplish Ole Gullichsen Kindem Stang’s request. He was sentenced to 10 years labor at a fortress. They found 23 ten-“daler” bills at his house. In a newspaper article about the court case Ole denied any knowledge, but his wife said he had told her about having counterfeit and after that the money was found hidden in the roof.

 

 

Landvernet was originally a public initiative that was only randomly organized in the event of an enemy attack to protect Norway from an external enemy.

Steffen Olsen Æen, born Nordl. had legdsnumber 26. He did not meet at the Landvern-session in January 1841, and was wanted in the newspaper. https://www.digitalarkivet.no/view/255/pd00000040377476

 

The prison protocols are not on-line, only a register-file.

Eric Erichsen Gjelle prisoner at Tukthuset, Bergen: https://www.digitalarkivet.no/view/84/pc00000000371401 (page 39, 1845?)

Steffen Olsen Æen, Tukthuset, Bergen: https://www.digitalarkivet.no/view/84/pc00000000373468 (page 129, 1845?) and https://www.digitalarkivet.no/view/84/pc00000000373467 (page 84?). Appears that he was a prisoner there twice, but I it can also be that two transcriptions of the same register have been made.)

 

History and picture of the prison: https://www.bergenbyarkiv.no/bergenbyleksikon/arkiv/1422192

 

 

Thank you for this!!  I'm not very savvy at how to reply, so bear with me!  Thank you!

[Sue Olson Winckler]

14 hours ago, Even Stormoen said:

Oh My, after seriously being tired of Google Translator I put the text in – translating from Danish to English , mind you – and Eureka! A lot made sense. Needs some ‹fine tuning› though. Or whatever, but made me optimistic again. Good thing 🙂

 

Contemplating: – it might be best to take this to PM or email in the future. Not to bother our fellow members with endless transcipts and embarrassing ‹translations›. What do you think?

 

 

Anyhow:

 

The first page in a very, very crude fashion . . .:

 

01 Continuation of the legal case against Erik Gjelle and Steffen Æen

02 Year 1844 on 31 July the extra court was set in Wangen's Thingstue [courtroom] for further processing of

03 The legal case against Erik Gjelle and Steffen Æen, and on behalf of the Magistrate by his

04 sworne Clerk Chr. (??) in the presence of the undersigned legal witnesses. –

05 Where Procr [solicitor]  Lund met and presented to the court Continuation summons of 20th this month in proclaimed status.

06 after which he requested the accused and the witnesses to be called and the last examined

07 upon further notice. Likewise, he presented a letter from Søndre Bergen-

08 huus Amt af 11te this month together with the acts referred to therein in the court-martial case against Ole Gullik-

09 sen Kindem(?) and Erik Aadsen Gjelle, as well as the Supreme Court act in the reported Case as well as 6 others

10 in the Letter re-notified attachments. The summons and the writ are taken in court. # The remaining

11 Documents presented follow the Act of the Case. Both defendants remained at liberty

12 presented to the Court, and the Defendant Erik Aadsen Gjelle acknowledged being the one in the

13 filed acts and other documents referred to Person of the same Item??, in specie, he admitted

14 he acknowledged the Application for a Police Officer post, dat. 22 Aug. 1837, as written by him in his own hand

15 Furthermore, he explained during the examination with regard to the five-dollar note, about which he

16 has explained in the last session that he got it last spring from Knud Tungeteigen or Bio(?)

17 ( : now traveled to America : ) from whom the questioned owed approximately such an amount

18 partly for 3 days of work and partly for borrowed money from time to time , but it didn't work

19 up to the full 5 Daler, but Knud wanted the questioned  [Erik] to receive this amount without

20 reduction. There was no one who saw that the questioned  receiveing the money, which happened in

21 Knud's houses at Bio(?), and he did not know how to prove that Knud owed him

22 something. The note, which as reported was lost on the evening in question here on Wan-

23 gen, without him knowing how, was genuine and of the newest kind. That he

24 showed it to the 20th Witness, he does not remember. - The witnesses met, except The Dyer

25 at the bridge, and were, provided they are not previously sworn in the matter, prepared for

26 Testimony by reading the Explanation of the Oath and explaining the punishment for perjury. –

27 Reynold Andersen Ullestad, questioned as 1st witness, explained at Examination, by virtue of

28 previously sworn oatht, that when he followed Defendant Steffen to Gjelle to undergo the last

