578 NEALE v. HAGTHROP.—3 BLAND.

tor had found it difficult to make an accurate report for the want
of a plot of the land in dispute, designating the particular part in
the possession of each one of the defendants, so as to apply the
testimony to each, as directed by the order of the 5th of Decem-
ber. Whereupon, he prayed for a survey; for leave to take further
testimony, &c.

After which an agreement in the following words was filed. " It
is agreed between the parties to said cause, that Matthew Bennett,
one of the defendants, be struck out as a party to said bill with-
out prejudice to said cause. And it is further agreed, that the
auditor's report be remanded to him; and that the commission to
take testimony to be used before the auditor, be remanded to Bal-
timore, and that a plot be made of the land in dispute in said
cause, and the witnesses be examined in relation thereto, agree-
ably to the complainant's petition filed on the 24th instant. And
it is also agreed, that so soon as the auditor's report is completed
and filed, that the said cause shall be set down for final hearing."

BLAND, C., 5th June, 1830.—Ordered, that this case be and the
same is hereby again referred to the auditor; that the said com-
mission, or a duplicate thereof, be sent to the commissioners to
take further testimony; and that a survey be made of the property
in the proceedings mentioned, as prayed, on giving the usual
notice. Provided, that the testimony and plots, hereby allowed
to be taken and made, be returned and tiled in the Chancery office
on or before the 24th day of July next.

Under this order the lands were laid down and plots with much
additioual testimony was returned.

The auditor, on the 29th of March, 1831, filed his report, in
which he says, that he had restated all the accounts and made his
* calculations up to the 17th of February, 1831. He then
596 goes on to say, that the complainant had located the four
purchases of Fitzgerald, a defendant, stating upon his plot the
dates of the several conveyances. The auditor has, for want of
better evidence, adopted those locations and statements. The
complainant has examined three, and the defendant five witnesses
to prove the permanent ground rent which those lots would have
yielded, if they had been leased between the years 1804 and 1810.
Mary Riley, one of the complainant's witnesses, has also proved,
that there were two houses on the lots erected in or before the
year 1797; viz: a single frame house two stories high, and a double
frame house one and a half story high. The auditor infers from
other testimony, that those houses might have rented for, from
three to five dollars a month each. But there is no proof of their
value, independent of the ground rents attached to them; and
the auditor infers, that the ground was chiefly valuable for the