翻刻
社用ニ遣可申とて氏神の社を造営仕候処ニ遷宮之
儀ニ付神主方と祝方と申分御座候而遷宮相延申候
其後又元和九年ニ社人中ゟ造宮いたし神主民部
六甫遷宮せられ候今度御公義より御造営被成候時
迄御座候御社は社人中にたて申たる社にて御座候事
一家領五百余石押領仕候由第一迷惑仕候先程も申
上候ことく天正年中旧記ノ筋目を以指出仕り上ケ申候ニ
付其指出之高程被下候其上数度之御吟味ノ上にて
御代々ノ御朱印頂戴仕当知行いたし候処ニ押領
之由申かけ候御朱印ニ而知行仕候を押領と申さハ
日本国中之知行拝領仕候ものは皆押領人にて
御座あるへく候哉其上先規に家領と申事無御座候
由目安ニ書上ケ申候事ノ外之虚言にて御座候往古ゟ
家領とも私領とも則別相伝共申候而社司社家社
僧いつれも家領御座候則証文可懸御目候廻田之
外ニ私ノ家々ニ相伝仕る知行にて御座候故ニ家領とも
現代語訳
（その樽代を）社用に使うべきとして、氏神の社を造営いたしましたところ、遷宮の儀式についての件で神主方と祝方との間に申し分（異議・争論）がございまして、遷宮が延期となりました。その後、また元和九年（1623年）に社人中によって造宮がなされ、神主民部・六甫によって遷宮が執り行われました。今度（今回）、御公儀より御造営が行われる時まで、その御社は社人中によって建て申した社でございます。
一、家領五百余石を押領（横領）しているとのことは、第一に迷惑に存じます。先ほども申し上げましたとおり、天正年中（1573〜1592年）の旧記の筋目（根拠）をもって指出（指し出し）を仕り上げ申しましたところ、その指出の高（石高）の分だけご拝領となりました。その上、数度の御吟味（審査）の末に、歴代の御朱印を頂戴し、現在の知行（所領）といたしておりますところ、押領の由（横領したとの言い掛かり）を申しかけられております。御朱印によって知行いたしておりますものを押領と申すならば、日本国中において知行を拝領しております者は皆、押領人ということになりましょうか。その上、先規（先例・旧来の慣例）においては家領というものは存在しなかったとの旨を目安（訴状）に書き上げておりますことは、もってのほかの虚言でございます。往古（昔）より、家領とも私領とも、あるいは則別相伝（それぞれ別に相伝えるもの）とも申して、社司・社家・社僧いずれも家領がございます。これについては証文をご覧に入れることができます。廻田（回転田・輪番田）の外に、私の家々に相伝いたしております知行でございますゆえに、家領とも
英語訳
...the barrel money was to be applied to shrine expenses, and accordingly the tutelary shrine was reconstructed. However, a dispute arose between the chief priest's party (神主方) and the celebrant's party (祝方) regarding the enshrinement ceremony (遷宮), which caused the ceremony to be postponed. Thereafter, in the ninth year of the Genna era (1623), the community of shrine people (社人中) carried out the reconstruction, and the enshrinement was performed by the chief priests Minbu and Roppo. Down to the time of the present reconstruction carried out by the Shogunate (御公儀), that shrine has been one built and maintained by the community of shrine people.
One item: The claim that we have unlawfully appropriated (押領) over five hundred koku of household domain (家領) is, above all, most objectionable. As we have already stated, we submitted a cadastral declaration (指出) based on the documentary records (旧記) from the Tenshō era (1573–1592), and were granted the amount declared therein. Furthermore, after repeated official investigations (御吟味), we received the successive generations of vermillion-seal documents (御朱印) and have held the domain as our lawful tenure (知行) ever since — yet we are now charged with unlawful appropriation. If holding land under the authority of the Shogun's vermillion seal is to be called unlawful appropriation, then every person throughout all of Japan who holds land by grant would likewise be an unlawful appropriator. Moreover, the claim written in the petition (目安) that there was no such thing as "household domain" (家領) under prior precedent is a complete falsehood beyond all reason. From ancient times, these lands have been referred to variously as household domain (家領), private domain (私領), or individually inherited holdings (則別相伝), and shrine officers (社司), shrine households (社家), and shrine monks (社僧) alike all possess household domains. Documentary evidence can be produced for inspection. These are lands transmitted as individual inheritances within each household, separate from the communally rotated fields (廻田), and it is for this reason that they are called household domains...