My ancestors worked at the Nestingen paper Mill from 1815 to 1858
I have found a reference to the mill in 1836 here, on pages 218 and 219
http://urn.nb.no/URN:NBN:no-nb_digibok_2008111103021
page 218 half way down in the middle and page 219 10th and 2nd line from the bottom
I am hoping that someone could have a look at the pages and tell me what it says about the paper mill please. Not a translation but an idea of the story would be helpful.
I am sorry but I cannot work out the title of the book past Report for practical ......
Jeg er takknemlig for hjelp
Darryl
Sydney Australia
Nestingen Papir Molle 1836
Moderator: MOD_Østfold
Re: Nestingen Papir Molle 1836
I'm sorry to say it, Darryl, but that link is no good!
Mvh Olaf.
Correction: That link may be good after all! Nasjonalbiblioteket informs that queries and viewing of the contents of material in the archives will be very slow for a period, repairs are ongoing.
Olaf
Mvh Olaf.
Correction: That link may be good after all! Nasjonalbiblioteket informs that queries and viewing of the contents of material in the archives will be very slow for a period, repairs are ongoing.
Olaf
Re: Nestingen Papir Molle 1836
Thank you for having a look Olaf.
The link just worked for me but it goes to the front cover of the book. I found that you then have to type in the page number 218 in the little box called Ga til side. This will take you to pages 218 and 219.
I hope you can have another look
Hilsen
Darryl
The link just worked for me but it goes to the front cover of the book. I found that you then have to type in the page number 218 in the little box called Ga til side. This will take you to pages 218 and 219.
I hope you can have another look
Hilsen
Darryl
Re: Nestingen Papir Molle 1836
Hi Darryl, the link works, it was only some trouble at the archives yesterday. Give me some hours, and I'll translate the whole section for you, that way you have it all in context.
Mvh Olaf
Mvh Olaf
Re: Nestingen Papir Molle 1836
Thank you Olaf, that is very generous.
hilsen
Darryl
hilsen
Darryl
Re: Nestingen Papir Molle 1836
Hi Darryl. I have no legal background, and I do not claim that I have used the correct expressions, but I have used some expressions related to the time, and I don't think it is all bad. Take it for what it is, an amateur translation! 
1836, 10. November: Landowner Jacob Roll (Hjelm) vs merchant Jørgen Young (Bruun)
According to a statement of balance of 24.March 1832, Young sued Roll with the intent to get payment of a negative balance of 654 Spd. (speciedaler), 54 sk. (skilling), which came forth as a result of an older claim of 16. May 1829, with an additional payment for timber rafting etc. in 1829 and 1830. However. the older claim from 1829 was not produced to the court, and Roll denied both ever to have received the claim, as well as to have had any business relations to Young regarding timber rafting in those years mentioned by him, except for what a contract of 18. February 1820 between the parts - regarding a rent and lease of a saw - would show, but which had a receipt from Young of 11. July 1831, and subsequently Roll denied owing Young anything. For those reasons, the judge in the lower court decided that there was no legal proof for the claim, whereupon he passed a ruling for aquittal for Roll 1. September 1832, and did not request coverage of trial costs.
In the higher court, Young provided the balance statements dated 16. May 1829, as well as as five different letters from Roll, and subsequently declared that his claim was sufficiently proved, and argued that Roll was sentenced to pay the sum of 654 Spd. 54 sk. plus interest from the date of the original claim, and to cover the trial costs in both courts, against which Roll argued for a confirmation of the ruling in the lower court and cover of costs, and asked for the court to support a request for Young, within a given time, and under oath to the court, to declare whether he denied to have promised Roll 60 Spd. in silver per year for supervision of the paper mill in Rælingen. Finally he claimed mortification and a fine, for some of the expressions used by Young's solicitor, which he claimed to be defamatory.
By a ruling in the higher court 5. October 1835, Roll was centenced to pay Young the claimed 654 Spd. 54 sk. and interests, but the court did not request trial costs to be paid.
