RANDALL v. HODGES.—3 BLAND. 469

ordered to account for the personal estate of the deceased; and to
pay to the plaintiff Eliza, the share of the surplus to which she
was entitled as one of the next oi' kin of the deceased. The de-
fendants answered, and by an order of the 17th of June, 1831, the
the case was, by consent, referred to Thomas Culbreth as special
auditor, to state such accounts as the nature of the case might re-
quire.

The plaintiffs, by their petition, stated, that, in the investiga-
tion of the case before the auditor, it had become necessary to
have all the vouchers and other papers, filled by the defendants, as
administrators of the intestate, in the Orphans' Court of Prince
George's County; which vouchers and papers appear to have been
filed there for safe-keeping only; and do not constitute any part of
the records of that Court. Whereupon they prayed for a subpoena
duces tecum to Philemon Chew, the register of wills of Prince
George's County, commanding him to bring with him those papers
before the auditor.

The defendants admitted, that they had no cause to shew
against this application, and a subpoena duces tecum was, on the
12th of September, 1831, ordered accordingly, returnable forth-
with.

The register of wills answered on oath, that the Judges of the
Orphans' Court of Prince George's County, as well as the register,
from long settled practice have considered all such papers as office
papers, filed in the office for the elucidation of all settlements of
accounts in that Court; and had uniformly refused to deliver such
papers, even to an administiator, according to them copies only;
and in no instance recognizing a right on their part to the origi-
nals; and that he, the respondent, was wdling to furnish attested
copies of all the papers required, &c.

*BLAND, C., 1st February, 1832.—This matter standing
ready for hearing, and having been submitted by the plain- 478
tiff's solicitor on notes, and no one appearing on behalf of the
register of wills, the proceedings were read and considered.

It may be well to observe, that upon the return of a subpoena
duces tecum the party, so summoned, may in Court object to pro-
duce the documents; yet, if the objection is overruled, the Court
will compel the production; Field v. Beaumont, 1 Swan, 209; (c)

(c) RIDGELY v. DORSBY.—Ordered, that a subpoena duces tecum issue when
applied for.—Proceedings in Chancery, lib. W. K. No. 1, fol. 97.

BEALL v. WAGGONER.—Summons issued to P. W. Morgan &. C. Conner to
produce the respective agreements between plaintiff and defendant lodged
in their hands or either of them.—Chancery Proceedings, lib. S. H. lett. B.
fol. 6.