TOWNSHEND v. DUNCAN.—2 BLAND. 81

mode of collecting testimony, it is believed, is peculiar to our
Chancery proceeding, for I have met with no mention of any
such practice in the English books. It is, however, not only
in some respects, the cheapest form of gathering proofs, but, in

stated in the bill; it is Ordered, that the injunction heretofore issued in this
cause, continue until final hearing, or further order.

After which, the case was again brought before the Court.

HANSON, C., 20th July, 1802.—The Chancellor has twice considered this
case, and each time on a motion to dissolve; the two answers having been
filed at different times.

It appears, on account of some peculiar circumstances stated in, or col-
lected from the proceedings, that each party should be desirous of having
the cause speedily decided on its merits. What proceeding is first to be bad
for that purpose, may possibly be doubtful to the counsel. The Chancellor
conceives, that the best thing to be done for both parties, would be to have
an order to state an account between Onion and McComas, as matters stood
on the day of the assignment of the bond; and likewise as they stand at this
time, without regarding the assignment, of the bond to Smith; and for the
auditor to examine witnesses, if any shall be produced; for the said account,
when stated, to be liable to exceptions; and the question, or questions of
equity are reserved.

The Chancellor thinks it much better to have such an order by consent,
than to issue a commission, on application, and on his own authority, for
taking depositions; and he is positive, that neither paity, if desirous of a
speedy decision on the real merits of the cause, will reject his proposal. If
they shall agree to it, let them, or their solicitors, or either of them; and the
solicitor of the other, sign the writing subjoined.

We consent, that an order pass conformably to the foregoing recommenda-
tion or proposal of the Chancellor. This writing was signed accordingly.

Sundry depositions having been taken and returned, the case was sub-
mitted for a final determination.

HANSON, C., 12th November, 1804.—The papers in this cause have often
been laid before the Chancellor, and as often he has acted on them, as his
judgment dictated. They are now laid before him, as for a final decision,
depositions having been returned.

The Chancellor refers to his remarks and propositions of July 20th, 1803,
which appear to have been agreed to by the counsel. Agreeably to that pro-
position and agreement, as soon as the depositions were returned, they ought
to have been laid before the auditor. After lying several terms in the office,
the papers are now laid before the Chancellor instead of the auditor. But
whether or not they ought to have been laid before the auditor, the Chan-
cellor now thinks proper to order; and it is Ordered, that, from the aforesaid
depositions, and other proceedings, the auditor of this Court, state and re-
port an account, or accounts, agreeably to the said propositions and agree-
ment of July 20th, 1802.

The defendants, by their petition stated, that in pursuance of this order,
of the 12th of November, the auditor had summoned Hannah Marches to
appear before him, at his office, on the 38th of the same month, to testify on
6 2B.