Auditor

An officer of the government, whose duty it is to examine the accounts of officers who have received and disbursed public moneys by lawful authority. "The name auditor seems to have been originally applied to one whose duties were judicial rather than fiscal."

Mcllwain, High Court of Pari. 251.

An officer of the court, assigned to state the items of an account between the parties in a suit where accounts are in question, and exhibit the balance.

Whitwell v. Willard, 1 Mete. (Mass.) 218.

They may be appointed by courts either of law or equity.

— They are appointed at Abr. Accompt, F; and in many of the in other actions, under statute regulai Pierce v. Thompson, 6 Pick. (Mi Bartlett v. Trefethen, 14 N. II. 421: I bell v. Crout, 3 R. I. 60. An order of ence is proper where an accounting is I sary and the questions of law Involved have been disposed of; Brown v. Finch, 63 Hun 633, 18 X. V. Supp. 551. Where a trial has been commenced before a jury and i Cendant consents to an accounting and the discharge of the jury, he cannot afterwards object to the order of reference because it requires the auditor to pass on disputed questions of law and fact; Garrity v. Hamburger Co. (111.) 28 X. B. 743. Appearing before an auditor and examining witnesses without objection constitutes a waiver of the auditor's taking an oath before entering on his duties; Pardrid Ryan, 134 III. 247, 25 X. E. 027; Newcomb v. Wood, 97 U. S. 581, 24 L. Ed. 1085; i v. Darrow, 22 Hun (N. Y.) 125. They have authority to hear testimony; Shearman v. Akins, 4 Pick. (Mass.) 283; Leach v. Shepard, 5 Vt. 363; Townshend v. Duncan, 2 Bland, Ch. (Md.i 45; Callender v. Colegrove, 17 Conn. 1: Paine v. Ins. Co., 69 Me. 568; in their discretion; Smith v. Smith, 27 N. H. 244; in some states, to examine witnesses under oath; Palmer v. Palmer, 38 N. H. 418; Dorsey v. Hammond, 1 Bland, Ch. (Md.) 463;

— to examine books; Lazarus v. Ins. Co.. 19 Pick. (Mass.) 81; Callender v. Colegrove, 17 Conn. 1; and other vouchers of accounts; Barnard v. Stevens, 11 Mete. (Mass.) 297. The auditor's report must state a special account: Finney's Adm'r v. Harbeson, 4 Yeates (Pa.) 514: Thomas v. Alsop, 2 Rool (Conn.) 12; Tutton v. Addams, 45 Pa. 67; Hill v. Hogaboom, 13 Vt. 141; Bartlett v. Trefethen, 14 N. EL 427: giving items allowed and disallowed: Macks v. Brush. 5 Vt. 70: Whitehead v. Perie. 15 Tex. 7; but it is sufficient if it refer to the account; Demund v. Gowen, 5 N. J. L. 687: but see Derrick v. Belknap's Estate, 27 Vt. 673; and are to report exceptions to their decision of questions taken before them to the court; Thompson v. Arms, 5 Vt. 546; Crousi Uat v. Mc Call, 5 Binn. (Pa.) 433; and exceptions must be taken before them; Chappedelalne v. Dechenaux, 4 Cra. (U. S.) 30S. 2 L. Ed Thompson v. Arms.."> Vt. 546; Davis1 Heirs v. Foley, Walk. (Miss.) W: Whitehead v. Perie, 15 Tex. 7: Benoit v. Brill. 24 Mi Anderson v. Usher, 59 Ga. r><'»7; unless apparent on the face of the report: Himely v. Rose, 5 Cra. (U. S.) 313, 3 L. Ed. 111. See Mengas' Appeal, 19 Pa. 221. In some jurisdictions, the report of auditors is final as to facts; Parker v. Avery, Kirb. (Conn.) 353; Wood v. Barney, 2 Vt 369; Davis' Heirs v. Foley, Walk. (Miss.) 43; In re Ludlam's Estate. 13 Pa. 188; Brad- Perie, 15 Tex. 7; Closson v. Means, 40 Me. 337; unless impeached for fraud, misconduct, or very evident error; Appeal of Stehruan, 5 Pa. 413; Appeal of Speakman, 71 Pa. 25; Closson v. Means, 40 Me. 337; but subject to any examination of the principles of law in which they proceeded; Spencer v. Usher, 2 Day (Conn.) 116. In others it is held prima facie correct; Lyman v. Warren, 12 Mass. 412; Washington County Mutual Ins. Co. v. Dawes, 6 Gray (Mass.) 376; Tourne v. Riviere, 1 La. Ann. 3S0; Bartlett v. Trefethen, 14 N. H. 427; Mathes v. Bennett, 21 N. H. 188; and evidence may be introduced to show its incorrectness; Tourne v. Riviere, 1 La. Ann. 380; Benoit v. Brill, 24 Miss. 83; see Appeal of Thompson, 103 Pa. 603; Colgrove v. Rockwell, 24 Conn. 584; and in others it is held to be of no effect till sanctioned by the court; Dorsey v. Hammond, 1 Bland, Ch. (Md.) 463; Lee v. Abrams, 12 111. 111. When the auditor's report is set aside in whole or in part, it may be referred back; Moore's Ex'r v. Beauchamp, 4 B. Monr. (Ky.) 71; Shearman v. Akins, 4 Pick. (Mass.) 2S3; Leach v. Shepard, 5 Vt. 363; Mason v. Potter, 26 Vt. 722; Bolware v. Bolware, 1 Litt. (Ky.) 124; Lee v. Abrams, 12 111. Ill; Hoyt v. French, 24 N. H. 198; Turner v. Haughton, 71 N. C. 370; Mast v. Lockwood, 59 Wis. 48, 17 N. W. 543; Gardiner v. Schwab, 34 Hun (N. Y.) 582;

— or may be rectified by the court; Swisher v. Fitch, 1 Smedes & M. (Miss.) 543; Dorr v. Hammond, 7 Colo. 79, 1 Pac. 693;

— or accepted if the party in favor of whom the wrong decision was made remits the item. Where the report is referred back to the auditor, the whole case is reopened, and all parties are bound to take notice; In re Thomas' Estate, 76 Pa. 30; see Mason v. Potter, 26 Vt. 722; O'Neill v. Capelle, 62 Mo. 202. Where two or more are appointed, all must act; Crone v. Daniels, 20 Conn. 331; unless the parties consent that a part act for all; Booth v. Tousey, 1 Tyl. (Vt.) 407. An accountant appointed for the purpose of verifying and stating the true financial condition of a corporation, firm or individual. Lindley, L. J., in [1895] 2 Ch. 673, defining his duties to be in substance: To ascertain and state the true financial condition of the company and his duty is confined to that. He must take reasonable care to ascertain that the books show the company's true financial position. But he does not guarantee that the books do correctly show the true position of the company's affairs;

— or that his balance sheet is accurate according to the books. He must use reasonable care and skill, under the circumstances, before he believes that what he certifies is true; where suspicion is aroused more care is necessary.