316 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.

to the evidence of Mr. Capron and Mr. Lansdale upon this
point, that the complainant is entitled to be credited at the rate
of $300 per annum, for entertaining the proprietors and others
at the factory, during the period he lived there as its agent, or
rather, from the 1st of July, 1832, to July, 1839. The agree-
ment under date the l6th of October, 1832, says, expressly,
that he shall be indemnified for this expense, and the witness
referred to proves, that $300 per annum would be no more than
a reasonable allowance therefor.

The complainant's salary, however, cannot be credited to a
period subsequent to the 6th of July, 1839, when he resigned,
as shown by a letter of that date; and, I can see no ground
upon which he can be allowed a higher rate of compensation,
as agent, than $1000 a year—that being the sum named in the
agreement of October, 1822, signed by the complainant and the
proprietors.

These are al] the items of surcharge and falsification speci-
fied in the pleadings, and to these the parties must be confined.
The case will, therefore, go to the Auditor, with directions to
state an account accordingly, preparatory to a final decree.
The settlement itself must stand, because I do not think the
charge of fraud is established, and such a decree will be passed,
when the account comes to be stated, as the justice of the case
may require,

I do not think the exceptions to the evidence of Benjamin
Williams, Joseph B. Williams and George H. Williams have
been sustained, assuming them to be legatees under the will of
Mrs. Weld. The plaintiff examined them upon the voir dire,
and they denied any interest in the event of the suit; and hav-
ing elected to take this course, I think he is precluded from re-
sorting to any other mode to show their interest. This doc-
trine, I think, is established by the passages referred to in 1
Greenleafon, Evidence; and also by authorities collected in
the Notes to 1 Starkie on Evidence, page 124. The excep-
tions to the evidence of George Williams and Nathaniel Wil-
liams, I do not underfand to be much insisted on, and certain-
ly, I can see no ground upon which they can be excluded.