In the premises for the judgement, the court say:
The appellant has presumed, that when the respondent did not deny to owe the amount from the older claim, it should be regarded as an admission that he did owe the amount; but, as he not only denied to have received the statement of balance dated 16. May 1829, but also denied to owe the appellant anything at all, without being presented with any proof of the opposite whatsoever, the court cannot do anything but agree with the judge in the lower court in that the respondent had not acknowledged to be debitor for any of the added amount in the later statement of balance.
In both previously mentioned statements of balance, under different postings, the respondent was debited for 555 Spd. 117 sk for timber transportation in the years 1821-1830; in which respect is remarked, that the appellant 18. February 1820 entered into a contract with the respondent, where the later for 10 years leased to the first, '200 tylvter skur' on his owned saw, (translators remark: the right to cut planks, 1 tylvt = twelve logs, skur = timber/planks, 200 tylvter skur = 2400 logs into timber/planks), for which the appellant should pay 2400 logs, delivered at the same time and of the same quality as those he himself delivered for sawing; " ..whereas I (Roll) cover his (Young's) running costs, like timber booms, routing, etc., with regard to my share". The repondent's first opposition, that the contract between the parties was fulfilled, as the appelant 11. July 1831 signed the original contract that " it mutually and in all parts was fulfilled", can not be regarded as justified. The respondents denial to have received the older balance statement of 16. May 1829, is not correct, when referred to his writings of 29. same month, where he admits to have received from the appellant a bill for the oustanding amount, and with surprise registers that he owe the appellant a not insignificant sum etc., while making aware of that he twice incorrectly have been debited costs of log rafting in 1821 and 1822. By perusal of the balance statement of 16. May 1829, one finds that this is the case; but that the mistake is corrected is confirmed by the later balance statement, where the respondent again is credited for the said amounts. This, seen in circumstance with, that the repondent has not come forward with any other bill, of which his letter of 29. May 1829 could have referred to, put beyond all doubts, that he in it's time really received the older balance statement and have not had anything to remember of it, besides the above mentioned incorrect debited amounts, and a couple of other posts, more about those later.
When the appellant thereafter on 11. July 1831 signed the contract as being fulfilled, it had to be an admission between the parties, that the repondent was the appellant's debitor according to the balance statement, and it can therefore not be presumed that the appellant by signing the fullfillment of the contract has renounced his claims - as they very well may exist together, and that the apellant signes the leasing contract as "Cancelled" while keeping the claim toward the repondent according to the sent - and mainly acknowledged - bill; because when the lease period had passed, and the contract was notarized, the apellant could not avoid to cancel it again, which could not be done without a receipt for it's fullfillment. After what has been alleged, one find no reason to remove the amount of 555 Spd. 117 sk. from the balance statement.
The respondent has also claimed that he on 19. January 1831 paid 50 Spd., but later the appellant made good, that this was an unrelated loan. With regard to the remaining 48 Spd. 57 sk. , the respondent claimed that he by the appellant was offered an annular compensation of 60 Spd. in silver for supervision of his paper mill in Rælingen, and that this supervision lasted from 15. March 1824 until 15. November 1825, that is 1 year 8 months, whereupon he claims that he is owed 100 Spd. of silver, which would more than cover the remaining amount mentioned.
But as the appellant has opposed against new claims and protests from the respondent's side in the higher court, the higher court lack all formal admission in this case to embark in a ruling of the input dismissed in lower court, and as follows not ruled over there, of whether the respondent becomes any, or which, compensation for the supervision he has had of the paper mill in Rælingen; wherefore there is just as little possibility to decide, whether there could be reason to impose on the appellant the respondent's subsidiary claim to give a sworn statement thereof. As the respondent have made no remarks to the court regarding the produced balance statements, nor the particular amount therein, he can not avoid payment of the amount in the claim.
