翻刻
難取極儀有之候ハヽ伺之上可取扱旨御目付長谷部小右衛門申聞有之事
附紙伺
質物取次候もの何町或者何村之慥成住人名前を以質物持参いたし候節質屋能存居候者
ニ而も別ニ証人取之候儀哉又ハ住所名元等質屋慥ニ存居候者ニ候得ハ其者証人ニ相成別ニ
証人を立候ニハ不及儀ニ候哉
右之通附紙を以御目付へ相伺候処長谷部小右衛門御家老中へ伺有之申聞有之候ハ質物持参之者住
所名元等慥成ものニ而質屋慥ニ存居見知候ものニ候得ハ其者証人ニ相成別ニ証人を立候ニハ不及
質屋心得ニ可有之儀右様ニ無之而ハ常之質物取扱難出来儀尤盗物与疑敷も存候ハヽ慥ニ存
居候者ニ而も別而念入別ニ証人可取之儀右之趣ニ候得ハ盗物質屋吟味之場ニ至り候節質物持
参之者与別ニ証人可有之儀ニ相当ル段申聞有之事
一他国他領ニ而盗候品御領之取次人を以御領分之質屋へ質置先方ゟ掛合有之取上遣候節
大方右趣意を以可取扱将又御領分ニ而盗候品他国他領へ取次人を以同方之質屋へ質ニ
置此方ニ而掛合受取候節ハ御定法を以押而掛合遣候而も先方之定法も可有之哉ニ候得ハ時宜
ニ応シ取計可然旨申聞有之事
但右御定書之儀ハ公辺御役筋ゟ御内分御取請候事故表向ニ而右御定書之通与ハ難押
通儀ニ有之候乍去御料御預所之分ハ御定書之通押而掛合候而も宜旨申聞有之事
文政四巳年四月 高村新五兵衛
今立五郎太夫
伊藤助十郎
文政八酉八月十一日御用書を以被仰出左之通
一盗物と不存証人取之如通例質ニ取吟味之上盗物之儀不存訳ニ決候ハヽ証人へ元銀為償質物
ハ取返シ被盗候者へ相渡可申事
但証人右償金出来不申候ハヽ家屋敷等迄為売払身代限申付其上ニ而元銀不足之分被盗候
者半銀相償質屋半銀可為損失候尤証人無之或ハ不念之質取方ニ候ハヽ質屋可致
損金其上咎可申付事
一他国并他領等之盗物質物ニ取候節ハ前々之通取扱可申事
〆
一毛屋繰舟船頭押込之儀御城下之部繰舟之処ニ出之
一寛政二戌六月并十一月町四郡へ被仰出候御仕置者引渡等之儀御仕置之条并吟味僉議等之部ニ出之
【左上朱書き】オ
現代語訳
取り極めることが困難な事案がある場合は、伺いを立てた上で取り扱うべき旨を、御目付の長谷部小右衛門が申し聞かせたこと。
附紙による伺い
質物の取次をする者が、何町あるいは何村のしっかりとした住人の名前で質物を持参した際、質屋がよく存じている者であっても、別に証人を取るものでしょうか。または住所・名前などを質屋が確かに存じている者であれば、その者が証人となり、別に証人を立てるには及ばないものでしょうか。
右の通り附紙をもって御目付へ相伺ったところ、長谷部小右衛門が御家老中へ伺いがあり申し聞かせがありました。質物持参の者の住所・名前などが確かなもので、質屋が確かに存じており見知っている者であれば、その者が証人となり、別に証人を立てるには及ばず、質屋の心得にあるべきことです。そのようでなければ、通常の質物取り扱いが困難になるのはもっともです。盗物と疑わしく思う場合は、確かに存じている者であっても特に念入りに別に証人を取るべきことです。右の趣旨であれば、盗物と質屋を吟味する場に至った際、質物持参の者とは別に証人がいるべきことが相当であると申し聞かせがあったこと。
一、他国他領で盗んだ品を御領の取次人を通して御領分の質屋へ質入れし、先方から掛け合いがあり取り上げて遣わす際は、大方右の趣意をもって取り扱うべきです。また御領分で盗んだ品を他国他領へ取次人を通して同方の質屋へ質入れし、こちらで掛け合いして受け取る際は、御定法をもって押して掛け合いを遣わしても、先方の定法もあるでしょうから、時宜に応じて取り計らうべき旨を申し聞かせがあったこと。
ただし右の御定書の件は、公辺の御役筋より御内分で御取り請けした事であるため、表向きでは右の御定書の通りとは押し通し難い事情があります。しかしながら御料・御預所の分については、御定書の通り押して掛け合っても宜しい旨を申し聞かせがあったこと。
文政四年巳年四月 高村新五兵衛
今立五郎太夫
伊藤助十郎
文政八年酉八月十一日、御用書をもって申し渡された左の通り
一、盗物と存ぜず証人を取り、通例の如く質に取り、吟味の上で盗物の件を存じない訳に決した場合は、証人へ元銀を償わせ、質物は取り返して被盗者へ渡すべきこと。
ただし証人が右の償い金を出すことができない場合は、家屋敷等まで売り払わせ身代限りを申し付け、その上で元銀の不足分については被盗者が半分を償い、質屋が半分を損失とするべきです。もっとも証人がないか、または不念な質取り方の場合は、質屋が損金を負い、その上咎めを申し付けるべきこと。
一、他国並びに他領等の盗物を質物に取った際は、前々の通り取り扱うべきこと。
一、毛屋繰舟船頭押込の件は、御城下の部の繰舟の処に出している。
一、寛政二年戌六月並びに十一月に町四郡へ申し渡された御仕置者引渡等の件は、御仕置の条並びに吟味僉議等の部に出している。
英語訳
When there are cases that are difficult to determine, they should be handled after making an inquiry, as instructed by Inspector (metsuke) Hasebe Koemon.
Attached paper inquiry:
When those who act as intermediaries for pawned items bring pawned goods using the names of reliable residents from specific towns or villages, even if the pawnshop knows them well, should separate guarantors still be taken? Or if the pawnshop reliably knows the person's residence and identity, would that person serve as guarantor, making it unnecessary to establish separate guarantors?
