DIXON-VS.-DIXON. 273

proof should be considered, and if- found sufficient to remove

the abjection, the parties should be allowed to come in for their
fair proportion of the estate of their debtor.

The general rule I understand to be this:

When funds are in this court for distribution among cred-
itors, and the Auditor reports, that certain claims have not been
proved, or parties interested object to their allowance for want
of proof, the case is referred again to the Auditor, with direc-
tions to state a final account," from which all claims not then
sufficiently proved, are'to be excluded, and leave is given to
supply the proof, upon such terms, as to notice, as may be deem-
ed reasonable. Upon the coming in of the report of the Au-
ditor, made pursuant to the order, and after the usual time
given for filing exceptions, the report may be submitted for
ratification, and when ratified, all parties are concluded, and
the litigation is terminated.

This, I say, is the general rule, but as the Court of Appeals

-say, in Kent vs. O'Hara, there may be cases in which it would
'and ought to be relaxed, as there are cases in which new trials
are granted at law, upon the production of new proof, ' when
the party applying for it can show himself free from blame or
negligence in not bringing it forward earlier.

And even-iri'the interval between the final report of the Au-
ditor, made under Ae directions of the court, and its ratifica-
tion,' it is not of course that parties are entitled to offer further
evidence in support of their -claims, when they have already

had an opportunity to establish them, and have neglected to do
so.-But'the circumstances necessary to entitle them to this in-

•dulgence'iri the latter case, need not be so strong," as where
the report of the" Auditor has been ratified by the Chancellor,
for then it is res adjudicata, and though the fund may yet be
under the control of the court, the party asking for re-hearing,
must come armed with circumstances sufficiently 'strong to ac-
quit him of the blame apparently impatable to him, for not
offering his proof at an earlier stage of the Valise.

'But'in this case, as before sfated, the claims now tinder con-
sideration have not been adjudicated upten, and, I am of opin-
ion, the facts disclosed in the petition of the owners of claim