MURDOCK'S CASE.— '2 BLAND. 45&

Gilbert Murdock, by his answer on oath to this petition, posi-
tively denied the whole charge of a breach of the injunction gene-
sons to whom such suras were stated to have been paid: that he had there-
fore stated the account No. 7, distinct from account No. 6. That he had
stated in No. 8, a summary of the testimony taken before him, and from the
additional testimony and exhibits filed by the parties: on which he had made
sundry remarks, and stated his objections to such parts thereof as ought to be
rejected. That the complainant had filed three waste books, one cash book,
and one ledger marked E. N. No. 1; E. N. N. No. 2; E. N. No. 8: E. N. No. 4:
and E. N. No. 5; but from which the auditor had made no extract or charge;
those books not being proved or admitted as legal testimony by the defend-
ant. They appear to have been filed to prove the defendant's knowledge of
the accounts therein stated, many of the entries having been made, as proved
by the depositions of a witness, in the hand-writing of the defendant. That
he had also stated account No. 9, wherein he had brought the balances due
the complainant on the accounts Nos. 4 and 5, for the ferry, and the balances
due the defendant on accounts Nos. 6 and 7, which left a balance due the
complainant of £456 12s. 8d., including interest to that date. That he had
also stated account No. 10, taking the balance due the complainant for the
ferry, and the balauce due the defendant on account No. 8. leaving out No.
7, in case it should not be allowed, which left a balance due the complainant
of £519 19s. 0d., including interest.

To this report of the auditor, the plaintiff, on the 19th of April, 1800, ex-
cepted; first; for that the auditor hath charged the complainant with the
sum of £63 6s. 4d.. being the amount of account No. 7, although there is no
proof to establish any of the items contained in said account; and therefore,
the same ought not to have been allowed: second, for that the auditor hath
omitted to charge the defendant with sundry sums of money, and with
sundry articles properly chargeable in account. All of which are particu-
larized and enumerated in the books of accounts, marked E. N. No. 1. to
E. N. No. 5, inclusive: although the defendant, in sundry instances, hath
charged himself therewith, in his own hand-writing; third, for that the said
auditor hath charged the complainant in account No. 6, with the sum of
£637 12s, 7d., for difference of the buildings, without allowing him any
credit for materials found, and for payments made to workmen for erecting
the same; fourth, for that the said auditor hath charged the complainant
with the amount of the accounts Nos. 6 and 7; although the said accounts
originated and accrued more than three years before the filing of the ori-
ginal bill in this cause. And therefore, now barred by the Act of Limita-
tions. Which said Act of Limitations, the complainant insists on, in bar to
the said accounts, and all other accounts between the said parties, existing
for three years previous to filing the said original bill in this case.

And on the same day, the defendant also excepted to the same report of
the auditor: first, for that the auditor has not charged the complainant with
the defendant's share of his father's personal estate, decreed against the
complainant as executor of his said father, by the Orphans' Court of Balti-
more County, second, for that the allowance made to the complainant, per
accounts of ferriages, Nos, 4 and 5, are not authorized by the proof in the
cause, but are conjectural; third, for that the auditor has refused, against
proof in this cause, to allow the defendant for thirteen years'ferriages as
manager of the farm on United Friendship; fourth, for that the auditor has
refused to allow to the defendant the credit side of the account C, No. 5,
proved by William Hammond and Zachariah McCubbin, to have been ad-