BURCH v. SCOTT.—1 BLAND. 107

thereof, from the fourth day of August, 1825, until paid or brought
in as aforesaid.

On the 22nd of September, 1825, the plaintiffs, by their petition,
applied for a fieri facias, which was immediately ordered and
issued to the sheriff of Montgomery County, which writ was en-
dorsed thus, "complainants' release Doll. 392.90 1/2."

On the 15th of November, 1825, William Scott, together with
Berry Gittings, Michael Gittings, Richard Gittings, Sarah Git-
tings, an infant by her guardian and next friend, and Jeremiah
Gittings, aiso an infant by his guardian and next friend, filed a
bill, which they style, " their supplemental bill in the nature of a
bill of review, "in which they recite all the proceedings in the
before mentioned case.

They state and object to those proceedings and the decree there-
upon, that under the commission to Smith, three witnesses were
examined, who "according to the tenor of the return were no
otherwise sworn, but severally and respectively to depose and
testify according to the best of their knowledge and belief, and
are * not authenticated by the signature of the witnesses; "
that by the return of the commission to Magruder, it appears 116
that one witness was examined, not on oath, but on affirmation,
neither the form, nor the terms of which are set forth, nor has the
witness signed his deposition; that this plaintiff, William Scott,
is the administrator of the late Kinsey Gittings. _and the other
plaintiff's are his children and next of kin, who as such are the
persons really and exclusively interested in the matter in con-
troversy, and ought to have been made parties to the suit, in which
the decree of the 4th of August, 1825, was passed. Instead of which
this plaintiff, William Scott, alone was made defendant and charged
by the decree, in that case, in his own proper person, although he
could only be held liable, if at all, as administrator of the late Kin-
sey Gittings. being as such no more than a trustee for his creditors
and next of kin.

They further state, that, from certain judicial proceedings and
other circumstances, it appeared, that this plaintiff, William Scott,
was entitled to various credits, which had not been given, and an
ex parte decree had been obtained by Thomas Burch, and others,
in that case, for a sum greatly exceeding their just due, by their
fraudulently concealing the proper sets off and deductions, some
of which they had all along admitted, and others were clear and
indisputable.

And they further state, that this plaintiff, William Scott, was
frequently, and contrary to his anticipations and expectations, dis-
appointed in having the business put in train for a decision; he at
length became so anxious and uneasy on the subject, that, hearing
of his counsel being in attendance at the Court of Appeals at