29 interrogation they went through the forest by Gjernæs, and above the Gjernæs Bridge Steffen sought

30 to find the 2 places where Erik Gjelle should have left the fake banknotes. After

31 Steffen had looked around, he chose a Birch-stump as the first place, and the

32 second place he demonstrated a short distance from there in some small undergrowth, but he declared

33, however, that he was not entirely sure that these were the right places until %they came% he had looked around somewhat further

34 up in the forest. Hereby, the witness must note that the forest is so densely overgrown and otherwise

35 in such a condition that it was not easy for one who was not acuainted with the terrain

36 to find one single Tree or one single Point. Anders Hellesnæs, who was one of

37 the witnesses during the questioning were not present at the inspection in question. –

38 Defendant Erik Gjelle presented a written question to the witnesses, as follows. #

39 Ole Andersen Ullestad, questioned as the 2nd witness, explained himself unanimously with the first witness

40 concerning the defendant Steffens' proof of the reported places above the Gjernæs Bridge. –

41 To the Qvestion put forward by the Defendant Erik, the 1st and 2nd witnesses reply that they have never seen him

42 having a lot of money, but on the other hand that he has often wanted to borrow a little when he

43 has been here on Wangen [Vossevangen], just as they also know that he is in very small [poor] circumstances-

44 which really follows from the bad use he makes of his abilities and

45 his time. - Defendant Steffen Æen notes with regard to the 1st and 2nd Witnesses given

46 testimonies, that he was wrong at the hearing insofar as he said it was 2 Birch-

47 stubs which Erik placed the bills, because by inspecting the place in the presence of said

48 witnesses, he considered that there was no stump in the scrub where Erik last

49 laid the 2 %last% Banknotes. –

50 Anders Hellesnæs, questioned as the 16th Witness, notes that he was certainly a Witness at

51 the last Inquisition at Gjelle, but that he was not present at the by 1st and 2nd

52 Witness reported occation, because he walked another path through the forest.

53 27th witness Knud Larsen Rokne, 58 years old and farmer at Rokne, knew on Exa-

54 mination nothing to explain to Information. –

55 28th witness Anfind Sjursøn Mondal, 33 years old, explains that some day last

56 April he was here on the Wangen together with defendant Erik, 20th witness and Sk?? [Skiur – Sjur?]

57 the witness then saw him in possession of a five-daler note, but otherwise the witness has never

58 then or at other times experienced anything for information in this case. That the Defendant and

57 20th witness had a private conversation, the witness did not notice.

58 29th Witness Erik Nielsen Bondal [Rondal?], 27 years old, explained that after it had been known

59 that Steffen Æen was imprisoned for counterfeit money and Erik Gjellen was a suspect, he spoke

60 about this with the witness  Godskalk Brynjeldsen Rondal(?), who said he had heard

61 another who was suspected, namely "Sjur den Lange der paa Bøe" [Sjur the tall guy over at Bøe] and named him first

62 as One "who had already gone to the ship" ( : Sjur Mylle, living on Bøe, had then begun his

63 Journey to America : ) From whom Godskalk had heard such a rumor he did not say. At one time

64 the witness spoke about this to the defendant Erik Gjelle. –

65 30th Witness Knud Andersen Ullestad, 31 years old, explains that once a long time ago

66, the defendant Erik said something to the witness about a "Yellow" (?), [could be referring to the colour of the bill/note?] saying "lend me one" or

 

Oh dear, I have messed up the numbers in the original. From line 58. – Sorry. . .

 

Regards.

 

This is wonderful!  Thank you so very much!!  yes, email would be perfect.  I see there is a place for messages.  Is that just seen by the person I message.  I can certainly provide you with my email address.  Maybe if you know more how to use this site, you can message me & I can reply.  Thank you!

[Sue Olson Winckler]

I think I've been replying incorrectly... so I just want to say thank you here to everybody for this great help you are providing to me.  It's truly wonderful!!

[Roy-Petter Askim]

Bergens Adressecontoirs Efterretninger, lørdag 23. januar 1841

 

My bad, I did not read it properly. It does not say born in Nordl. The do. refers to the phrase “sies at være”: said to be in Nordland. That makes sense, that his absence was because he visited the county Nordland.

