CRAPSTER v. GRIFFITH.

the balance. This part of the account shews the sum of

$68 25, 10 be the complainant's wife's share of her deceased
brother's net personal estate, other than slaves as aforesaid.

The auditor has then stated account No. 3, in which the defen-
dant is charged with the complainant's wife's share of her deceased
brother's net personal estate, other than slaves; with her said pro-
portion of the rents and profits of the real estate; with her said
proportion of the net personal estate, other than slaves, and of the
interest of the whole net personal estate to the 19th of December,
aforesaid; and lastly, with interest on the two last year's rent of
the real estate, from the day and year respectively, on which they
became due to the 19th of December, 1813. He is then credited
by the usual allowance as aforesaid, for the board, clothing and
tuition of the complainant's wife, and by the negro girl, cash, and
sundry articles stated to have been paid to her, by the defendant,
as the consideration of the release vacated by the decree. The
defendant, however, is not credited by the land, said to have been
at the same time, and for the same purpose given to the com-
plainant's wife at $100; because it does not appear from the pro-
ceedings, that the said land, or any other was ever conveyed to her.
This account then shows a balance due on the 19th of December,
1813, to the complainants of $41 88,

The auditor has then stated account No. 4, first stating from the
testimony, taken in virtue of the commission, an estimate, marked
A, of the value, at the time of executing the said commission, of
the personal estate which consisted of slaves, together with their
increase, in which the defendant is charged with all the slaves, and
credited by one half of them in value in kind in right of his de-
ceased wife. This last account gives seven negro slaves therein
named, most of them children, to the complainants, and four of
full age to the defendant

The auditor begs leave to remark, that if the improvements for
which the defendant claims an allowance have given any additional
value to the real estate, which from the testimony is extremely
doubtful, he is of opinion, that their cost as well as every other
incidental expense, not allowed him in the accounts aforesaid,
have been fully reimbursed by his holding the net personal estate,
other than the slaves, at their appraised valuation, which is clearly
proved to have been a very inadequate one. He has to remark,
also, with reference to the interlocutory decree, that if the accounts
had been stated conformably to the principles there suggested, the
i

i