御咎之部并赦 - 翻刻

翻刻

　方ゟ右五郎兵衛御咎書付并請人名元書等を以請人支配頭町奉行荒川十右衛門方へ相達候事
　依之十右衛門方ニ而夫々申渡候事　但伝兵衛当月月番ニ付取扱右之通
一文政十三寅三月十八日御家老中被申聞候ハ百姓町人共御家中之面々江不礼等いたし候節押込入牢申
　付候様町奉行郡奉行へ相届候ハヽ以後其支配ゟ御家老中へ申達候様御用番狛帯刀方荻野鍋
　八郎へ被申聞候右ニ付是迄ハ支配頭ゟ御目付へ斗相達候得共以後ハ御家老中江も相達候様支配
　有之面々江申達之
一天保二卯五月酒井与三左衛門方領知之百姓致追放度旨以家来被申達候ニ付御用番へ相伺候処致
　勝手次第候様被申聞候ニ付其趣与三左衛門方家来召呼申聞之与三左衛門方ゟ郡奉行へ被申越候事
　右取扱去文政十三寅三月狛木工方中間今助追放取扱同様之事家来追放之部ニ出之
一天保二卯七月御朱印地門前住居之者過料之儀ニ付寺社御奉行脇坂中務大輔殿へ御内伺
　之処右役方ゟ附紙左之通
　　領分内ニ有之候御朱印地之寺院門前地住居之者与領分之者与引合有之候節落着
　之上双方過料銭申付候節門前之者過料銭之儀ハ領主へ以差出候事ニ候哉又ハ寺院
　之方へ過料銭為差出候事ニ候哉兼而為心得御内々相伺度奉存候
　　　　　七月　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　御名内　御留守居名
　御附紙
　　御領分附属之御朱印地寺院門前住居之者并御領分之者与引合有之吟味

　　之上落着之節過料被申付候上門前地住居之者過料銭も御領主へ被取上不苦筋与
　　被存候
　　　　〆
一天保　　五月盗物質物取揚之儀ニ付御徒目付共ゟ差出候書付并諸書付之覚
　　　　　　　演説
　　先達而ゟ盗物質物取揚方之儀ニ付町役所と三郡役所掛合有宿者旧来定書を以落合不申趣右
　　定書之儀ハ小林又右衛門町奉行勤中相定候事之由ニ而爾与上ゟ被仰出ニ而ハ無之趣然処文政八酉年盗
　　物質物御定書御用書を以被仰出候後ハ有宿者之旧来定書も相立不申被仰出候御用書を以取扱
　　可申筈之由左候半而ハ酉年之御用書相立不申儀ニ可有之候得ハ町役所旧来定書之儀ハ御取用無
　　之酉年御定書被相立町方三郡共取扱候様被仰付可然乍併誠之様子ニ寄御定書之趣ニ難取
　　扱儀も可有之哉ニ候得ハ吟味口書之模様ニ寄双方示談候取扱方可有之候得ハ何分有宿無宿之不及沙
　　汰酉年之御定書を以取扱候様被仰付候而ハ如何可有御座哉之御事　　五月御徒目付共
　貞享三寅年三月御家被仰出御書付左之通
　　　　　　　　定
　一質物取申者置主見知たりと云共住所慥ニ見届可申候不見知者ニハ口合究帳面判形取其上□

現代語訳

方より右の五郎兵衛の咎め書付並びに請人・名元書等をもって、請人支配頭町奉行荒川十右衛門方へ伝達した事。
これにより十右衛門方にてそれぞれ申し渡した事。ただし伝兵衛は当月の月番につき取り扱いは右の通り。

一、文政十三年寅年三月十八日、家老中が申し聞かせたのは、百姓・町人らが御家中の面々に無礼等をした場合、押込・入牢を申し付けるよう町奉行・郡奉行へ届け出れば、以後その支配から家老中へ申し達するよう、御用番狛帯刀方の荻野鍋八郎へ申し聞かせたとのこと。これにつき、これまでは支配頭から目付へのみ伝達していたが、以後は家老中へも伝達するよう、支配のある面々へ申し達した。

一、天保二年卯年五月、酒井与三左衛門方の領知の百姓を追放したい旨、家来をもって申し達してきたため、御用番へ伺ったところ、勝手次第との回答があったため、その趣旨を与三左衛門方の家来を召喚して申し聞かせ、与三左衛門方から郡奉行へ申し越した事。
右の取り扱いは去る文政十三年寅年三月の狛木工方の中間今助追放取り扱いと同様のこと。家来追放の部に出ている。

一、天保二年卯年七月、朱印地門前住居の者の過料の件につき、寺社奉行脇坂中務大輔殿へ内々で伺ったところ、右の役方から付紙が左の通り。
領分内にある朱印地の寺院門前地住居の者と領分の者との間で争いがあった場合、落着の上で双方に過料銭を申し付ける際、門前の者の過料銭は領主へ差し出すことになるのか、又は寺院の方へ過料銭として差し出すことになるのか、かねて心得のため内々で伺いたく存じます。
七月　　　　　　　　　御名内　御留守居名

