460 MURDOCK'S CASE.—2 BLAND.

rally and particularly, and declared that neither William Murdock
nor Zachariah Johnson acted as his agents, nor with his knowledge

mitted by the complainant, and also established by the defendant by other
proof in the cause; fifth, for that the auditor, misconceiving the decision of
the Chancellor, has rejected evidence to establish the truth of the facts
stated, and items entered on the credit side of the said account C, No. 5;
sixth, for that the auditor has refused to make to the defendant an allow-
ance of the several items established and proved against the complainant,
by John Dorsey, exhibit B; Archibald Moncreiff, exhibit C C, and E E;
William Russell, exhibit D D, and also the items proved by Elam Bailey,
Alien Dorsey, and Samuel Godman.

HANSON, C., Slst May, 1800.—The day appointed for arguing the exceptions
to the auditor's report having arrived, and the Chancellor being ready to
examine said exceptions, and to hear the arguments; neither the defendant
nor his counsel appeared. On account of the absence of said counsel, the
defendant, perhaps, had he been present, might h;ive had the cause ad-
journed: but the complainant and his counsel being anxious for a speedy
decision, prayed the Chancellor to proceed without hearing any argument,
or receiving any other observations on either side. The request appearing,
under all circumstances of the case, to be reasonable, the Chancellor has
accordingly examined the said exceptions, with all the papers and proceed-
ings referred to, and has had certain explanations from the auditor, without
which, it was extremely difficult, if not impossible, to understand the merits
of the exceptions.

The Chancellor considered first, the complainant's exceptions, first and
fourth. He conceives that the complainant is entitled to the bar of the Act
of Limitations against all the articles in accounts Nos. 6 and 7, except the
two last articles in No. 7, which appear to be charged within the three years
next preceding the riling of the bill. The manner in which the complainant
has claimed the benefit of the said Act, appears to be proper. It was indeed
the only manner in which, under the circumstances of the case, he could
have claimed it. As to the said two articles in No. 7. it appears to the Chan-
cellor that they are not sufficiently proved. The said accounts, therefore,
Nos. 6 and 7, ought to have been wholly rejected by the auditor, except the
article of £1 10s. 0d., charged for the complainant in No. 6, which, as the
auditor states, was admitted by the complainant. Second, as to the second
exception, it appears to the Chancellor indefinite and uncertain. It does not
specify the money and particular articles chargeable, as it says, in account.
Is the Chancellor expected to go all over the five books referred to, and to
find out from conjecture which are the particular articles meant by the ex-
ceptions ? Besides the said books not being considered as evidence for the
defendant, the auditor states that he did not consider them as admissible for
the complainant. The said exception is disallowed. Third, with respect to
this exception, the auditor states, that there was no evidence of the mate-
rials found, except the complainant's books, which were not proved; and,
upon the whole, the exception is disallowed.

The Chancellor proceeded to consider the defendant's exception; first, the
auditor states, and the Chancellor perceives, that there is no evidence of this
claim except the books of the complainant, which have been rejected as not
being proved. The Chancellor perceives, indeed, that the credit by Edward
Norwood to Samuel Norwood for £94 10s. 0d., is opposed to a charge against
Samuel Norwood of a balance of £168 0s. 4d. The exception is disallowed.