 

Roy

 

[Sue Olson Winckler]

Oh, Even, please do not,... do not... feel you need to apologize for anything!!!  You are being,and have already been, so helpful to me!!  I'm just happy that you are interested in my story & are willing to help!!!  Thank you!!!!!!!!!!!!!  😃😉😃

[Even Stormoen]

Sue, I did not apologize . . . ?  (Did I?) I think maybe you mixed me up with Roy-Petter  . . . ? 😉 

 

Anyhow, – all I would like to know is whether it is still interesting for you (after Roy-Petters fantastic findings) to have the text transcribed and ‹translated›?

 

And there is really no need to be so harsh on yourself – «not savvy» and so on. You are doing just fine! (dangerously close to Patronizing here . . . I know 😉

 

All the best.

[Even Stormoen]

31 minutter siden, Sue Olson Winckler skrev:

Oh, Even, please do not,... do not... feel you need to apologize for anything!!! 

 

Ah, finally I got it: Me messing up the line-numbers! Well . .  I apologize for not catching that . . . 😉😉 

 

Mvh

Endret Mars 19, 2023 av Even Stormoen

[Jan-Thore Solem]

Even (and Sue):

 

Please do NOT take this underground and into the shadows (i.e. e-mail).

There are benefits for ALL keeping this open on the forum.

Even's immense work is always appreciated, by many!!

 

One more public transscription: Done! (Checkmarked!)

 

 

[Even Stormoen]

Jan-Thore

 

Thank you for your kind words – I am still waiting for Sue to tell me if my ‹services› are still needed, but in the meantime:

 

[65a]

 

01 noget saadant omtrent, men Vidnet optog det for en Spøg af ham, sigtende

02 til den Mistanke som har hvilet paa ham fra Kindes-Sagen. Engang %i Vaar

03 efterat tiltalte Steffen Æen var satt fast% var tiltalte Erik i Vidnets Huus og talede

04 om forskjellige Ting og deriblandt saaledes, at vidnet antog det havde Hensyn til

05 Mistanken mod ham angaaende falske Penge ( : om han udtrykkelig nævnte dette

06 mindes dog Vidnet ikke : ) i hvilken Anledning Vidnet sagde til ham idet Vidnet

07 saae paa ham og loe: «du er vel fri du» og han loe og saae paa Vidnet igjen

08 men hvad yttringer han brugte mindes Vidnet ikke. En anden Gang, tidligere,

09 yttrede han for Vidnet at han ikke ansaae det for nogen Skam men snarere

10 for et «Karstykke» at gjøre falske Penge, dog nævnte han ikke ligefrem falske

11 Penge, men Vidnet kunde ikke forstaa hans (??) anderledes end at de

12 maatte have Hensyn dertil. –

13 Tiltalte Erik benægter sidste Deel af dette Vidnes Prov, og mindes ikke at være

14 bleven spurgt af Vidnet om han var fri i Pengesagen, ei heller mindes han

15 at have bedet Vidnet om nogen «Guul» tillaans. Konfrontation anstilledes.

16 31te Vidne Anna Andersdatter Svelgene, 29 Aar gl. og har Tilhold paa Ullestad,

17 forklarer at have i nogen Tid tjent hos Knud Gjelle ( : Tiltalte Eriks Opholdssted : )

18 men erfarede, efter speciel Examination, intet til Oplysning i denne Sag. –

19 De 5 sidste Vidner bekræftede deres Prov med Lovens Eed. –

20 Brynjel Aadsen Gjelle, afhørt som 10de Vidne, forklarer i Anledning af 16de Vidnes

21 Prov ( : i Acten Pag 28 : ) at Vidnet vel var sammen med ham, Erik og Aad her

22 paa Wangen engang %og% da Sagen mod Aad Ullestad ( : der var dømt til at udbetale

23 det Offentlige en Sum. som han havde skyldt Erik og i hvilke der var gjort Execu-

24 tion for Eriks skyldige Sagsomkostninger : ) kom paa Tale, men Vidnet paahørte

25 ikke de omforklarede Yttringer om Ham(?) eller om at Pengene skulde ud af Stats

26 kassen igjen. – Aad Larsen Ullestad, afhørt som 24de Vidne, forklarer sig over-

27 eenstemmende med 10de Vidne angaaende Samtalen paa Wangen. dog saaledes, at han

28 nok hørte Erik yttre at Pengene skulde komme tilbage igjen, %han% Erik var nemlig

29 i Begreb med at indanke den Dom hvorved Vidnet var dømt till at betale %paa% for

30 hans Regning og allerede havde Vidnet betalt Pengene til Lensmanden. –

31 Lund begjærede Sagen udsat og det Passerede beskreven meddeelt for om muligt

32 at indstille den til Doms, eller iagttage hvad videre han maatte finde fornødent.

