STRIKE'S CASE.—1 BLAND. 59

come in for a proportion of said funds; and have not applied to be
let in for such distribution. 5th. Because said report and account
are not in conformity with the evidence in the cause, or warranted
by the principles of equity, and are in other respects erroneous.

The defendant, Strike, excepted to the report of the auditor.
1st. Because the auditor hath not stated the claim of the said
Strike which is filed in the said cause, and the evidence which
shows the veracity of the said claim sufficiently proved therein.
2d. Because the auditor in his report hath mistaken both the law
and the fact relating to the said claim of the defendant Nicholas
Strike.

WARD, A. J., 31st January, 1825.—In this cause, upon motion
of the complainants' solicitor, it is ordered and decreed, that it be
referred to the auditor of this Court, to state an account of the
sums appearing due in this cause from the defendants, or either of
them, to the plaintiffs; and also to take an account from the proofs
in the cause, or such other proofs as may be required by him of the
rents and profits of the several premises contained in the deeds of
16th January, 1811, from the defendant Rogers to the defendant
Strike; and also of the taxes and necessary repairs paid on the
same by him; and also such further account as he may be directed
to take by the said plaintiff's or defendants, and submit the same
by report to this Court, reserving further consideration, &c.

On the 17th May, 1825, the auditor reported, that since his
former report, the complainants had filed additional claims against
Rogers, which were therewith stated. And the auditor further
reports, that since the 13th February, 1824, when he stated an
account between the estate of John Rogers and Henry W. Rogers,
and * Samuel Moale, trustees of the said John Rogers, and
made a statement of the claims against said John Rogers, 65
(which said account and statement are tiled in this Court,) the
complainants in this case have filed additional claims against said
Rogers, which are herewith stated. And the auditor further re-
ports, that the claims of Hollingsworth & Worthington and Irvine
& Beatty, contained in the aforegoing statement, have been with-
drawn; and that, except the schedule of John Rogers, there is no
proof to establish any of the claims contained therein, but the
claims of the complainants and of Robert Taylor. That the claim
of the said Taylor is for a judgment rendered against Robert
Henderson, the former partner of Rogers, at October Term, 1812,
of Baltimore County Court, on a joint action with Rogers, which
said judgment was revived against Henderson at March Term,
1821. The auditor further reports, that he has herewith made a
statement of the rents received by Strike, and the sums expended
in repairs done on the property in this cause mentioned, and in