CRAPSTER v. GRIFFITH.—2 BLAND. 15

because the account then taken, up to the 19th of December, 1813,
was predicated upon an assumption, that the negroes of Vachel
Dorsey was indisputably worth yearly the interest of the sum at

*which they were appraised, over and above the expense of raising

* their increase. And if there were any inequality in the
duration of them, it is now too late to rectify it, directly or 18
indirectly. It was made from a view of the testimony then had,
with notice to the defendant, both before and alter it was made;
and then confirmed by the Court in the absence of any objection
on his part, notwithstanding such notice.

The valuation of the two negroes, Walter and Mary, said to have
been returned in the inventory, and to have died some time after-
wards, does not appear in this inventory or elsewhere. They are
not even named in it; and all the negroes are valued together,
and not separately. And the auditor is not satisfied, that if so
returned, and since dead, they have not been already passed to
the credit of the administrators in their final account rendered to
the Orphans' Court. Of the fees and taxes, and their amount, said
to have been paid by the defendant for account of his ward, or of
any other payment or expenditure with which his ward's estate
was chargeable, either for the whole, or in part, having been made
by the defendant, and not credited him somewhere, there is no
sufficient proof.

The auditor further states, that he does not see how he can aid
the Court in apportioning the negro children Alfred, Cuffee, and
Eliza, born since the time to which the first division related; no
evidence having beeu taken under the commission from which the
value of each might be collected, as was done before. All he can
do is to report to the Court, that from the testimony in the cause,
it appears, that Alfred is now about ten years of age, and that
Cuffee and Eliza, are between seven and eight years old.

The defendant excepted to this report of the auditor; first, be-
cause the charges in the account for the hire of the negroes
allotted to the complainant in the former suit, are extravagant;
second, because no allowance ought to be made for the same, as the
complainant did not comply with what was required by the decree
on his part; third, because more ought to have beeu allowed to
the defendant for the expenses, &c. for which he is allowed a
credit; fourth, because he had not allowed the defendant the cred-
its to which his proofs entitled him; fifth, because, as the com-
plainant claims more negroes than were allowed to him in the
former decree, it is competent to the defendant, in answer to said
claim to prove, that he has already received more than his propor-
tion of all the negroes; sixth, because, as complainant, agreeably to
proof, received negroes to which he is not entitled, it is contrary

* to all equity that he should now be allowed for the hire of
those negroes; seventh, because credit is not allowed the 19