翻刻
為取替一札之事
去ル天保五午年四月中町方焼失之砌
非常為防町幅相広め見通し宜様
被 仰付候ニ付一同町幅相広め致
家作候処有賀治右衛門土蔵弐ヶ所
町並之通切縮め可申之処扣屋敷多
分有之ニ付普請追々延引ニ相成
居候処当四月中先年焼失ニ無之
往来江出張居候土蔵之儀者其侭
普請いたし候而不苦旨被 仰出
一同奉畏候然ル処新町分有賀治右衛門
土蔵七間弐寸之場所町並江出張候分
其侭差置候而者家並見通し不宜
往々町内衰微之基ニ茂可相成哉与
町役人中迄歎願申立理解中之処
度々難渋申立候程之廉茂不相見
現代語訳
## 取替一札の事（交換証書）
去る天保5年（1834年）午年4月、町方が焼失した際、非常時の延焼防止と町幅を広げて見通しを良くするようにとのご命令が下りましたので、町人一同は町幅を広げて家を建て直しました。ところが、有賀治右衛門の土蔵2か所については、町並みに合わせて切り縮めるべきところ、控え屋敷（隣接地）が多くあったため、工事が次第に延引となっておりました。
そうしたところ、今年（嘉永4年・1851年）4月に、「先年の焼失の際に焼けなかった土蔵で、以前から往来に出張（突き出て）いたものについては、そのまま普請（建築・修繕）しても差し支えない」とのお達しが出され、一同謹んで承知いたしました。
しかしながら、新町の有賀治右衛門の土蔵・7間2寸の場所が町並みに出張っている部分について、そのまま放置しておいては家並みの見通しが悪く、将来的に町内衰微の原因にもなりかねないと、町役人の方々へ嘆願を申し立て、話し合いを重ねてまいりました。ところが、（有賀治右衛門側は）たびたび難渋（困難）を申し立てるほどの正当な理由も見受けられず、
英語訳
## Certificate of Mutual Exchange (Agreement Document)
During the fire that destroyed part of the town in the fourth month of Tenpō 5 (1834), the Year of the Horse, an order was issued to widen the streets and improve sightlines as a precaution against the spread of fire. Accordingly, all townspeople widened the street frontages and rebuilt their homes. However, regarding the two storehouses (dozō) of Ariga Jirōemon, which should have been cut back to align with the new street frontage, construction was repeatedly delayed due to the presence of adjacent reserve land (hikae-yashiki).
Then, in the fourth month of this year (Kaei 4, 1851), a directive was issued stating that storehouses which had not burned in the previous fire and which had already been protruding into the street could be rebuilt as-is without any problem. All parties humbly accepted this directive.
However, with regard to the section of Ariga Jirōemon's storehouse in Shinmachi that protrudes into the street alignment by a span of 7 ken and 2 sun, leaving it as it is would result in poor sightlines along the row of buildings, and could well become a cause of decline for the neighborhood in the future. The town officials (machiyakunin) submitted a petition and engaged in repeated discussions on the matter. However, Ariga's side repeatedly raised objections, yet no legitimate grounds for such objections were apparent,