580 NEALE v. HAGTHROP.—3 BLAND.

May, 1818; because there is no proof of their value independent
of the ground attached to them. And the estimates of their value
for the time prior to the first of May, 1818, seems defective as it
is predicated upon proof of their average value from 1797 to 1827;
whereas the proof should have been of their average value from
1797 to 1818. The estimate of the value of the property conveyed
to William McMechen is unsatisfactory for the reasons before,
stated. The account, as stated, is nevertheless the best that can
be stated from the proofs before the auditor. The allowance for
the value of the house on Goodman street is increased to $1,500 on
the authority of the depositions of Thomas Childs and Richard A.
Shipley, filed 10th August, 1830. All the accounts are stated with
interest to this date.

To this report of the auditor, the defendant Edward Hagthrop
excepted; first, because the auditor had charged him with the sum
of two dollars per foot for the lands fronting on the Ferry road and
Goodman street, which was not sustained by the proofs. Second,
because the auditor had charged this defendant with the value of
certain negroes, personal property and chattels real, amounting to
$60,667.30, when in truth such negroes, personal property and
* chattels real, and the value thereof, are not sustained by
598 any proof. Thirdly, because the auditor hath not allowed
this defendant the several sums of money laid out, expended and
paid by him on account of the lands and property mentioned in
the proceedings; and for large sums of money paid to the repre-
sentatives of Anthony Hook by this defendant, and the defendant
Barbara, all which are fully proved by sufficient evidence. And
fourthly, because this defendant is made debtor for $56,899.42,
when in truth all the negroes, personal property and chattels real,
whence that sum arises, principally belonged to him, though
claimed under Barbara, all which is fully sustained by the proof.

The defendant Benjamin Rawlings also excepted to this report
of the auditor. First, because be had placed too high an estimate
on the annual value on the lot therein mentioned; and charged
this defendant with more ground rent for the same than was justi-
fied by the evidence. And secondly, because the auditor has not
estimated the value of the improvements erected on that lot at as
much as they are shewn by the evidence to be worth. And the
defendant John Fitzgerald excepted also to this report of the
auditor for the same reasons.

After which the plaintiff, by his petition, filed on the 5th of
October, 1831, stated, that since the passing of the order of the
5th of December, 1826, the defendant Chittenden had departed
this life, and that the lot of ground which had been held by him,
as in the proceedings mentioned, was then in the possession of
Harriet Chittenden; his widow and legal representative; that this
plaintiff has since discovered, that the title to this lot of ground