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 Parl. 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 common law in actions of account; Bacon, Abr. Accompt, F; and in many of the states in other actions, under statute regulations ; Pierce v. Thompson, 6 Pick. (Mass.) 193 ; Bartlett v. Trefethen, 14 N. H. 427; Camp bell v. Crout, 3 R. I. 60. An order of refer ence is proper where an accounting is neces sary and the questions of law involved have been disposed of ; Brown v. Finch, 63 Hun 633, 18 N. Y. Supp. 551. Where a trial has been commenced befOre a jury and the de fendant 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. Ham burger Co. (Ill.) 28 N. E. 743.
Appearing before an auditor and examin ing witnesses without objection constitutes a waiver of the auditor's taking an oath be fore entering on his duties ; Pardridge v. Ryan, 134 Ill. 247, 25 N. E. 627; Newcomb v. Wood, 97 U. S. 581, 24 L. Ed. 1085 ; Kelsey 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.) 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 ex amine witnesses under oath; Palmer v. Palm er, 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 Root (Conn.) 12 ; Tutton v. Addams, 45 Pa. 67; Hill v. Hogaboom, 13 Vt. 141; Bartlett v. Trefethen, 14 N. H. 427; giving items allow ed 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 Herrick v. Belknap's Estate, 27 Vt. 673; and are to re port exceptions to their decision of questions taken before them to the court; Thompson v. Arms, 5 Vt. 546; Crousillat v. McCall, 5 Binn. (Pa.) 433; and exceptions must be taken before them ; Chappedelaine v. Dech enaux, 4 Cra. (U. S.) 308, 2 L. Ed. 629; Thompson v. Arms, 5 Vt. 546 ; Davis' Heirs v. Foley, Walk. (Miss.) 43; Whitehead v. Perle, 15 Tex. 7; Benoit v. Brill, 24 Miss. 83; Anderson v. Usher, 59 Ga. 567; unless ap parent 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 audi tors 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 Ludiam's Estate, 13 Pa. 188; Brad ford v. Wright, 5 R. I. 338; Whitehead v.
Perle, 15 Tex. 7; Closson v. Means, 40 Me. 337; unless impeached for fraud, misconduct, or very evident error ; Appeal of Stehman, 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. 112; Washington County Mutual Ins. Co. v. Dawes, 6 Gray (Mass.) 376; Tourne v. Riviere, 1 La. Ann. 380; Bartlett v. Tre fethen, 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 ; Col grove v. Rockwell, 24 Conn. 584; and in oth ers 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 Ill. 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.) 283 ; Leach v. Shepard, 5 Vt. 363 ; Mason v. Potter, 26 Vt. 722; Bolware v. Bol ware, 1 Litt. (Ky.) 124 ; Lee v. Abrams, 12 111; Hoyt v. French, 24 N. H. 198; Tur ner v. Haughton, 71 N. C. 370; Mast v. Lock wood, 59 Wis. 48, 17 N. W. 543; Gardiner v. Schwab, 34 Hun (N. Y.) 582; or may he rectified by the court; Swisher v. Fitch, 1 Smedes & M. (Miss.) 543 ; Dorr v. Ham mond, 7 Colo. 79, 1 Pac. 693; or accepted if the party in favor of whom the wrong de cision 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. Pot ter, 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 individu al. Lindley, L. J., in [1895] 2 Ch. 673, defin ing his duties to be in substance: To ascer tain and state the true financial condition of the company and 'his duty is confined to that. He must take reasonable care to as certain 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 accord ing to the books. He must use reasonable care and skill, under the circumstances, be fore he believes that what he certifies is true ; where suspicion Is aroused more care is necessary.