60 TOWNSHEND v. DUNCAN.—2 BLAND.

having their examinations taken at or near their respective resi-
dences; and to there being few cases in which all the witnesses

exceptions coming to be argued the same Court before the Chancellor, in
presence of counsel learned on both Bides.

OGLE, C.—This Court doth declare, that the exceptions to the said answer
are good, and the answer of the deiendant adjudged insufficient, and
Ordered, that the defendant pay the complainant six hundred pounds of
tobacco for his delay. And it is likewise Ordered, that subpoena issue
against the defendant for the costs; and to put in a better answer to the
aforegoing bill.

After which, at December Court, 1735, the defendant filed his answer, in
which he admitted, that George Parker, the father of the plaintiff, made his
will and died as stated, leaving real and personal estate; that the defendant
had married the widow; and also that Gabriel Parrott died leaving an estate
as stated: but that the defendant had regularly and legally accounted for
and paid to the creditors, legatees, and next of kin, all the personal property
which had come to his hands; that the household furniture, negroes and
sheep, had been delivered to the plaintiff, without any misrepresentation, at
a fair valuation; that the mulatto fellow Ned, the property of the plaintiff,
was an ordinary carpenter and cooper, from whom the defendant received
no other benefit than from an ordinary slave; that the defendant had posses-
sion of the plaintiff's personal estate for about five years and three months,
that is, from the time of the defendant's marriage with the plaintiff's mother
until he came of age, and paid the quit rents of his lands in St. Mary's, but
never during his possessing them, received any more than £13 18s. 3d. and
4,376 lbs. of pork; that of the plaintiff's lands in Anne Arundel a part was
seated, whereon the defendant had negroes who were employed in making
crops, and another part on which his overseer's wife lived; but that this
defendant never was at but one of the said tracts of land; that the plain-
tiff's lands in Prince George's, were not seated or ever seen by the defend-
ant; that he does not know that there ever was any seated plantation on the
plaintiff's lands in Baltimore County; that for the plaintiff's lot in Hunting-
town, the defendant had received the hire of about 1,200 lbs. of tobacco; and
that this defendant had a right to the occupation and profits of the plain-
tiff's lands without accounting for the same.

At May Court, 1736, the plaintiff put in a general replication to this answer,
and the defendant rejoined; and so, the parties being at issue, divers wit-
nesses were examined and their depositions published accord ing to the course
of the Court, the master in Chancery made a return as follows:

"In pursuance of an order of the Court of Chancery, bearing date the
25th day of May, in the year of our Lord, 1736, I have proceeded to examine
Thomas Sanner of St. Mary's County, planter, James Biscoe of the same
county, planter, James White of the same county, planter, John Gaines of
Calvert County, planter, Josias Sunderland of the same county, planter,
James Dukes of the said county, planter, Samuel Griffin of the same county,
planter, Francis Gaines of the same county, planter, Walter Phelps of Anne
Arundel County, planter, and Jonathan Taylor of the same county, planter,
as witnesses for the complainant, whose examinations, together with the
interrogatories filed by the complainant in this cause, hereunto annexed, I
humbly return into this Honorable Court.—B. YOUNG, Master in Chancery."

Here follow the depositions of sundry witnesses taken, as stated, before
this master in Chancery, which, as appears by his attestation to each, were