186 JONES v. MAGILL.—1 BLAND.

discharged. In answer to this statement of facts, Magiil, as to
some most material particulars, responds merely by way of hearsay
from the defendant Gittings; and the answer of Harding, looking
to the allegations of the bill, is that of a particeps fraudis; and as
such cannot be allowed to be of any avail to Magiil, the creditor
*and alleged party to the fraud. Sridgman v. Green, 2 Fes.
198 629. The loan of the $500 was made by the defendant Git-
tings; the note for it, on which the judgment at law was obtained,
was given to him; and it is admitted, that he, as having been privy

to the plaintiffs the sum of $7,359.55, with interest from the 17th May, 180S.
and costs.

CHAPLINE v. BEATTY.—This bill was filed on the 9th of January, 1807, by
Joseph Chapline against Charles A. Beatty, Abner Ritchie, John T. Mason,
and James Williams. It states, that the defendants Beatty and Ritchie had,
as administrators of Charles Beatty, deceased, obtained a judgment in an
action of debt against his plaintiff, for £351, with interest thereon from the
16th of February, 1791; and in an action on the case they had also obtained
judgment against this plaintiff for the sum of £534 3s. 5d.. bearing interest
from the 4th of December, 1801; which judgments were rendered at the
same time upon an agreement between this plaintiff and the defendants
Beatty and Ritchie, that there should be such deductions and discounts from
them as could be made to appear within a limited time, to Walter S. Chand-
ler: that this plaintiff had produced his vouchers to the arbitrator Chandler,
who postponed the consideration of the matter to another time: that the
defendants Beatty and Ritchie then produced other claims against this
plaintiff, not embraced by the judgments; that the arbitrator, without
notice to this plaintiff, or paying due regard to his vouchers, made and re-
turned an award before the appointed time, by which he gave to this plain-
tiff credit for less than he was entitled to, and applied the payments to one
of the judgments only, leaving the other to bear interest from the longest
time; that afterwards the judgment in the action of debt was entered for
the use of John T. Mason; and that in the action on the case for the use of
James Williams, who had caused writs of fieri facias to be issued and levied
on the property of this plaintiff for the whole amount. Whereupon the
plaintiff prayed for general relief, and for an injunction to stay the further
proceedings at law.

The plaintiff gave two separate injunction bonds, one to the defendants
Beatty and Ritchie, for the use of Mason, and the other to Beatty and Ritchie,
for the use of Williams, for the respective amounts of the several judgments.

KILTY. C., 9th January, 1807.—Let subpoena and injunction, or injunc-
tions issue as prayed; provided, that any motion for dissolving shall not be
delayed for want of the answers of the defendants Mason and Williams.

On the 18th of May, 1807, all the defendants put in their answers, in which
they denied all the material matters of fact upon which the plaintiff's equity
was founded. The answers of Beatty, Ritchie, and Mason, were sworn to
before a Justice of the Peace, in the District of Columbia; and the clerk of
Washington County, of that District, certified, that he was then and there
duly commissioned as a Justice of the Peace. Upon these answers the de-
fendants gave notice of a motion to dissolve; and on the 7th July, 1807, the
injunction was thereupon dissolved.