Documentary History of the State of New York, Vol. III

I am informed t'.iat in tliis suit the Counsel upon the part of tlie C:iurch always designed to put tlie matter on some points of the law which are clearly in the Church's favor & accordingly in tlie time of trial offered to demur in law but was diverted tlierefrom by the late Chief Justice Lewis Morris Esq'- (before wliom tlie trial was) who told them he would recommend it to tlie Jury to liud a special verdict and if they did not, but found generally & against the Church, lie would then allow a new trial which alter tlie Jury had Ibund a general verdict against tlie Churcli Jie abso lutely refused wlien the Counsel for the Church laid claim to his promise & strongly insisted upon the benefit thereof. I have been told by some of the Counsel for tlie Cimrch tliat the only seeming reason he gave for his denial was that a bad promise was better broke than kept & tlius an end was put to the controversy.

This matter of fact Iiappening in the latter end of M'" Poj-er's days the toucliing brieily thereon leads me to an account of what was consequent upon it & happened since my settlement in Jamaica -- The people being destitute of a C!iurch to perform their devotions to Almighty God were forced to assemble together for 3 or 4 years in the Town liouse a place very improper for divine service for many reasons tliat might be given and so a great many were disheartened & discour.iged from doing their duty on tlie Lord's day -- In tliis condition I served them near upon two 3^ears & then the people here (l)el .-iiging to the Church) began to exert tliemsclves to the utter nust of their abilities towards building tl^em a new one Ixit fin ling of themselves t!iey could not accomplish this underlaking were obliged to aj.ply to several well disposed Christians in t!iis province from whom they received considerable ]iel])S and in an