STRIKE'S CASE. 97

he should not be suffered to make any statements derived from the
testimony of incompetent witnesses or illegal evidence. Therefore
these objections do not come now too late, and must be decided on
for the government of the auditor.

The Chancellor considers it as sufficiently apparent, upon the
proceedings, without going into a statement of the case, and his rea-
sons, that John Rogers, the defendant, is an interested witness;
and therefore, the whole of his testimony must be rejected, (o)
The reading of the deposition of Alexander Irvine has also been
objected to, on the ground of his interest. It does not, however,
sufficiently appear, that he was a creditor of Rogers, and inter-
ested at the time; and therefore the objection to his testimony
must be overruled. A paper purporting to be the answer of
Strike to a petition of the complainants filed in Baltimore County
Court against him, has been insisted on as applicable and furnish-
ing evidence pertinent to this case. But from its phraseology
and general tenor, it is evident, that it cannot be a part of the
pleadings in this suit; and without the other proceedings, to which
it purports to be an answer, it cannot be evidence in this cause, and
must be rejected.

With these explanations, determinations and directions, the case
is referred to the auditor to state an account accordingly; and
the several exceptions, as well of the plaintiffs as of the defend-
ants, to the auditor's statements and reports heretofore made, so
far as the same are inconsistent with the determinations and direc-
tions herein before given, are overruled, and so far as they may
agree therewith, are sustained.

The complainants afterwards filed a petition stating, that they
originally employed as their counsel Henry M. Murray and Henry
W. Rogers, and agreed with them, in case of the successful ter-
mination of this case, by a final decree against Strike in this court,
to pay them ten per cent, each, on the amount of the proceeds of
the suit, as a compensation for their services, subject to a deduc-
tion of whatever moneys should be paid to them in the mean time,
on the account of this suit; and that after the interlocutory decree
was obtained, Murray and Rogers applied to Baltimore County
Court to fix their per centage on the amount then received by the
sale under the decree, while this suit was pending there, which

(a) Murray v. Shadwell, 2 Ves. & Bea. 401.
13