408 McKIM v. ODOM.—3 BLAND.

F. Anderson, the bill of complaint be and the same is hereby dis-
missed with costs to be taxed by the register. Decreed, that the
complainants and the defendants George Law, William G. Harri-
son and John Odom, account with each other of and concerning
the disbursements made for the outfit and use of the said schooner
Beauty on her voyage to the West Indies, and afterwards to Mon-
tevideo; and also as to the proceeds of the sale of the said vessel
and her earnings, as in the proceedings mentioned. That the
auditor state the account relative thereto from the evidence and
proceedings in the case, and such other evidence as may be laid
before him by either party. The said account to be returned to
this Court for further order, and subject to the exceptions of either
party. And it is further ordered, that the plaintiffs and defend-
ants Law, Harrison and Odom, be and they are hereby authorized
to take testimony beiore the commissioners in the City of Balti
more, to be used in stating the account as aforesaid, on giving
three days notice as usual. Provided, that the same be taken and
filed on or before the 15th of May next.

On the 12th of May, 1828, the defendant Law, by his petition
on oath, stated, that the testimony of William P. Matthews, a
witness competent and pioper, who was then beyond the limits of
the State, was necessary to sustain his case, &c. Whereupon
*he prayed, that he might have a commission to take testi-
412 mony; and that the time for collecting and returning evi-
dence might be enlarged.

BLAND, C., 12th May, 1828.—Ordered, that the time limited for
the returning and filing of testimony authorized to be taken by
the interlocutory decree of the 4th of April last, be and the same
is hereby extended to the 15th of October next. That the parties
be and they are hereby authorized to take out a commission for
the purpose of taking testimony in any foreign country, to be read
in evidence in this case, on naming and striking commissioners as
usual. Provided, that such commission be returned on or before
the 15th of October next; or that good cause be then shewn why
the same, with reasonable diligence, could not have been returned
by that time.

Soon after which the plaintiffs, by their petition on oath, stated
various matters and things in relation to the grounds upon which
this last order had been granted; and objected to the enlargement
of the time for collecting and returning testimony; alleging, that
the sole object of the defendant Law, was an unjust and unreason-
able delay. Upon which they prayed, that the order of the 12th
instant might be rescinded.