[E.B. O'Callaghan (ed.) (1856)] (vSigned) P. Stuyvesant. (Endorsed) Protest on behalf of Cornells Melyn against Director Stuyvesant, and the Answer of Stuyvesant that he would send an Attorney; refuses the Protester's demand for copies of the papers to be used against him, as they must be applied for by the party. No. 10. We, the undersigned, at the request of Cornells Melyn, and in virtue of certain Mandamus granted him by their High Mightinesses, did, on the sixteenth of March, 1G49, summon the Hon''''' Lubbert van Dincklage, Vice-Director of New Netherland, to appear by the first opportunity at the Hague, before their High Mightinesses, there to hear such demand and conclusion as Cornells Melyn shall institute or make against him; and copy of the aforesaid Mandamus is left with the defendant. Whereunto he made answer: That he was led into error, and consequently induced to vote for such sentence, by not having communication of divers affidavits and other p:ipers and documents, which, as he now discovers, were essential to the defence of the condemned; also, by its being resolved, at the meeting of Director Stuyvesant and other persons, called to the Council for that occasion, that Jochem Pietersen Kuyter and Cornells Melyn, were not qualified, and therefore had no power to write about public afiairs; whilst affidavits and papers tending to their prejudice and injury, were, on the contrary, duly exhibited to him in the council. Done as above, on the Manhatans, in New Netherland, etc.