
    CONSTITUTIONAL COURT,
    COLUMBIA,
    APRIL, 1803.
    Taylor and Macfarlan v. Administrator of Smith.
    In debt, if defendant plead flene cidmirdslravit pr&ter, and the plaintiff reply that the outstanding' debts are kept on footer jraudem, and they are at issue, the court will not permit the plaintiff to go into an examination of all the defendant’s administration, for the purpose of proving a devastavit, or other presumptive evidence of the affirmative of the issue.
    A court of equity should be resorted to m a case requiring the examination of evidence involving tho various and complicated transactions of an administration of twenty or thirty years standing.
    Debt on bond, tried before Johnson, J. in Chesterfield District.. Plate admi-dstravii frailer, was pleaded; to whieh plaintiffs replied, that the ol ligations set forth in defendants plea were Jiept on foot, and continued unpaid, per fraudem, and by collusion between the defendants and the obligees. The rejoinder denied the truth of the replication, and is: ue thereon to the country. Verdict for defendant. The motion was for a new trial, on the ground that the judge at the trial .refused to examine all the circumstances of the administration of the defendants, to the end of furnishing presumptive evidence te establish the fact asserted ia the replication ; particularly, that evi« dence was rejected which would have gone to show, that the defendants had paid debts of an inferior degree to the present, with as. sets of the deceased, whereof they rendered no account to the ordinary ; and that certain items in their accounts rendered to the ordiuary- were falsely exhibited.
    Falconer, for plaintiffs,
    cited Esp. Dig. 348, to show the pro* priety of the replication. He contended that whore the plaintiff goes to charge the as- cts inter mains of the administrator, he must plead as in this case; otherwise he can only’ be entitled to the assets acknowledged in the plea, and must'take judgment over for the assets in Juturo quando acciderint and therefore, if he means to contest the validity of the defendants statement of assets, he must do so by the replication, as in this case. The issue is upon a question of fraud, and the evidence offered was pertinent, though not direct, to prove the fact. The verdict is informa], and has no legal signification. Cited Gkimke’s ’Law of Exors. 251, to show the relevancy of the replication.
    Wilds, contra.
    
    The replication admits that only so much as the administrator has stated, rem.fi .s in his hands, but denies that the Outstanding bonds are in force. 4 Bac. Abr. 63. The evidence offered, went to prove a devastavit, if it coui prove any fifing. The verdict if informal may be moulded into form by the court. Bull. 65. 66. The substance of the issue is found.
   The Court,

present all the judges, except Grimke, J., refused a new trial, being of opinion that the evidence offered was not such as ought to be admitted in a case like this, as it would be too multifarious, and might be endless. Evidence which had any direct tendency to prove the issue would, be proper. But such evi. dence as may be collected by way of inference from a full investigation of all the circumstances of the administration, involving, perhaps, transactions of twenty or thirty years standing, various and complicated in their nature, respecting which the parties may not be prepared, and could not have notice sufficient to put them on their guard upon an issue like the present, would not be so. It would be allowing too wide a range, and might prove exceedingly tedious and troublesome, and moreover occasion great injustice, A court of equity should be resorted to in a case requiring the examination of such evidence. The verdict may be moulded into form. It i? sufficient.

New trial refused.  