148 MoKIM v. THOMPSON.—1 BLAND.

But in the case of Freeman and Fairlie, the facts appear to have
been deduced, under all circumstances, from the answer itself.
The first step taken to find |acts beyond, but in the immediate
precincts of the answer, was, where a schedule was referred to in
the answer as containing a correct statement; the items of which
schedule, if added up, would shew the sum admitted to be due.
Such a form of admission was, therefore, held to establish the facts
as unequivocally as if the sum had been distinctly specified in the
answer itself. This position necessarily comprehended another
case, going apparently one step further, but which was, in fact,
precisely the same in principle; that is, where the party referred
in his answer to, and produced a set of books of account, and
alleged, that they contained a true statement of facts. If, on re-
ferring them to the auditor, he reports, that they shew a certain
amount to be in the defendant's hands, it will be considered as an
indirect, but sufficient admission of such fact; and the Court will
order the money to be brought in. Mills v. Hanson, 8 Ves. 68, 93;
Hatch v. ——, 19 Fes. 116; Wood v. Dowses, 1 Fes. & Ben. 49;
Roe v. Gudgeon, Coop. Rep. 304. But, if no distinct fact can be
deduced from the answer itself, laying a foundation for such a
motion, and the case is referred to the auditor, and the party, on
his examination there, makes admissions of such facts, they will
be considered as binding and conclusive as if made in the answer
itself. So much, then, for the direct and indirect statements and
admissions of the party himself. Quarrel! v. Beckford. 14 Vex.
177; Yigrass v. Binfield, 3 Mad. 02.

There are other cases, which shew that the Court has gone much
further with the principle, and distinctly manifested a disposition
to follow it out in all its bearings. For, where a controverted case
of accounts had been referred to the auditor to adjust, and the
parties had there fully contested the matter, and the report
159 of the * auditor shewed a balance in the defendant's hands,
to which he was not entitled; in such case, after the time allowed
to except to it. had expired; and after it had been confirmed, an
order was granted to have the money brought into Court. Gordon
v. Rothley, 3 Ves. 572; Fox v. Mackreth, 3 Bro. C. C. 45. And
this not on the ground of any admission of the party; for the truth
might have been, that he contested every item and every point
before the auditor; but upon the ground, that the Court was pre-
sented with facts in that stage of the case, which had been estab-
lished in a due course of judicial proceeding, which could not
thereafter be, in any manner, questioned or denied by the same
party; for an order confirming a report of the auditor is, in this
respect, a judgment of the Court. Brown v. Barkman, 1 P. Wil.
653. (d)

(d) TAYLOR v. WOOD.—KILTY, C., 25th July, 1815.—The report of the
auditor in this case was filed on the 35th of March last, and having laid