78 TOWNSHEND v. DUNCAN.

del county, and had received the rents and profits of the said land
for six years; but had never accounted with the Orphans Court,
as guardian, for any other sum of money than the balance remain-
ing, after deducting from the gross amount of rents and profits,
the sum of $60 per year. Whereupon they prayed, that a com-
mission might be issued; or some order passed to enable them to
obtain the benefit of the said testimony, &c.

f Upon which the Chancellor expressed a wish to hear counsel;
and for that purpose Ordered, that the matter should stand over
until further order. But the matter was not again moved on behalf
of the infant defendants.

12th August, 1829.—BLAND, Chancellor.—This case standing
ready for hearing, and having been submitted on notes by the soli-
citors of the parties, the proceedings were read and considered.

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
required 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, (i) The act of assembly which authorized the
court to appoint an auditor, does not, in any respect, impair or
abrogate the previous ancient practice; and therefore, special com-
missions, calling for the return of an account along with the proofs,
have often been issued since the passage of that act. (j)

Hence, as the court might clothe commissioners, appointed to
take testimony, with authority to state an account from the proofs
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 to state 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

(t) Dorsey v. Hammond, 1 Bland, 465.—(j) Clapham v. Thompson, 1 Bland, 124,
note; Rutland v. Yates, 1 Bland, 465, note,