Thanks to a series of inheritance disputes in the early 17th Century, we know that Claus Bruch of Achtelsbach, known as “Becker Claus (Baker Claus),” had a sister named Anna who was the first wife of Nicolaus Krauss of Birkenfeld. Krauss was known as “Bruch,” indicating that the Bruch name had clout at the time. We also know that Claus and Anna had a brother named Peter who served in the Spanish army during the siege of Maastricht in 1579.
There were several disputes over land in and around Birkenfeld involving the Bruch siblings and their heirs. Anna had died in 1568 and Nicolaus Krauss then married a woman named Margretha, known as “Greth.” Nicolaus Krauss himself died in 1587, and Greth married Johannes Florius. Of Anna and Nicolaus Krauss’s two surviving sons, Bernhardt died in the 1590s and Johannes settled in Buhlenberg.
In 1603, Greth sued Claus Bruch over her claim to a field near the “Burg Pfadt”. About 30 years previously, Greth explained, her late husband Nicolaus Krauss, along with Claus Bruch and Peter Bruch agreed to a division of land they had acquired (probably inherited) from Hans Kollenbrenner.[1] Greth said that she had remained in possession of these properties undisturbed ever since. Although the case notes do not mention it, she must have sued at this time because Claus was starting to question her claim. The court agreed that her long-term possession was powerful evidence in her favor but nevertheless ordered her to provide written proof of the original division between the Kollenbrenner heirs.
In 1609, Claus sued Greth demanding that she vacate what are presumably the same properties. What happened in the intervening years is not known, but it seems that Greth did not provide the written proof of the agreement as the court had instructed in 1603. Claus and his nephew Johannes Krauss provided a written supplication to the Chancellery, which has been preserved:
“To the steadfast and honorable Lord Counselors, I cannot avoid seeking your help once again in this time of dire necessity…
I have a dispute with Bruch Grett here in Birkenfeld regarding goods and property worth about 100 gulden. I have repeatedly asserted, in my simplicity, that I am the closest heir of my late brother.
Bruch Grett is merely a wind-friend [“windt freund,” meaning a distant relative or someone only related by marriage]. She has been placed in possession of these goods, yet she cannot produce a single letter [“buchstauben”] of proof, nor a legitimate witness.
Therefore, I and my sister’s son [Johannes Krauss]—the two of us—humbly, earnestly, and for God’s sake, petition you to help us obtain our rightful justice. We have previously been treated with too much “mercy” [by the court toward Grett].
Compel Bruch Grett by law to produce a written document or a lawful witness from our late brother and uncle. If she can do that, we will let right be right.
I am an old man who has lived his life; I cannot carry such an injustice with me under the earth [to my grave]. I do not desire anything that is not right. While I still have time to live, I have the power to seek what is mine by name and lineage.
Your obedient subjects always,
Cloß Bruch of Achtelsbach
Johannes Krauss of Buhlenberg”
The resulting court case revealed much about the family. Before the Amtmann on 28 January 1609, Claus Bruch repeated his assertion that certain properties should not belong to Greth, and that she should prove her claim that Claus’s late brother Peter had given them to her. Greth responded that Peter had been a soldier and when he returned from war, he came to her house and stayed with her for six weeks. She fed and nursed him, and although it is not stated, he was probably wounded or very weak, which his subsequent death suggests. Claus, Greth told the court, came to visit. She claimed that Peter told Claus that since Greth had taken care of him for so long, and since Peter had not bothered Claus but for one night, he was determined to thank Greth by giving her his share of property, specifically a garden and a clearing. Greth claimed that all of this was recorded in a written deed witnessed by Thomas Fickeisen, the “Gruben Shoemaker” of Ellweiler (Hans Grub), and Hatgen Jacob.
Claus responded that the lands in question had originally been divided between himself and his sister Anna, the mother of Johannes Krauss of Buhlenberg. This assertion seems to imply that the land was not Peter’s to give; it is not clear what Claus meant by this. Claus claimed that he had revoked Peter’s donation of these plots before the Amtmann at the time. Regardless, he finally claimed, Peter was still a minor when this donation allegedly occurred and it was, therefore, not valid.
On 3 February, the court summoned Peter’s legal guardian Johannes Blassius of Feckweiler. Blassius provided more backstory: Peter was a soldier and he served, presumably for the Spanish army, during the siege of Maastricht in 1579. He returned in 1580 when he was about 20 years old and stayed with Greth. Blassius bought Peter a horse for 40 fl. Blassius knew nothing of this alleged donation to Greth. He did recall that Peter had suggested such a gift to him, but Blassius advised against it. When Peter died, Blassius performed a final accounting and delivered the estate in two equal parts to Claus Bruch and Nicolaus Krauss, Greth’s husband. Blassius said that if there was any remaining portion to claim, it should go to Johannes Krauss, Anna Bruch’s son (Nicolaus Krauss was, by this time, long dead).[2]
It is confusing trying to sort out the various pieces of land and the timeline of who gave what to whom. This case nevertheless reveals much that is genealogically useful, such as the fact that Anna, Claus, and Peter were siblings. It also explains why Nioclaus Krauss was known as Nicolaus Bruch. It hints that Johannes Blassius was related to his ward Peter, at least; perhaps he was his maternal uncle. The fact that the family had significant land holdings in and around Birkenfeld might also suggest that this is where the family originated.
For more information, or help with your own research, please contact me.
[1] “Kollenbrenner” is almost certainly an occupational name. “Kohlenbrenner” is a charcoal maker. This is likely the same Hans Collenbrenner who appears in the 1563 tax register for Birkenfeld. The name was common in the area, so it is not helpful in identifying who this Hans was in relation to the Bruch family.
[2] Birkenfeld Amtsprotokolle, “Bruch Gret zu Birkenfeld contra Becker Clos zu Achtelsbach,” early 1603 (LHA Ko. Best. 33, n. 14035).
Bruch Family History 