御付紙
御領分付属の朱印地寺院門前住居の者並びに御領分の者との間で争いがあり、吟味の上落着した際、過料を申し付けられた上で、門前地住居の者の過料銭も御領主へ取り上げられて差し支えない筋と存じます。

一、天保年間五月、盗物質物取り上げの件につき、徒目付らから差し出した書付並びに諸書付の覚
演説
先達てより盗物質物取り上げ方の件につき、町役所と三郡役所で掛け合いがあったが、旧来の定書では落ち合わない趣。右の定書の件は小林又右衛門町奉行勤務中に定めたことで、爾来上から申し渡されたものではない趣。然るに文政八年酉年に盗物質物御定書が御用書をもって申し渡された後は、旧来の定書も成り立たず、申し渡された御用書をもって取り扱うべきはずとのこと。左様であるならば酉年の御用書が成り立たない件があるであろうから、町役所の旧来定書の件は御取り上げなく、酉年御定書を相立て、町方・三郡とも取り扱うよう申し付けるのが良いでしょう。併しながら、実情の様子により御定書の趣旨では取り扱い難い件もあるかと思われるので、吟味口書の模様により双方示談での取り扱い方もあるでしょうから、何分有宿・無宿の沙汰に及ばず、酉年の御定書をもって取り扱うよう申し付けてはいかがでしょうか。
五月　徒目付ら

貞享三年寅年三月、御家で申し渡された御書付は左の通り
定
一、質物を取る者は、置き主を見知っていると言っても、住所を確かに見届けるべきである。見知らぬ者には口合・究帳面・判形を取り、その上で□

英語訳

From his office, the punishment document for the aforementioned Gorōbei, along with guarantor and registrar documents, were transmitted to the guarantor's administrative head, town magistrate Arakawa Jūemon.
Accordingly, each matter was announced from Jūemon's office. However, since Denbei was the monthly duty officer that month, the handling was as described above.

1. On March 18th of the 13th year of Bunsei (1830), the senior councilors announced that when farmers and townspeople commit discourtesy toward members of the samurai household, if confinement or imprisonment is reported to town magistrates and district magistrates, henceforth such matters should be reported from their jurisdiction to the senior councilors. This was communicated to Ogino Nabehachirō of Koma Tatewaki's office, who served as duty officer. Regarding this matter, whereas previously administrative heads only reported to magistrates, henceforth they should also report to senior councilors, and this was communicated to all those with administrative authority.

1. In May of the 2nd year of Tenpō (1831), a retainer of Sakai Yosazaemon requested permission to banish a farmer from Yosazaemon's domain. When this was brought to the duty officer, the response was that it was at his discretion. This decision was communicated to Yosazaemon's retainer who was summoned, and Yosazaemon reported this to the district magistrate.
This handling was the same as the banishment case of Imasuke, a servant of Koma Mokutaka, in March of the 13th year of Bunsei. This appears in the section on retainer banishment.

1. In July of the 2nd year of Tenpō (1831), regarding fines for residents of temple gate towns on vermillion seal land, a private inquiry was made to Temples and Shrines Magistrate Wakizaka Nakatsukasa-no-Taiyu, who responded with the following attached note:
When there are disputes between residents of temple gate towns on vermillion seal temple lands within the domain and domain residents, and after settlement both parties are fined, should the fines from gate town residents be submitted to the domain lord, or should the fines be submitted to the temple? We would like to inquire privately about this for future reference.
July [Signed] In the name of the lord, Caretaker's name

Attached note:
Regarding disputes between residents of temple gate towns on vermillion seal lands attached to your domain and your domain residents, when fines are imposed after investigation and settlement, it is acceptable for the domain lord to collect fines from gate town residents as well.

1. In May of the Tenpō era, regarding the confiscation of stolen goods and pawned items, documents submitted by foot magistrates and records of various documents:
Explanation:
There have been ongoing consultations between the town office and three-district office regarding the handling of stolen goods and pawned items, but they cannot reach agreement using the old regulations. These regulations were established during Kobayashi Matauemon's tenure as town magistrate and were not officially proclaimed from above. However, after the official proclamation of regulations on stolen goods and pawned items was issued via official documents in the 8th year of Bunsei (1825), the old regulations no longer apply, and matters should be handled according to the proclaimed official documents. If this is the case, then the official documents from 1825 should take precedence over the town office's old regulations. The 1825 regulations should be upheld and applied to both town and three-district areas. However, depending on actual circumstances, there may be cases difficult to handle according to the regulations, so depending on the nature of investigation records, there may be ways to handle matters through bilateral consultation. In any case, regardless of whether one has or lacks permanent residence, how about ordering that matters be handled according to the 1825 regulations?
May, Foot Magistrates

Official document proclaimed by the household in March of the 3rd year of Jōkyō (1686):
Regulations:
1. Those who accept pawned items, even if they claim to know the depositor, must verify the address with certainty. For unknown persons, verbal agreements, detailed records, and seal impressions must be obtained, and then □