HELMS v. FRANCISCUS. 540

newspaper in which the publication was made certified in the
usual manner, that the order had been published as directed; but
none of the absent defendants appeared within the time appointed.

On the 14th of June, 1825, Philip B. Sadtler filed his separate
answer, in which he admitted, that he was one of the executors of
the late Carsten Newhaus; but alleged that the defendant Franciscus

had, in all things, been the principally acting executor; that
he had retained in his hands the legacies given to the five children
of the testator's mister —— Bauers, of Bremen; and that by vir-
tue of the acts of Franciscus, and of their settlements with the
Orphans Court as executor and guardian, copies of which he
exhibited, this defendant was discharged.

On the 27th of July, 1825, the defendant Franciscus put in his
answer, in which he referred to and relied upon his answer to the
original bill and said, that he could not admit, that Helms and
wife had agreed to live separate; that he did not know to what
amount she was indebted to Sumwalt and McFarren; that as
guardian of the infants Carsten, John H. and Jacoft Newhaus, he
had retained the legacies given to them; and had also retained the
legacies given to the five children of the testator's sister ———
Bauers, of Bremen, for whom he was guardian, and who, he un-
derstood did exist; that there was a piece of leasehold property
yet unsold, and which he held as part of the assets of the testator;
that he had no knowledge of any assignment of any interest in
any property in Germany to his testator, but that he had received
and held the proceeds of such property which belonged to his
wards, the children of the late John Newhaus; and that he had
accounted with the Orphans Court for and paid a larger amount
than had come to his possession of the late Carsten Newhaus'
estate.

On the 31st of August, 1825, the defendant John H. Rathean,
filed his answer, in which he admitted, that the legacy given to
him had been paid; and that the testator's sister, —— Bauers, of
Bremen, never had but one child, Anna G. Bauers, as stated in
the supplemental bill. The other allegations, he left the plaintiffs
to substantiate by proof.

On the 5th of October, 1825, the defendants Muller and wife,
filed their answer, in which they positively denied that she had
ever made any such assignment of her interest in the estate of her
first husband, John Newhaus' estate, as was set forth by the plain-
tiffs; that her second husband was dead; and that these defen-
70 v.2