33 Eragtet: Sagen udsættes til 3de August førstl., Formiddag Kl. 7 her paa Stedet.

34 Begge de Tiltalte overleveredes atter Arrestforvareren. – Chr. Kruse

35[signatures]

 

The rest of the page is another ‹case›.

 

Continued here:

https://www.digitalarkivet.no/rg50002319600069

 

[66a]

 

10 Fortsatt Justitssag mod Erik Gjelle og Steffen Æen

11 Aar 1844 den 3 August blev denne Justitssag fortsat paa Wangens Thingstue af samme

12 Administrator som ved forrige Session i Overvær af undertegnede Retsvidner.

13 Hvorda! Referenten Procr. Lund mødte og begjærede afhørt det i Retten tilstedeværende

14 Vidne Godskalk Brynildsen Rondve efter den Anledning som 29de Vidnes Prov dertil

15 giver. Komparenten bemærkede ellers, at dette Vidnet efter mundtlig Anmodning

16 til Lensmanden er bleven indkaldt. Begge de Tiltalte bleve i deres Frihed

17 fremstillede. Tiltalte Erik Gjelle blev foreløbig examineret angaaende det i Sessionen

18 11te f. M. omhandlede Rygte om hvorfra de falske Sedler skulde være gaaede ud og forklarede at han

19 første Gang hørte det her paa Wangen den dag da han efter Forhørets Slutning blev

20 løsladt af Arresten, men af hvem han hørte det mindes han ikke, og senere hørte

21 han det som omforklart, af Erik Ronve ( : 29de Vidne : ), men af Andre veed han

22 ikke at have hørt det ei heller har han forsket(?) nøiere derom. Forøvrigt veed han intet videre at forklare til Oplysning

23 om dette Rygte eller dets Udspring, og for sit Vedkommende har han heller ikke

24 troet at kunde fæste nogen Tiltro til det, da han holder Sjur Hylle for at være

25 fornuftigere end at han vilde befatte sig med slig Gjerning, men derimod troer

26 han ham nok istand til at kunde gjøre det da han baade forstod at stikke Signeter

27 og var skrivekyndig. Da Tiltalte uopfordret yttret sig saaledes om Sjur Hylles Evner

28 blev han tilspurgt om det da skulde være fornødent at %-% forstaa Signetstikkeri

29 for at arbeide Sedlerne, i hvilken Anledning han svarede at det kunde han ikke

30 vide, men efter hvad der er talt skal det være saa.

31 Som 32te Vidne fremstod Godskalk Brynildsen Ronve, 52 Aar gl., blev forberedet

32 til Vidnesbyrds Aflæg og forelæst 29de Vidnes Prov, hvis Rigtighed han for sit Ved-

33 kommende erkjendte, tilførende at han igjen havde hørt det Fortalte af Knud Eriks-

34 sen Rio eller Rokne ( : hans Datter er gift med tiltalte Eriks Broder, Brynild : ) men

35 hvem denne havde hørt det af sagde han ikke og Vidnet, der holdt saadant Snak

36 ikke for andet end Vaas, spurgte heller ikke derom. Hvorfra ommeldte Rygte har

37 sit Udspring er Vidnet aldeles ubekjendt. Har ikke talt med Erik Gjelle herom. Oplæst, beediget og afskediget. –

38 Administrator lod begge de Tiltalte skrive efter Dictat paa et Qvartark Papiir for at

39 give Prøve paa deres Haandskrift, først Steffen og siden Erik, og forelagde dem derefter en af

40 de iretteværende falske Sedler til Efterskrivning af første Linie i Contexten. De bleve

41 begge paalagde at gjøres deres Flid, men det var kjendeligt at Erik lagde an paa at

42 fremviise en tungere og mere uøvet Haand end hans er, uden at slutte fra hans i forrige

