Must it not then be evidently unconscionable that the Intention of the Legislature sliould be disapointed ; the Complainant defrauded ; & the Defendants suffered to pocket the Money and convert it to their own Benefit 1 It is indeed objected that by the Act a Warrant for their Justification is necessary, & that none has been presented -- To which it is answ^ered -- That the Decree will prove as effectual an Indemnification as the Warrant itself; and that if nothing more than their safety was in question there coiiid be no reason for objections.

In our former Argument it was shown that at Law the Complainant has no ReUef-- That the Process by Mandamus cannot be adequate ; And it was not even asserted tliat he could maintain an Action at Law. Beside it is one of the great Prerogatives of Equity, and which is daily exercised, to give a specific Eemedy for the very thing in Question even where th^ Party has an unquestionable Action at Law for Damages lor the Injury.

If then a Mandamus would have been proper for tlie Complainant, or even an Action against the Justices and Vestry for Damages for withholding the Warrant, still it is conceived that his way must have been open for a specific Relief in this Coui-t, especially as a Discoverv & account were essential to fix the Sum *

1 Ca. Ld Talbofs time 40. Vin. Ch. 288. 1 Harrison 46.

SJ4 PAPERS KELATINQ TO CHURCHES IN QUEENS COUNTY.