DORSET v. HAMMOND.—1 BLAND. 443

* The objections urged against this report indicate an
opinion of the solicitor, that the auditor had somehow 469
stepped beyond his proper sphere in making it as he has done.
No officer should allow himself to deviate from the line of duty
marked out for him by law. The auditor is properly a mere minis-
terial officer of the Court. It is true, that he may legally admin-
ister an oath to a witness and take his testimony in relation to an
account desired to be stated; Moore v. Aylet, 2 Dick. C41; yet he
has no judicial power; nor can the Legislature constitutionally
confer any portion of the Chancellor's judicial power upon him.
He is not in any sense an arbitrator; nor is his report, under any
circumstances, considered as obligatory on the parties, unless con-
firmed by the Court. When a case is referred to arbitrators, the
Court divests itself of all judgment, and the arbitrators are con-
stituted judges of the fact without appeal; on a reference to the
auditor it is otherwise,—he is only to prepare the ease as a minis-
ter for the Chancellor who is really the Judge. .Field v. Holland,
6 Cran. 21; Dick v. Milligan, 2 Ves. jun. 24. Nor can the auditor
be allowed to act, in any manner, as a prying, pragmatical agent,
hunting up and collecting the means of making or sustaining any
claim, or objection in relation to the matter in controversy. It is
his duty to confine himself strictly to that which appears upon the
face of the proceedings and proofs, and to abstain from suggesting
any objection, prejudicial to any party, which the Court, in its
regular course, would not, of itself, notice and sustain, if founded
in fact. It is his duty to examine and digest accounts; to prepare
the * materials on which a decree or final disposition of the
case may be made; and to report the result of his examina- 470
tions, subject to all exceptions of the parties, and to the further
order of the Chancellor. On a consideration of this case it does
not appear, that the auditor has in any respect departed from the
proper line of his duty. Le Sage v. Coussmaker, i Esp. Rep. 187;
Field v. Holland, 6 Cran. 21.

According to the long established practice in creditors' suits it
has been most usual, and particularly so of late years, to order the
case to the auditor, or rather for the trustee or a party interested
to take it to him, after the time allowed to other creditors to ex-
hibit their claims has elapsed, and have an account stated and

which he is entitled to, and take his receipt in full, he will probably run no
risk of being sued on his bond.

For illustration. N. Latcham appears, from the report aforesaid, entitled
to the sum of £6 5s. 1d. out of the sum of £112 19s. lid. He is likewise
entitled to his dividend of the interest, which the trustee shall receive on
the said £112 19s. 1 1/2d. Suppose two years interest to be paid on the said
£112 19s. 1 1/2d. This will be about £13 11s. Od. Then as £112 19s. 1 1/2d. is
to £13 11s. Od. so is the sum of £6 5s. 1d. to the additional sum which the
said Latcham will be entitled to. So of the rest.