JONES v. MAGILL. 197

very prejudicial to the testator of the plaintiff, who was only toe
surety of Harding; and, therefore, that the plaintiff should be
discharged. In answer to this statement of facts, Magill, as to
some most material particulars, responds merely by way of hearsay
from the defendant Gittings; and jthe answer of Harding, looking
to the allegations of the bill, is that of a particeps fraudis, and as
such cannot be allowed to be of any avail to Magilly the creditor

27th September, 1811.—KILTY, Chancellor.—On motion of the petitioners, it is
Ordered, that Stewart & Son produce and lodge in this court, such of the papers
mentioned in the former order as are not yet exhibited, before the first day of No-
vember next.

After which, the case having been brought on for a final hearing, it was, on the
29th February, 1816, decreed, that the defendant Hall pay or refund to the plaintiffs
the sum of $7,359 55, with interest from the 17th May, 1808, and costs.

CHAPLINE v. BEATTY.—This bill was filed on the 9th of January, 1807, by Joseph
Chapline against Charles A. Beatty, Abner Ritchie, John T. Mason, and James
Williams. It states, that the defendants Beatty and Ritchie had, as administrators
of Charles Beatty, deceased, obtained a judgment in an action of debt against this
plaintiff, for .£351, with interest thereon from the 16th of February, 1791; and in
an action on the case they had also obtained judgment against this plaintiff for
the sum of 534 3s. 5d.t bearing interest from the 4th of December, 1801; which
judgments were rendered at the same time upon an agreement between this plaintiff
and the defendants Beatty and Ritchie, that there should be such deductions and
discounts from them as could be made to appear within a limited time, to Walter S.
Chandler; that this plaintiff had produced his vouchers to the arbitrator Chandler,
who postponed the consideration of the matter to another time; that the defendants
Beatty and Ritchie then produced other claims against this plaintiff, not embraced
by the judgments; that the arbitrator, without notice to this plaintiff, or paying due
regard to hisvouchers, made and returned an award before the appointed time, by
which he gave to this plaintiff credit for less than he was entitled to, and applied the
payments to one of the judgments only, leaving the other to bear interest from the
longest time; that afterwards the judgment in the action of debt was entered for the
use of John T. Mason; and that in the action on the case for the use of James
Williams, who had caused writs of fieri facias to be issued and levied on the property
of this plaintiff for the whole amount. Whereupon the plaintiff prayed for general
relief, and for an injunction to stay the further proceedings at law.

The plaintiff gave two separate injunction bonds, one to the defendants Beatty and
Ritchie, for the use of Mason, and the other to Beatty and Ritchie, for the use of
Williams, for the respective amounts of the several judgments.

9th January, 1807.—KILTY, Chancellor.—Let subpoena and injunction, or injunc-
tions issue as prayed; provided, that any motion for dissolving shall not be delayed
for want of the answers of the defendants Mason and Williams.

On the 18th of May, 1807, all the defendants put in their answers, in which they
denied all the material matters of fact upon which the plaintiff's equity was founded.
The answers of Beatty, Ritchie, and Mason, were sworn to before a justice of the
peace, in the District of Columbia; and the clerk of Washington county, of that
District, certified, that he was then and there duly commissioned as a justice of the