When the above inquiry was made to the Inspector via attached paper, Hasebe Koemon consulted with the senior councilors and conveyed the following: If the person bringing pawned items has reliable residence and identity information and is someone the pawnshop reliably knows and recognizes, that person can serve as guarantor and it is unnecessary to establish separate guarantors - this should be the pawnshop's understanding. Without this arrangement, normal handling of pawned items would be difficult, which is reasonable. However, if there is suspicion that items might be stolen, even for persons reliably known, extra care should be taken to secure separate guarantors. Given this principle, when it comes to investigating stolen goods and pawnshops, it is appropriate that there should be guarantors separate from those who brought the pawned items.
1. When goods stolen in other provinces or domains are pawned at pawnshops within our domain through intermediaries from our domain, and there is a claim from the other party requesting return, such cases should generally be handled according to the above principles. When goods stolen within our domain are pawned at pawnshops in other provinces or domains through intermediaries, and we make claims for their recovery, even if we press our case according to our regulations, the other party likely has their own regulations, so matters should be handled according to circumstances.
However, since the above regulations were privately received from official government channels, it is difficult to openly insist on following these regulations exactly. Nevertheless, for areas directly under government control (goryō) and areas under government custody (azukari-sho), it is acceptable to press claims strictly according to these regulations.
Bunsei 4, Snake year, 4th month Takamura Shingobyōe
Imadate Gorōdayū
Itō Sukejūrō
On the 11th day of the 8th month of Bunsei 8, Rooster year, the following was announced through official documents:
1. When stolen goods are unknowingly accepted with guarantors as is customary for pawning, and investigation determines the person was unaware they were stolen goods, the guarantor should compensate with the original money, the pawned item should be retrieved and returned to the theft victim.
However, if the guarantor cannot produce the compensation money, their house, property, etc. should be sold and personal bankruptcy declared. For any remaining shortfall in the original money, the theft victim should pay half and the pawnshop should bear half as loss. If there are no guarantors or the pawning was done carelessly, the pawnshop should bear the financial loss and additionally be punished.
1. When stolen goods from other provinces and domains are accepted as pawned items, they should be handled as in the past.
1. Regarding forced entry by boatmen of cotton transport boats, this appears in the section on transport boats in the castle town area.
1. Regarding the transfer of criminals as announced to the town and four districts in the 6th and 11th months of Kansei 2, Inu year, this appears in the sections on criminal punishment regulations and investigation deliberations.