"Whereas, the Director-General and Council of _New Netherland_ have heard the charge of the Fiscal against _Johannis van Beecq_, a free merchant and inhabitant of this City of _New Amsterdam_, defendant, who has been duly summoned by the Court Messenger _Elslandt_ in the name of the Fiscal on three Court days and who has had himself married by an unauthorized countryman, named _Goodman Crab_, living at _Greenwich_, against the laudable laws and customs of the _United Netherlands_ and, as the Fiscal further states and proves in his charge, contrary to the advice and command of his lawful guardian,[820] the Hon^{ble} Director-General, also without previously publishing the bans and who has so far failed to make his appearance, of _Netherland_ and without previous publication of the bans, is hereby declared ... unlawful and the said _Jan van Beecq_ and _Maria Verleth_ are commanded to live separate under penalty of being punished according to law for living in concubinage."[821] [Footnote 814: For a discussion of the divorce jurisdiction of the Dutch courts see chap. xv, below.] [Footnote 815: VALENTINE, _Manual of the Corporation_, 1845-46, 368; _Records of New Amsterdam_, I, 155.] [Footnote 816: While these proceedings were in progress, another appeal, growing out of the case, came from the schout, burgomasters, and schepens, in the city hall, special session of Feb. 8, 1656. Case of "Maria Verleth, pltf. v. Joost van Beeck, deft." The defendant maintains, as the marriage between Johannis van Beeck and Maria Verleth is not yet declared legal, that certain "letters are not her's, until the marriage be legalized." But should the marriage be declared lawful by the court, supreme council, and consistory, he consents that she shall have them. He only wants his right. The court lets Maria have the letters provisionally, because it has never been informed that the marriage has been declared illegal, and it has already announced that it must respect the proclamation of the church and the "marriage tie of said young people."--_Records of New Amsterdam_, II, 36.] [Footnote 817: _Ibid._, I, 159, 160.] [Footnote 818: _Ibid._, 164, 165. Earlier on the same day, the record says, van Beeck prays "that disposal be made of petition and remonstrance;" but no action was taken because the bench was not complete: _ibid._, 163, 164.] [Footnote 819: _Records of New Amsterdam_, I, 173, 174.] "And whereas the Fiscal demands by his motion, exhibited on the 1st of September, 1654, that the said _van Beecq_ be condemned in contumacy,