CRAPSTER v. GRIFFITH,—2 BLAND. 11

ance could be made for the maintenance of the complainant
Harriet; nor, as the proceedings stand, can he direct any altera-
tion as to the repairs, or the maintenance of the young negroes.
And, with respect to the settlement of the guardian's account by
the Orphans' Court, he is-under the impression, that the balance
of £288 12s. 7d. supposing" it not altered materially by the suc-
ceeding years, would give a value in negroes, estimated according
to the appraisement, much greater than the one reported by ac-
count No. 4.

Decreed, that, on the complainant's tendering, or offering, on
condition of an immediate compliance with this decree, to deliver
to the defendant the possession of the nine and three-quarters
acres of land, and the negro girl, mentioned in the proceedings, as
part of the consideration from the defendant, on account of which
the receipt, or release exhibit No. 6, was given, the defendant Lyde
Griffith, do forthwith pay to the complainants, or bring into this
Court, the sum of two hundred and thirty-five dollars eighty-three
cents, with interest thereon from the 19th day of December, 1813,
till paid or brought in; and do also forthwith pay over and deliver
to the said complainants the following negro slaves named and de-
scribed in account No. 4; being one-half of the personal estate in
kind, to wit, one negro lad named Ben; one negro lad named
Joseph; one negro lad named Roderick; one negro woman named
Lucy; and one negro girl named Henny—the Chancellor having
made the division or distribution in the manner stated by the
auditor; because no cause has been shewn to the contrary, not-
withstanding the service of the order of the 18th of January, on
the defendant.

*It is further decreed, that the defendant Lyde Griffith,
pay to the complainants their costs, amounting, as taxed by
the register, to $224.

The defendant appealed, and the Court of Appeals, at June
Term, 1816, affirmed the decree.

After which the plaintiffs, by their petition, stated that although
they had given the defendant notice thereof, he had not complied
therewith. Whereupon they prayed process to enforce obedience,
1785, ch. 72, s. 25, repealed by 1818, h. 193, s. 4, upon which it
was, on the 26th of June, 1816, ordered that an attachment issue
as prayed; and it was issued accordingly.

The defendant, on being taken into custody and brought before
the Court, put in his answer on oath, in which he admits, that he
had been served with a copy of the affirmed decree as set forth;
but he states, that it was agreed that they should have a meeting,
at another time and place, when the terms of the decree should be.
complied with on both sides; and the plaintiffs then admitted, that
they had in their possession property to which the defendant was