44 Session ommeldte Ansøgning om en Politibetjentpost. – Paa Foreviisning af

45 Steffens Haandskrift erklærede Erik, at han ikke kjender til hans Skrivekyndighed,

46 men troer dog, uden at kunde sige nogen Grund hvorfor, at Steffen naar han

47 havde villet kunde havet skrevet bedre, og bemærkede %-% med Hensyn til Ansøg-

48 ningen om at blive Politibetjent, at han efter sin dalevende Faders Paalæg skrev

49 tre ligelydende Exemplarer, og at hans Fader valgte den som han syntes var

50 den bedste. Videre maatte Administrator bemærke, at da Erik var kommen til

51 Contexten i Seddelen og havde skrevet Bogstavet «I» lod han i Begyndelsen som han

52 ikke skjønnede det næste Ord «Følge» og nævnte et andet istedet derfor. –

53 Det ommeldte, paa begge Sider beskrevne Papiir bliver Acten at vedhæfte. –

54 33te Vidne Ingeborg Brynjelsdatter Wangen, 44 Aar gl og Arrestforvarerens Kone,

55 forklarer at noget efter at Tiltalte Erik Gjelle var ved Forhøret løsladt af Arresten

56 kom han en Dag ind i deres Dagligværelse og spurgte efter Steffen, «om det ikke var

57 her han logerede» og sagde «jeg skulde have talt med ham, men kanske det er det

58 samme» ; han fik ikke Steffen, der sad arresteret, i tale men idet han gik paa Gul-

59 vet og saae op i Taget talede han ved sig selv og udlod sig saaledes: «du bar dig ad

60 som en Tosk, Hautahaave, Hautabanke(?)» og %-% tillige nævnte han Sjur

61 Hylle, men i hvad Forbindelse mindes Vidnet ikke. At han var beskjænket kunde

62 Vidnet ikke skjønne. En Soldat ( : Niels Andersen Leidal : ) sad inde og hørte det samme,

63 men Vidnets Mand, Arrestforvareren, laa derimod og sov. – Oplæst, vedstaaet og

64 beediget. Tiltalte Erik erklærer at han ingelunde mindes at have været inde i Ar-

65 restforvarerstuen i omhandlede Tid og brugt de omforklarede Udladelser, og er det

66 aligevel skeet maa det ha været i Fuldskab og uden at have Hensyn til Steffen eller

 

 

All the best

[Roy-Petter Askim]

Sue, I will send you pictures from the book in a mail.

It is so interesting to read the full text of the witness in this case. I found the appeal to supreme court, and since the apprehension is described I am jumping a bit forward with a Google translate from Danish (I think Angj. means Concerning, and  Anj. is the person/subject in question):

:

https://www.nb.no/items/346572dee5dcf7a309e906b573d61bde?page=111&searchText=%22steffen%20olsen%22~1

Norsk retstidende (årlig : trykt utg.). 1845 Vol. 10.

(1st session in 1845)

 

 

The 22nd of January

Lnr. 17

Adv. Rolfssen, Actor against 1) Erik Aadsen Gjelle and 2) Steffen Olsen Æen.

 

By order of the southern Bergenshuus County of 11th June B. A., Angj. No. 1 indicted for Making counterfeit banknotes and Attempting to publish the same, and Angj. No. 2 for equal crime or complicity in it, and by judgment before the Hardanger and Voss Jurisdiction of 13th August next became No. 1 for counterfeiting of banknotes according to the penal code??

 

Cap. 11 § 10 considered with 10 years penal servitude and No. 2 for intended publication of counterfeit banknotes (Capt. 5 § 4 letter a) with penal labor for 2.5 years. By the judgment of the Bergen Provincial Court of September 30th, however, No. 1 was acquitted of the Justice's further charges and criminal proceedings for No. 2 reduced to 2 years. The factual circumstances of the case are essentially as follows: When Steffen Olsen had gone to Bergen on 31 May B. A. to travel to America from there, he was dismissed by the Sheriff in question, partly because he had not paid his creditors, and partly because The co-defendant, Erik, had made statements that he (Steffen) had incorrect goods with him, which the deponent assumed must be counterfeit money, for the fabrication of which Erik had previously been prosecuted. Steffen was also found with three fake Tidal Ten-daler notes, which he threw away during the attack. At the beginning, Steffen denied having been in possession of these, but admitted it immediately during the interrogation. He states that, at Erik's request in the last part of the year and during a meeting the day before departure, he has allowed himself to be led to receive the notes in order to publish them. They were to share the profit, and he paid Erik 1 Spd. In advance. Erik Aadsen denies having made counterfeit money or delivered such to Steffen. However, take the following evidence against him: 1) His statements to the 1st and 2nd witness that he had given Steffen money and that Steffen had incorrect goods or counterfeit money with him. For the 1st Witness, he gave the amount owed soon to 4, soon to 6 and soon to 15, by which the witness understood Species. The defendant says, on the other hand, that he did not mention species and meant place ort, without remembering the number he gave; but he owed Steffen some money for a saddle sølje/silver brooch

