CRAPSTER v. GRIFFITH.—2 BLAND. 9

are now entitled to the following negro slaves, to wit: Ben, Joseph,.
Roderick, Lucy, Westly, Mary, and Henry, and also to the sum
of $41.88, with interest thereon from the 19th day of the current
month until paid; and their costs incurred in the prosecution of
this suit.

To this report the defendant excepted; first, because the auditor
had paid no regard to the valuation of the real estate, as made
under the authority of the Orphans' Court, and sanctioned by that
Court, and which valuation could not be set aside by the testimony
in this case; second, because a sufficient allowance had not been
made for the board, clothing, and education of the complainant
Harriet and her brother; third, because the defendant was charged
with the rents and profits of the real estate before he took charge
thereof, or had anything to do therewith; fourth, because no
allowance was made to the defendant for the repairs and improve-
ments made by him on the farm of the complainant Harriet, and
which being necessary ought to be allowed; fifth, because sundry
credits, to which from the testimony, it appeared that the defend-
ant was entitled, had not been allowed to him; sixth, because the
negro girl, received by the complainant Harriet of the defendant,
was credited at too low a sum; and, if the settlement was to be
set aside, the complainant could have no right to said girl; seventh,
because the rents and profits of the complainant Harriet, were
fixed at an extravagant price; and were charged to the defendant
when they were not received by him.

KILTY, C., 18th January. 1814.—The exceptions to the auditor's
report being submitted on notes in writing, the proceedings in the
suit have been considered; but the Chancellor has not fully made
up his opinion on them.

On the first exception he is not satisfied, that the valuation re-
cognized by the Orphans' Court ought to be disregarded, and the
value estimated from the evidence; but if this valuation should be
taken as the rule, it may not apply to every year. On the third
exception, the Chancellor is under the impression, that the de-
fendant is answerable as far as a claim against his wife, who might
have been obliged to account; provided any sum should appear to
have been due before his guardianship commenced. It cannot be
admitted, that settlements made by the Orphans' Courts are in all
cases conclusive; but they may frequently render it necessary to
bring further proof of credits allowed by them. But when the
balance * stated against a guardian on a final account is
relied on by him, he ought to exhibit all the accounts, so as 12
to shew the original charges on which it was founded.

The Chancellor is satisfied as he was on passing the decree to
account, that the complainants were entitled to a distribution of
the specific articles when they could be traced in the hands of the