What regards the respondent's claims for mortification and fine, because of the appellant's solicitor's statement that "it clearly shows, that the counterpart has the intention to seek unjustice, and evade his debts". For the reason that the respondent by the ruling in the higher court is required to pay the debts following the claim, and that his petition as such is regarded as unfounded, one does not believe that the appellant's solicitor should be made responsible for the used expressions, or that they are mortified.
By the high court ruling 10. November 1836, the higher courts ruling was confirmed, and Roll was imposed upon to pay 60 Spd. to cover the court costs.
Mhv Olaf
1836, 10. November: Landowner Jacob Roll (Hjelm) vs merchant Jørgen Young (Bruun)
According to a statement of balance of 24.March 1832, Young sued Roll with the intent to get payment of a negative balance of 654 Spd. (speciedaler), 54 sk. (skilling), which came forth as a result of an older claim of 16. May 1829, with an additional payment for timber rafting etc. in 1829 and 1830. However. the older claim from 1829 was not produced to the court, and Roll denied both ever to have received the claim, as well as to have had any business relations to Young regarding timber rafting in those years mentioned by him, except for what a contract of 18. February 1820 between the parts - regarding a rent and lease of a saw - would show, but which had a receipt from Young of 11. July 1831, and subsequently Roll denied owing Young anything. For those reasons, the judge in the lower court decided that there was no legal proof for the claim, whereupon he passed a ruling for aquittal for Roll 1. September 1832, and did not request coverage of trial costs.
In the higher court, Young provided the balance statements dated 16. May 1829, as well as as five different letters from Roll, and subsequently declared that his claim was sufficiently proved, and argued that Roll was sentenced to pay the sum of 654 Spd. 54 sk. plus interest from the date of the original claim, and to cover the trial costs in both courts, against which Roll argued for a confirmation of the ruling in the lower court and cover of costs, and asked for the court to support a request for Young, within a given time, and under oath to the court, to declare whether he denied to have promised Roll 60 Spd. in silver per year for supervision of the paper mill in Rælingen. Finally he claimed mortification and a fine, for some of the expressions used by Young's solicitor, which he claimed to be defamatory.
By a ruling in the higher court 5. October 1835, Roll was centenced to pay Young the claimed 654 Spd. 54 sk. and interests, but the court did not request trial costs to be paid.
In the premises for the judgement, the court say:
The appellant has presumed, that when the respondent did not deny to owe the amount from the older claim, it should be regarded as an admission that he did owe the amount; but, as he not only denied to have received the statement of balance dated 16. May 1829, but also denied to owe the appellant anything at all, without being presented with any proof of the opposite whatsoever, the court cannot do anything but agree with the judge in the lower court in that the respondent had not acknowledged to be debitor for any of the added amount in the later statement of balance.
In both previously mentioned statements of balance, under different postings, the respondent was debited for 555 Spd. 117 sk for timber transportation in the years 1821-1830; in which respect is remarked, that the appellant 18. February 1820 entered into a contract with the respondent, where the later for 10 years leased to the first, '200 tylvter skur' on his owned saw, (translators remark: the right to cut planks, 1 tylvt = twelve logs, skur = timber/planks, 200 tylvter skur = 2400 logs into timber/planks), for which the appellant should pay 2400 logs, delivered at the same time and of the same quality as those he himself delivered for sawing; " ..whereas I (Roll) cover his (Young's) running costs, like timber booms, routing, etc., with regard to my share". The repondent's first opposition, that the contract between the parties was fulfilled, as the appelant 11. July 1831 signed the original contract that " it mutually and in all parts was fulfilled", can not be regarded as justified. The respondents denial to have received the older balance statement of 16. May 1829, is not correct, when referred to his writings of 29. same month, where he admits to have received from the appellant a bill for the oustanding amount, and with surprise registers that he owe the appellant a not insignificant sum etc., while making aware of that he twice incorrectly have been debited costs of log rafting in 1821 and 1822. By perusal of the balance statement of 16. May 1829, one finds that this is the case; but that the mistake is corrected is confirmed by the later balance statement, where the respondent again is credited for the said amounts. This, seen in circumstance with, that the repondent has not come forward with any other bill, of which his letter of 29. May 1829 could have referred to, put beyond all doubts, that he in it's time really received the older balance statement and have not had anything to remember of it, besides the above mentioned incorrect debited amounts, and a couple of other posts, more about those later.