and a gun, which the latter had not received. 2) That the applicant has several times made statements that allude to the fact that he was ready to make counterfeit money, and that he did not consider this to be wrong. He thus said to the 13th witness that they could be done in two hours. To 14th Witness, he has expressed several times that he could probably make a Ti Tendaler slip. To the 16^th

 

Witness has testified that the monetary outlays imposed on him in the older legal case had to come out of the state treasury. To the 20th witness, on the occasion reported, he said that they should not make him the moneylender, and added: "lend me just a model, but under four eyes". 3) That Angj., while Steffen was under arrest, went to the 33rd witness, in order to get Steffen to speak, and on this occasion, according to the witness's statement, pretended that Steffen was acting crazy. 4) Is Angj., despite the fact that he denied during the preliminary hearing in the last 6 or 7 years having had any ti Ten-daler note in his custody, however, by his own later admission and the 23rd witness's evidence, transferred to have in the month of March f. A, of this witness had allow such a note for approximately 14 days. In f. A.'s (f.A. =last year) winter there, Anj. According to the 12th witness's statement, this person was arrested for the loan of a "ti ten-daler note" - not 10 Daler. 5) is Anj. In possession of the skill in writing and drawing that he may have completed the notes, while Steffen Æen, according to his proof and the 34th, 35th and 36th witness's explanations, lacks the necessary writing skills. It also seems that Angj. has sought during the case to conceal his skill in writing, when you compare the proof attached to the document with an application he wrote for a police officer post. The administrator has certified that Angj. at the trial writing he clearly tried to show a heavier and more unpracticed hand than his usual one. There also seems to be some similarity between the writing on one during the inquisition at Angj. found Lap, on which there are stains with yellow color, and his handwriting, although Anj. denies that the writing on the note is his. There also seems to be some similarity between the application and the writing in the fake notes found at Steffen's. Incidentally, Angj refuses. to have possessed guult(=Yellow) paper or to have dyed white Papiir (paper) guult, whereas for Paint he has possessed guul Farve (yellow paint). 6) has Anj. had previously been under indictment for a similar crime and, according to the court-martial verdict of 16th March 1838, which was not appealed in his case, was only acquitted of further indictment. While he was under arrest

 

In the older case, after the explanation of the 15th witness, he made statements that must have led to the assumption that he was guilty, and this witness was heard to say that on the day he was released, he said to the guard: "It was strange that the one who handed over fake money, was to receive 10 years of slavery and the person who had worked them was to go free». His then co-defendant Ole Knudsen was punished with 10 years of slavery. – The Supreme Court confirmed the judgment of the Provincial Supreme Court and awarded Actor in Salarium 12 Spd.

 

 

 

Endret Mars 19, 2023 av Roy-Petter Askim

[Sue Olson Winckler]

You're not being patronizing at all... & I'm just trying to emphasize my hope that I'm not being too frustrating for those of you tryin to help me. -- 😉

Perhaps I did mix up the messages... or rather, the senders... so I'll say oops, & I'm sorry about that. 

 

i am still very interested, but I also realize that this is not an easy, or quick, task for you.  🙂   If you could possibly move on to, I believe, the last page or so, of the document, where I think it discusses both Steffen's & Erik's sentences and such, I'd be very interested in having that translation so I could place it into the biography I'm creating for my kids & future generations.  

 

(I assume the information in the middle, might be back and forth legal jargon and witness testimony, which might repeat much of what was already translated, so, yes, it's fine to skip that part, which would be the majority of what is left.  

 

I thank you so much for everything you've done for me!  

 

Sincerely & with gratitude!

Sue

 

[Sue Olson Winckler]

Roy-Petter Askim.... this is wonderful what you have provided!!  Thank you so very much!!  I am so thankful that you have found this extra information!!  

