STRIKE'S CASE.—1 BLAND. 89

in Baltimore County Court against Henderson, the partner of
Rogers; and Hollingsworth & Worthington merely say, that the
only demand they now have against Rogers, is for twenty dollars,
lent him several years ago:—but these claims are so utterly desti-
tute of any support, by proof of any sort, that they must be re-
jected. There are then, in fact, no claims of any other creditors
of the defendant Rogers, which the auditor can be allowed to stare
and report for confirmation.

Upon the principles before explained. Strike must be charged
with the rents and profits, or full value of the property in ques-
tion, from the date of the deeds from Rogers to him, to the day of
the sale by the trustee. The amount, or what has been the lull
value during that time, must be collected and ascertained by the
auditor from the proofs in the cause; and, for the reasons already
given, Strike's claims for repairs, improvements, and advances,
must be totally rejected.
The practice in the Chancery Court of this State, is wholly un-
like that in the Chancery Court of England, in relation to excep-
tions to the depositions of witnesses. Here, the testimony having
been taken publicly before the commissioners; 1785, ch. 72; there
is no formal order or rule for the publication of it, as in England;
but when the commission is returned, it is opened by the Chancel-
lor or the register, and objections of every kind to the testimony,
are taken and considered at the hearing of the cause. In this
case objections have been made to the reading of the depositions
of two of the witnesses, on the ground of their being interested.
The proofs are all now to be sent to the auditor, upon which he is
to found some of the particulars of the account he is directed to
state. But * he should not be suffered to make any state-
ments derived from the testimony of incompetent witnesses 97
or illegal evidence. Therefore these objections do not come now
too late, and must be decided on for the government of the
auditor.

The Chancellor considers it as sufficiently apparent, upon the
proceedings, without going into a statement of the case, and

his reasons, that John Rogers, the defendant, is an interested wit-
ness; and therefore, the whole of his testimony must be rejected.
Murray v. Shadwell, 2 Fes, & Bea. 401. The reading of the depo-
sition of Alexander Irvine, has also been objected to, on the ground
of his interest. It does not, however, sufficiently appear, that he
was a creditor of Rogers, and interested at the time; and there-
fore the objection to his testimony must be overruled. A paper
purporting to be the answer of Strike to a petition of the com-
plainants filed in Baltimore County Court against him, has been
insisted on as applicable aud furnishing evidence pertinent to this
case. But from its phraseology and general tenor, it is evident,
that it cannot be a part of the pleadings in this suit; and without