CRAPSTER v. GRIFFITH. 21

exclusively of the value of the labour of the negroes awarded to

the complainant in the first suit, from the time to which the credit
in that suit was carried, to the date of their delivery; and he
accordingly stated the account A, making due from the defendant
to the complainant, $879 60, with interest on $831 32, part
thereof from the 19th of December, 1816, until paid.

Then supposing it might be desirable to the court, to have the
defendant allowed, in such account, all credits he might appear to
be entitled to, and charged further with what might appear to be
properly chargeable to him for services of the said negroes Alfred,
Cuffee and Eliza; he stated another estimate of the allowance to
be made for the raising of young negroes until they attained the
age of seven years; from the evidence here reported, considered
together with that taken under the commission in this suit; and
then the account B, being a continuation of the account reported
on the 17th of June, 1820; correcting, according to the estimate
so stated, the credits in that account for the maintenance of young
negroes, and charging the defendant with half the value of the
services of the said Alfred, Cuffee and Eliza, from the time they
respectively attained the age of nine years, until the 19th of
December next, the end of the year; and it makes due from the
defendant to the complainant, $669 64, with interest on $520 75,
part thereof, from the said 19th of December, 1825, until paid.

To this report the defendant excepted, 1st. Because |t was not
pursuant to the decree of the Court of Appeals, nor warranted by
the testimony. 2d. Because so much of account B, as relates
to errors in the former account of the 17th of June, 1820, is
not authorized by the testimony nor by the order of the court.
3d. Because the valuation, in the latter part of account B, is not
authorized by the decree of the Court of Appeals; and also, because
it is made upon the evidence of one who has given contradictory
testimony, and is also contradicted by other proofs. 4th., Because
interest is charged. 5th. Because account A is not warranted by
the testimony; and 6th. To both accounts, because credits to
which the defendant is entitled, and which have never been
allowed him, are not given.

The defendant, by his petition on oath, stated, that, in conse-
quence of an agreement with the plaintiff to refer the case to
arbitration, he had not caused his witnesses to attend and give
evidence before the auditor. Whereupon he prayed, that the case
4 v.2