When the appellant thereafter on 11. July 1831 signed the contract as being fulfilled, it had to be an admission between the parties, that the repondent was the appellant's debitor according to the balance statement, and it can therefore not be presumed that the appellant by signing the fullfillment of the contract has renounced his claims - as they very well may exist together, and that the apellant signes the leasing contract as "Cancelled" while keeping the claim toward the repondent according to the sent - and mainly acknowledged - bill; because when the lease period had passed, and the contract was notarized, the apellant could not avoid to cancel it again, which could not be done without a receipt for it's fullfillment. After what has been alleged, one find no reason to remove the amount of 555 Spd. 117 sk. from the balance statement.
The respondent has also claimed that he on 19. January 1831 paid 50 Spd., but later the appellant made good, that this was an unrelated loan. With regard to the remaining 48 Spd. 57 sk. , the respondent claimed that he by the appellant was offered an annular compensation of 60 Spd. in silver for supervision of his paper mill in Rælingen, and that this supervision lasted from 15. March 1824 until 15. November 1825, that is 1 year 8 months, whereupon he claims that he is owed 100 Spd. of silver, which would more than cover the remaining amount mentioned.
But as the appellant has opposed against new claims and protests from the respondent's side in the higher court, the higher court lack all formal admission in this case to embark in a ruling of the input dismissed in lower court, and as follows not ruled over there, of whether the respondent becomes any, or which, compensation for the supervision he has had of the paper mill in Rælingen; wherefore there is just as little possibility to decide, whether there could be reason to impose on the appellant the respondent's subsidiary claim to give a sworn statement thereof. As the respondent have made no remarks to the court regarding the produced balance statements, nor the particular amount therein, he can not avoid payment of the amount in the claim.
What regards the respondent's claims for mortification and fine, because of the appellant's solicitor's statement that "it clearly shows, that the counterpart has the intention to seek unjustice, and evade his debts". For the reason that the respondent by the ruling in the higher court is required to pay the debts following the claim, and that his petition as such is regarded as unfounded, one does not believe that the appellant's solicitor should be made responsible for the used expressions, or that they are mortified.
By the high court ruling 10. November 1836, the higher courts ruling was confirmed, and Roll was imposed upon to pay 60 Spd. to cover the court costs.
Mhv Olaf
Sist redigert av gj12185 den 26. juni 2012 kl. 7.38, redigert 2 ganger totalt.
Re: Nestingen Papir Molle 1836
Wow Olaf, that is remarkable, and from Gothic script as well!
It is just past midnight here so I will read it more thoroughly tonight.
Regards, Darryl
It is just past midnight here so I will read it more thoroughly tonight.
Regards, Darryl
Re: Nestingen Papir Molle 1836
G'day again Olaf
I have now read the item, I had no idea it was going to be about a legal dispute about payment for timber and managing the Nestingen paper mill. Things haven't changed very much have they, modern judgements seem just as complicated and full of legal speak.
At least I now know the name of the manager in 1824/5 that I can research, and how much he thought he should be paid.
How much would 100 speciedaler be in modern money do you think?
thank you very much again Olaf for a splendid effort
Regards, Darryl
I have now read the item, I had no idea it was going to be about a legal dispute about payment for timber and managing the Nestingen paper mill. Things haven't changed very much have they, modern judgements seem just as complicated and full of legal speak.
At least I now know the name of the manager in 1824/5 that I can research, and how much he thought he should be paid.
How much would 100 speciedaler be in modern money do you think?
thank you very much again Olaf for a splendid effort
Regards, Darryl
Re: Nestingen Papir Molle 1836
Hi Darryl.
