TOWNSHEND v. DUNCAN—2 BLAND. 75

It was the well settled practice of the Court of Chancery of
Maryland, under the Provincial Government, and has continued
to be so ever since the establishment of the Republic, without any
doubt or interruption, that in all cases where an account was re-
quired by the Court, or the parties, a special commission might
issue, directing the commissioners to take testimony; " and also to
state, audit, settle, and adjust all accounts relating to the matter
in dispute, that should be produced to them; " and to reduce into
writing such account; and to return the same, with the depositions
of the witnesses. Dorsey v. Hammond, 1 Bland, 465. The Act of
Assembly which authorized the Court to appoint an auditor, does
not, in any respect, impair or abrogate the previous ancient prac-
tice; and therefore, special commissions, calling for the return of
an account along with the proofs, have often been issued since
the passage of that Act. Clapham v. Thompson, 1 Bland, 124,
note; Rutland v. Tates, 1 Bland, 465, note.

Hence, as the Court might clothe commissioners, appointed to
take testimony, with authority to state an account from the prooi's
collected by them; and as it appears that formerly, when a case
was referred to a master to take the depositions of witnesses, upon
oath; so it has been held, ever since the passage of the Act of
Assembly authorizing the appointment of an auditor, that when
a case is referred to the auditor, by any interlocutory decree to
account; or by an order directing him testate an account, or make
estimates, as in this instance, from the proofs then in the case,
and such other proofs as may be laid before him, such a reference
in itself clothes him with the power properly belonging to such an
officer according to the aucient course; as if the case had been
referred to a master in Chancery, or a special commission had
been issued to take testimony and state an account: which, indeed,
it is conceived, has been virtually affirmed by the Act of Assembly
directing the appointment of an auditor, and authorizing him to
administer an oath to all witnesses and persons proper to be ex-
amined upon such an account, (s) 1785, ch. 72, s. 17. Conse-

(s) CHESELDINE v. GORDON.—This bill was filed on the 14th day of Decem-
ber, 1740, by Kenelmn Cheseldine against George Gordon and Kenelmn C.
Jowles, executors of George Forbes, deceased, and Ann Greenfield, execu-
trix of Thomas T. Greenfield, deceased, and Dryden Forbes, executrix of
Henry P. Jowles, deceased. The bill states that Kenelmn Cheseldine made
his will, by which he made sundry devises, and appointed his wife, the
plaintiff's mother, his executrix; and also appointed Thomas T. Greenfield,
now deceased, and the testator of the defendant Ann, and Henry P. Jowles,
now deceased, and the testator of the defendant Dryden, as guardians of the
* plaintiff, his son and heir—soon after which, he died seized and possessed of
several tracts of land. That the plaintiff was then about four years of age,
and his mother and George Forbes entered upon, or continued in possession
of the lands which had so descended, or been devised to the plaintiff; but
that soon after, Thomas T. Greenfield, the testator of the defendant Ann,