[Even Stormoen]

Somewhat embarrasing to present the following after Roy-Petters formidable translation from

«Retstidende», but I have already said «a» by transcribing 65a and 66a, so – here's the «b», ‹limping and crawling›:

 

[65a]

 

01 something like that, but the witness took it as a joke from him, referring

02 to the suspicion that has rested on him since the Kindes case. Once in the spring

03 after the defendant Steffen Æen was arrested% the defendant Erik was in the witnness' house and spoke

04 about various things and among them in such a way that the witness assumed it concerned

05 the suspicion against him regarding counterfeit money ( : if he explicitly mentioned this

06, however, the witness does not remember : ) on which occasion the witness said to him that the witness

07 looked at him and laughed: "I guess you're free" and he laughed and looked at the witness again

08 but the witness does not remember what expressions he used. Another time, earlier,

09 he expressed to the witness that he did not consider it a shame but rather a 

10 "feat" [hard to translate, ‹proof of manhood›-ish] to make counterfeit money, but he did not exactly mention counterfeit

11 Money, but the witness could not understand his (??) differently than that was

12 what he referred to. –

13 Defendant Erik denies the last part of this witness's evidence, and does not remember being

14 asked by the witness if he was free in the money case, he does not remember either

15 to have asked the Witness to lend him some "Yellow". Confrontation was employed.

16 31st witness Anna Andersdatter Svelgene, 29 years old and reciding at Ullestad,

17 explains that for some time she worked for Knud Gjelle ( : Accused Erik's Place of Residence : )

18 but learned, after special examination, nothing for information in this case. –

19 The last 5 witnesses confirmed their evidence with the oath of the law. –

20 Brynjel Aadsen Gjelle, questioned as the 10th Witness, explains on the occasion of the 16th Witness'

21 statement ( : in the documents Pag 28 : ) that the Witness was indeed with him, Erik and Aad here

22 at Wangen once %and% when the case against Aad Ullestad ( : who was sentenced to pay out

23 the Public a Sum which he had owed Erik and in which Execu-

24 tion was made for Erik's due court costs : ) came up, but the witness did not hear

25 the explained statements about him(?) or that the money should be extracted from the

26 Treasury again. - Aad Larsen Ullestad, questioned as the 24th Witness, explains himself in

27 agreement with the 10th witness regarding the conversation at Vangen. however, so that he

28 indeed heard Erik saying that the money was going to come back again, because %he% Erik was

29 in the process of appealing the judgment by which the witness was sentenced to pay %on% on

30 his behalf and the witness had already paid the money to the sheriff. –

31 Lund requested that the case be adjourned and that what happened described and communicated to him, in order to, if possible,

32 to refer it for Judgement, or observe what else he might find necessary.

33 Observed: The case is adjourned until August 3 first, morning at 7 here at this place.

34 Both defendants were again handed over to the custody officer. – Chr. Kruse

35[signatures]

 

The rest of the page is another ‹case›.

 

Continued here:

https://www.digitalarkivet.no/rg50002319600069

 

[66a]

 

10 Continuing legal proceedings against Erik Gjelle and Steffen Æen

11 In 1844, on 3 August, this court case was continued at Wangens Courtroom by the same

12 Administrator as at the previous Session in the presence of the undersigned legal witnesses.

13 Thus! The referent Procr. Lund met and requested to be questioned in Court the present

14 Witness Godskalk Brynildsen Rondve on that occasion as the 29th witness thereto

15 gives. The [witness, it says, but makes no sense] otherwise noted that this witness after oral request

16 to the Sheriff has been summoned. Both defendants were presented

17 wit no restaints. [i.e.handcuffs etc.] Defendant Erik Gjelle was provisionally examined regarding the in the Session

18 of 11th last month. mentioned rumor concerning where the fake notes should have come from and explained that

19 the first time he heard this at Vangen was the same day when he after the end of the interrogation

20 was released from Jail, but from whom he heard it he does not remember, and later heard

21 he it as stated, by Erik Ronve ( : 29th Witness : ), but from others he knows

22 not having heard it, nor has he researched (?) it more closely. Otherwise, he had nothing further to explain to Information

23 about this rumor or its origin, and for his part he has neither

24 believed to be able to attach any credence to it, as he considers Sjur Hylle to be

25 more sensible than that he would concern himself with such a Deed, but on the contrary believes

26 he was able enough to do it since he both understood how to make Signets

27 and was literate. As the Accused, uninvited, expressed himself in this way about Sjur Hylles' abilities

28, he was asked whether it would then be necessary for %-% to understand Signet-making

29 to work the notes, on which occasion he replied that he could not

30 know, but according to what has been said it must be so.

