STRIKE'S CASE. g§

Samuel Moale, trustees of the said John Rogers, and made a
statement of the claims against said John Rogers, (which said
account and statement are filed in this court,) the complainants in
this case have filed additional claims against said Rogers, which
are herewith stated. And the auditor further reports, that the claims
of Hollingsworth & Worthington and Irvine & Beatty, contained in
the aforegoing statement, have been withdrawn; and that, except
the schedule of John Rogers, there is no proof to establish any of
the claims contained therein, but the claims of the complainants
and of Robert Taylor. That the claim of the said Taylor is for a
judgment rendered against Robert Henderson, the former partner of
Rogers, at October term 1812, of Baltimore County Court, on a
joint action with Rogers, which said judgment was revived against
Henderson at March term 1821. The auditor further reports, that
he has herewith made a statement of the rents received by Strike,
and the sums expended in repairs done on the property in this cause
mentioned, and in payment of taxes and ground-rents thereon, so
far as he could collect the same from the papers in the cause. And
further, that although he gave notice to the counsel of the com-
plainants and defendants, to produce any further testimony which
they might have, no additional testimony has been produced.

The plaintiffs excepted to this report, 1st. For, that the auditor hath
stated the claims of Strike, one of the defendants, for materials, work,
and repairs, made upon the dwellinghouse inhabited by him, which
were done for his accommodation, and not to benefit the property.

2d. For that the said expenses and repairs, were incurred by
Strike under deeds which have been decreed by this court to have
been obtained by Strike from Rogers, in fraud of the bona fide
creditors of the firm of Henderson & Rogers, of which Rogers was
a partner, and without consideration.

3d. For that the said auditor hath not charged Strike with the
difference between the prices bid by Strike at a public sale of the
said property by the trustees, and the subsequent sale of the same,
he having refused to comply with his purchases.

4th. That the said auditor hath reported the claims of Strike for
repairs done to said property, although Strike has refused to pro-
duce the bills of the persons who did the repairs, and has relied
upon the conjectures of said persons as to their probable value
after a long lapse of time.

5th. These complainants further except to the claim hitherto
audited in the first report in favor of the Mechanics Bank of Balti-