What you are faced with here is the rather arcane language so endearing to the legal profession. This case deals with a rather mundane matter - a distribution of Mr. Kesiah Hunter's funds after the probate of his estate. Evidently Mr. Mathew Calvin, Esq., was appointed by the court to audit the funds held by Mr. T. B. Hunter (probably a close relative of the deceased), who served as the Administrator of the deceased's estate. Someone (possibly a family member), creditors, or the court itself filed exceptions (disagreement) to portions of Mr. Calvin's report. The court's ruling was that all the money from Mr. Kesiah Hunter's estate be paid out at that time by Mr. T. B. Hunter (the Administrator) - except for the "exceptions" noted by the court. [The nature of the "exceptions" is not covered in the brief note from the Altoona Tribune. An educated guess would be that they involved a matter of contention by one or more creditors, the disposition of which would be subject to subsequent judicial process.] Probate matters vary considerably by State, locales, and time eras. Evidently at the time of this probate action, it was necessary in Blair County for a court-appointed auditor to audit and report to the court before the final distribution of assets was made from the estate of the deceased.