31 Godskalk Brynildsen Ronve, 52, appeared as the 32nd witness, was prepared

32 for giving testimony and read the 29th witness's evidence, which correctness he

33 acknowledged, adding that he had again heard what was told by Knud Eriks-

34 sen Rio or Rokne ( : his daughter is married to defendant Erik's brother, Brynild : ) but

35 From whom this person had heard it, he did not say, and the witness who concidered such gossip

36 to be nothing but Rubbish, didn't ask about it either. From which reported Rumor has

37 its origin is completely unknown to the Witness. Haven't spoken to Erik Gjelle about this. Read, sworn and dismissed. –

38 The administrator had both defendants write according to dictation on a quarter-sheet paper in order to

39 give proof of their handwriting, first Steffen and then Erik, and then submitted one of 

40 the present fake notes for them to copy the first line of the Context. They were

41 both ordered that their diligence be done, but it was clear that Erik set out to

42 exhibit a heavier and more untrained hand than his really is, without deviating from his in the previous

44 Session referred Application for a Police Officer post. – On presentation of

45 Steffen's handwriting Erik declared that he does not know about his penmanship,

46 but still believes, without being able to give any reason why, that Steffen, if he wanted to,

47 likely would have been able to write better, and noted %-% with regard to Application

48 for becoming a police officer, that he wrote at the behest of his father, who was then still alive,

49 three identical copies, and that his father chose the one he thought was

50 the best. Furthermore, the Administrator had to note that when Erik had arrived to

51 the context in the note and had written the letter "I" he pretended in the beginning

52 not understanding the next word "Følge" [meaning according to] and therefore mentioned another one instead. –

53 The reported paper, described on both sides, is to be attached to the act. –

54 33rd witness Ingeborg Brynjelsdatter Wangen, 44 years old and wife of the prison officer,

55 explains that some time after the Accused Erik Gjelle was released from Prison at the Interrogation

56 he came into their living room one day and asked for Steffen, «if it wasn't

57 here he lodged" and said "I should have spoken to him, but perhaps that is all the

58 same» ; he did not get Steffen, who was under arrest, to speak with him, but as he walked on the floor

59 and looking up at the ceiling, he spoke to himself and expressed himself as follows: "You behaved

60 as a Fool, Hautahaave, [Dumbass] Hautabanke(?)» and %-% also he mentioned Sjur

61 Hylle, but in what connection the witness does not remember. The wtiness didn't think

62 he was drunk. A Soldier ( : Niels Andersen Leidal : ) sat inside and heard the same thing,

63 but the witness's husband, the jailer, on the other hand, was sleeping. – Read aloud, acknowledged and

64 sworn. Defendant Erik declares that he has no recollection of being inside the jaillers livingroom

65 during the time in question using the explained expressions, and that if it

66 nevertheless happened, it must have been in drunkenness and without regard to Steffen or

 

Sue, I will try to look up the last pages, but Roy-Petter always gets ahead of me! (sulking, sulking)

 

Hoping the last sentence above ‹translates› as the joke it's ment to be 😉

[Bless you, RP! 🙂 ] 

 

One of the many things that are great about this Forum, is the cooperation between members. Trying to ‹solve› various problems, be it trancripts or whatever, together. The ‹Good Old Norsk Spirit Of Dugnad› 😉

I love it . . . 🙂

 

All the best

Endret Mars 20, 2023 av Even Stormoen

[Even Stormoen]

10 timer siden, Sue Olson Winckler skrev:

<snip>  I'm not being too frustrating for those of you tryin to help me. --

 

May I just shout a resounding: No, you are not! 🙂

This is an intriguing case and – at least for me – a welcome opportunity to pursue an interesting story, written by a skilled ‹hand›.  Rather than messing around trying to understand incredibly messy scribes;  e.g. trying  interpreting one single incomprehensible word. [Wich is often the case].

So –  Sue, Thank you 🙂

 

All the best

Endret Mars 20, 2023 av Even Stormoen