CRAPSTER v. GRIFFITH.—2 BLAND 13

in which he refers to and invokes the proceedings of the former
salt into this; and then states, that the defendant had retained
and received the profits of the negroes allotted to this plaintiff
until the last day of November, 1816; that the commission, in the
former case, under which proof had been taken ascertaining the
sex and age of all the negroes in the possession of the defendant,
which were of the estate of the late Vachel Dorsey, was closed on
the 8th of September, 1810; since which time, and before the decree
of the 12th of February, 1814, Lucy, one of the negroes decreed
to the plaintiff, had had two children, the one named Alfred, and
the other named Coffee; and that Milly, another of the negroes
decreed to the plaintiff, had also had a. child in the same interval
of time, named Eliza; which three negro children the defendant
refused to deliver, and claimed as his own. That Harriet, the wife
of this plaintiff, had joined him in a * deed conveying all
her real estate, in the proceedings mentioned, to Dennis D. 16
Howard, who had conveyed the same to this plaintiff; after which
she died. That the defendant had, while he acted as guardian of
the late Harriet, and during her minority, obtained from the land
office, a warrant to affect some vacancy, under which he had
obtained a patent for nine and three-quarter acres of vacancy ad-
joining her land, which was obtained for her benefit. That the
plaintiff had not been able to deliver possession of the land to the
defendant, as directed by the decree; because he could not ascer-
tain its true location; and the defendant had taken no steps to
ascertain it; but intended, as the plaintiff believed, to throw down
the fences, and expose the plaintiff's crops to great damage,under
pretence of resorting to the land he had so obtained. Whereupon
it was prayed, that the defendant might be ordered to deliver to
the plaintiff the negroes, born after the close of the commission,
and before the decree; to account for the value of the labor of the
other negroes, from the 19th of December, 1813, the date of the
auditor's report, to the last day of November, 1816, when they
were delivered; to convey to the plaintiff the adjacent vacant land
for which he had obtained a patent, upon being refunded the
amount of expenses incurred in obtaining the same; and that he
might have such other relief as was suited to the nature of his
case.

The defendant, in his answer to this bill, admits the proceedings
in the former suit, and that he had not delivered the negroes before
the time mentioned; because the plaintiff had failed to comply
with the terms of the decree on his part, that he then held the
three negro children, as alleged; because he believed himself to
be lawfully entitled to them. That he had not taken up any
vacant land adjacent to the land of his ward, or for her use; but
had obtained a patent for some land, for which he had fully paid.
And he further alleged, that as it appeared to be the object of the