*182 WINDER v. DIFFENDERFFER.

The defendant John Diffenderffer excepted to the report of the
auditor, and the accounts C, D, and E, therewith returned; because
he is, in the said accounts, charged with the payment of interest,
with which he is not chargeable in law; because, in the said
accounts, he is charged with compound interest, which is alto-
gether illegal and unjust; because, in the said accounts, he is not
allowed interest on the sums with which he is credited; because,
in the account C, he is not allowed a commission or compensation
in any form; because, in the said accounts, he is not allowed the
credits claimed, and stated in accounts A and B; because, all the
said accounts, stated and reported by the auditor, except A, are
erroneous, unjust, and illegal; and because, the auditor has as-
sumed the statements of the former auditor as correct, whereas
the same are erroneous in law and fact; particularly in regard to
the sum of $2,578 77, charged as over payments to Mrs. Lee, Mrs.
Martin, and Mrs. Bailey.

After which the defendant John Diffenderffer by his petition, ac-
companied by an affidavit of Paul G. Hands in relation to the mat-
ter of the petition, stated, that since the report of the auditor, he,
the petitioner, had discovered material and important testimony,
requiring additional accounts to be stated, in order to bring a full
and perfect view of the defendant's case before the chancellor. He
therefore prayed, that the case might be again sent to the auditor
with leave to take further testimony, &c.

21st February, 1829.—BLAND, Chancellor.—Ordered, that this
case be referred to the auditor with instructions to state such further
accounts as may be required by the parties upon the testimony in
the case, and such other proofs as may be produced before him, on
giving the usual notice: And either party may take testimony
before the commissioners appointed for Baltimore county, or any
justice of the peace on giving three days notice as usual; provi-
ded, that such testimony be taken and filed in the chancery office
before the seventh day of March next.

The auditor reported, that under this order he had taken the de-
position of Paul G. Hands, and as his testimony related altogether
to the account of the trustee Vincent, he had corrected that account
accordingly; and that he had, by the instructions of the defendant
John Diffenderffer, stated another account, marked F, which differed
from account B, returned with his former report. To this account
the plaintiffs excepted. And, on the application of the plaintiffs,