We had a scandinavian monetary reform in 1873, when both Denmark and Sweden changed to kroner. Norway followed in 1875, at the exchange rate was set to 4 kroner for 1 Spd.
Here is a link to an online calculator for the consumer price index, where you can enter the amount and year, the first year is 1865: http://www.ssb.no/kpi/kpiregn.html
I don't know how much norwegian you understand, so please see the included picture for explanation on how to use it. Click the image to enlarge it.
You will see that 100 Spd in 1865 = 400 kr. = 26340 kr. today, so 654 Spd. 54 sk. would be worth kr. 172,395.30 today, it was not some small pocket change they fought over!
That is of course only the indexed value, what you could actually buy for that sum, and also the development between 1832 and 1865, is unknown to me.
Mvh Olaf
We had a scandinavian monetary reform in 1873, when both Denmark and Sweden changed to kroner. Norway followed in 1875, at the exchange rate was set to 4 kroner for 1 Spd.
Here is a link to an online calculator for the consumer price index, where you can enter the amount and year, the first year is 1865: http://www.ssb.no/kpi/kpiregn.html
I don't know how much norwegian you understand, so please see the included picture for explanation on how to use it. Click the image to enlarge it.
You will see that 100 Spd in 1865 = 400 kr. = 26340 kr. today, so 654 Spd. 54 sk. would be worth kr. 172,395.30 today, it was not some small pocket change they fought over!
That is of course only the indexed value, what you could actually buy for that sum, and also the development between 1832 and 1865, is unknown to me.
Mvh Olaf
Du har ikke de nødvendige tillatelsene for å vise filene som er tilknyttet dette innlegget.
Re: Nestingen Papir Molle 1836
G'day Olaf.
From what I have found on the web, it looks like the paper mill at Nestingen was quite a large business in its day, supplying a high percentage of Norway's paper in the 1800's. I'm not surprised then, that the salary of the manager was relatively high at the time.
I know very, very few Norwegian words, only those small number that I have picked up in my family research. However, google translator is a very great help, even though its English translation is often mangled but I manage to get the meaning.
Det er andre forskere på DIS-Norge som deg selv som er den virkelige hjelp.
Takk igjen for innsatsen (hope that makes sense
)
Regards
Darryl
Sydney Australia
From what I have found on the web, it looks like the paper mill at Nestingen was quite a large business in its day, supplying a high percentage of Norway's paper in the 1800's. I'm not surprised then, that the salary of the manager was relatively high at the time.
I know very, very few Norwegian words, only those small number that I have picked up in my family research. However, google translator is a very great help, even though its English translation is often mangled but I manage to get the meaning.
Det er andre forskere på DIS-Norge som deg selv som er den virkelige hjelp.
Takk igjen for innsatsen (hope that makes sense
)
Regards
Darryl
Sydney Australia
Re: Nestingen Papir Molle 1836
Haha, I rely on the researchers to help me, same as you do! 
A pity Roll didn't get paid for 18 months work, then!
One small remark; Roll says he was promised 60 Spd. of silver; they changed the Speciedaler from a coin with app. 87,5% silver content, to an ordinary paper bill, sometime during this period. Although I have no backing for this statement, it is quite possible that the silver coins may have had a higher practical value than the paper notes, very unofficiall of course...
Hmm, that Google translator is a bit scary, does that mean that we can skip norwegian in school?? (not that they learn norwegian anymore, but still...)
Mvh Olaf
Darryl skrev:I'm not surprised then, that the salary of the manager was relatively high at the time.
A pity Roll didn't get paid for 18 months work, then!
One small remark; Roll says he was promised 60 Spd. of silver; they changed the Speciedaler from a coin with app. 87,5% silver content, to an ordinary paper bill, sometime during this period. Although I have no backing for this statement, it is quite possible that the silver coins may have had a higher practical value than the paper notes, very unofficiall of course...
Hmm, that Google translator is a bit scary, does that mean that we can skip norwegian in school?? (not that they learn norwegian anymore, but still...)
Mvh Olaf