Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

tion; and a majority was at once discovered, in favour of both, of more than one hundred and thirty.

This was a signal triumph; but the discomfitted party were still very unwilling to yield. Chagrined at the result of this proceeding, which completely precluded the opportunity they had sought and expected, of disputing the legality of the election, and of suing the Consistory, they put into the hands of the Rev. Mr. De Ronde, the minister that presided upon the occasion, and their great friend and champion,* a paper naming certain persons for Elders, Deacons, and Church-masters. As this paper was not addressed to the Consistory, they, of course, paid no attention to it; but,after their business was concluded, the rev. gentleman took notice of it, and invited those who thought they had a right to vote, to come forth. The invitation, however, they being by this time either ashamed of their cause, or convinced that for them to make any election would only expose them to ridicule, was not obeyed. No one offered to vote.

The important law-suit, it was now expected,

* Mr. De Ronde pursued a course of conduct throughout the controversy which was much blamed, and made him many enemies. His colleague, the Rev. Mr. Ritzema, was more prudent, and uniformly acted as the friend of the English party.

would be shortly decided; and the appellant in the matter, with his friends, confident of gaining it, judged it necessary to present, in season, a protest against the late election, supposing probably that this measure would put it in their power to set the same entirely aside, as soon as the decision anticipated should be obtained. Before, therefore, the Elders, Deacons, and Church-masters elect, were inducted into their respective offices-that is, on the Friday immediately preceding the Sabbath appointed for the performance of the ceremony, they laid before the Consistory a paper called a Protest, and superscribed to the Unlawful Consistory, in which they declared that the election had been conducted contrary to the Word of God, to the Charter, and to Church Orders.* This paper was treated with the contempt it deserved; and the very next day, to the no little mortification of the whole Dutch party, the suit was determined in favour of the Consistory. A determination so un

*The protesters were "Abel Hardenbrook, William Elsworth, Teunis Tiebout, Johannis Hardenbrook, Henderecus Brevoort."

Three of the judges, Messrs. Jones, Smith, and Livingston, were in favour of the Consistory; one, Mr. Horsmanden, was in favour of Mr. Hardenbrook. The reader will probably be gratified to see an abstract of this important trial. It is given from a copy which was made and duly authenticated, for the use of the

looked for, and obliging the plaintiff to pay costs to the amount of about three hundred pounds, as will readily be supposed, very soon allayed the

late Dr. Westerlo, of Albany, and his Consistory. Mr Theodore Van Wyck, of New-York, the gentleman who procured the copy for Dr. W. observes in the letter which accompanied it, that the arguments or pleadings in the cause occupy no less than fortyeight pages, (folio) written in a small hand. The counsel for the plaintiff, were the King's attorney, Mr. Duane and Mr. Kissam;—and "the chief of their arguments was, that the members had a right to vote by" the "Charter, and that, in depriving them of that privilege, the Consistory had forfeited their Charter."The counsel for the defendants, were William Smith, Whitehead Hicks, William Livingston, and Mr. Scott, whose "arguments run upon the Constitution of the Church, and the invariable way of choosing Elders and Deacons. They proved by several eminent authorities, that if even a people had had a right to elect officers by virtue of a Charter, ****** by suffering such officers by themselves to elect others for a long time, that the said people had forfeited and lost their right of voting. They likewise proved, that in such a case the law supposed there might have been By-Laws made with consent of the people, to invest the election only in the Corporation, which law might be lost or forgot; but, in either case, the people, by not annually attending the election, lost their privilege."

"Abstracts of the Trial between Abel Hardenbrook, plaintiff, (in behalf of the Dutch party so called,) and the Elders and Deacons of the Reformed Protestant Dutch Church of the city of New-York, defendants, commenced upon the said Elders and Deacons refusing the other members of the said Church" a "vote for Church officers.

zeal for continuing the quarrel in a court of justice; and it did more ;-it went far to subdue the quarrel itself. Those who had been most averse to the

"SUPREME COURT IN THE CITY OF NEW-YORK, "April Term, Friday 26, 1765.

"At eleven of the clock in the morning came on the trial of Abel Hardenbrook, plaintiff, against John Bogert, Esq. and others, defendants, when the following jury, out of the panel which was struck the 19th inst, appeared upon call, and were sworn to try the cause, viz:

:

Samuel Verplanck,
John Starr Cruger,

David Clarkson,

Robert Griffen,

Lawrence Kortright,

Beverly Robinson,

Thomas White,
John Shoals,
William Bedlow,

John Provoost, Esq.

Lewis Paintard,

Walter Rutherford.

"After a trial of twenty-one hours, in the course of which many evidences were examined, the judge gave the following charge," (omitted) "to the jury, to bring in a special verdict upon matters of law, to be determined by solid argument before the court, but recommended to find three matters of fact upon evidence, viz :—

"1st. That the plaintiff had made a lawful demand of his vote by Jacobus Stoutenburg.

"2d. That the majority of the members assembled on that day, appeared to have been on the side of the plaintiff to vote.

"3d. That the minister of the Dutch Church had a vote in the election for Elders and Deacons.

authority and measures of the Consistory, gradually became more tame, while the Consistory, on the other hand, showed a kind, conciliatory spirit,

"All which the said jury brought in accordingly, as will appear by the following notes, which are exactly transcribed from a copy of Mr. Bangor, taken from the original verdict of the jury.

"New-York Supreme Court. John Bogert, jun. Esq. and others. } Notes of special verdict.

"Abel Hardenbrook against

"The jurors upon their oath, on the trial of the issue aforesaid, do find

"1st. That King William the Third, by his letters patent, under the great seal of the province of New-York, bearing date the 11th May, in the eighth year of his said Majesty's reign, in the year of our Lord 1696, did grant unto the Minister, Elders, and Deacons of the Reformed Protestant Dutch Church of the city of New-York-prout:

"2d. That the Lieutenant-Governor, the Council, and General Assembly of the province of New-York, by a certain act made and passed the 12th of December, 1753, entitled an act to enable the Minister, Elders, and Deacons of the Reformed Protestant Dutch Church of the city of New-York, to sell and dispose of their lands, tenements, and hereditaments, in the county of West Chester, commonly called and known by the name of the Manor of Fordham, and also for granting unto them some farther liberties and privileges for the better management of their affairs, and the well ordering of their said church, did enact-prout:

« ÎnapoiContinuă »