I also have a lot of trouble deciphering the text and unfortunately can't add anything that Wolf hasn't already written. However, the Latin heading 'Citandi in posterum' (= must be summoned on the following day) gave me the idea that the text above and the lines below might have something to do with each other. Particularly interesting in the section with Lucia Neuenschwander is the introduction 'Item', which means “likewise”. I therefore think Wolf's assumption is correct that the situation would be clearer if more were known from the preceding text.

Thanks for the additional page - will take some time: to "give a general idea" it is usually easiest to first transcribe a text 🙂. At least I can now correct the first line in the previous transcription:

Item Luceÿa Neüschwander, wo ... nächster tag in Lehn =

BTW - as you are familiar with Geneal-Forum: have you just read this discussion (guest) - or are you registered with the forum? Once we have sorted out the present "issue" it would be nice if you could briefly report on the froum as well.

This text was not easy to read - the following transcription is the result of cooperation between Daniel and myself.

These are minutes of an unscheduled (usually these meetings are on scheduled days) meeting on Wednesday Nov 3 - possibly because David Funkhouser had not convinced the Higher Chorgericht in Bern (he also may not have come to this trial at all?). He seems to have strictly denied that he was the father of the child and that he had promised to marry the mother.

There is reference to "wegen seines oben geschriebenen handels" - because of the actions described above: I am not sure if the other copy (you have posted first) is the mentioned text. Are you sure there is no reference to David Fankhouser somewhere between pages 120 and 128?

Mittwuchen den 3 November ist Extraordinari
Chorgricht gehalten worden in praesentia mhhrn (meines hochwohlgeborenen Herren)
Landtvogts uff Trachselwald, und hatt erscheinen söllen

David Fankhouser im Lehn wegen seines oben geschriebenen handels
und hatt sich söllen verantworten

1. Warums er so hartt gelougnet vor mhhrn Landvogt
2. Jtem daß er hinderrucks mhhrn Landtvogts vor
   daß Ober Chorgricht zu Bern und fügt er
   fuhl (faul) in seinem leichtfertigen handel
3. hatt vor(?) mhhrn Landvogt bezeuget, er dürfte [einen]

Einen Eidt thun, dz er der Luceÿa .... versprochen, mit Jhre weder
wenig noch viell .... zu schaffen ghann, ab alsbald von dem Oberen
Chorgricht zu Bern solches bekenndt, begehrt, dz er des Chorgrichts
erlaße er wölle dz Münths z Kilchen führen, und dz kindli für daß
seinige erkennen und annemmen, und in dem chorgrichtlichen schreiben
erkennt, dz er den Landvogt und dz Chorgricht zu Trub umb seiner
groben mishandlung willen umb verzeihung bätten sölle, weillen
solhes bott nun Jhme zu wüsen gemohl worden, und er aber nicht
erschinnen ist er vor dißmphl an mhhrn Landtvogt gewiesen
worden, und sölle den ganzen handel under mhhrn Landtvogts hand
und rats bereuhwen.
Zur Straff sölle er mit mhhrn Landtvogt .....
Item die mohlzeit, so dismohlen zu Trub verzehrt, solle er bezahlen.
und sölle weiters nach seinen Meriten gestraft werden: