ccci GAWTON and the lord Dacres case see Lyell v Kennedy App Cas in debt upon  surplusage of a account by Gawton against George Lord Dacres it be say by  periam justice and not deny by any that if I make I S my auditor general to  take account of all my bailiff and receiver that he be not a sufficient  auditor without a patent for when a man be make a auditor general he be a  officer and a officer can be without a deed but if a bailiff or receiver be  Accountable to I it be as clear on the other side that I may appoint one to be  my auditor to take the account of he pro here vice by word which Anderson  grant but if he afterward take a account of any by force or colour of the say  warrant without my commandment he be not a sufficient auditor to such intent  either to take the account or to assess the arrearage if the accountant be  find in arrear or to make allowance if he be find in surplusage and by he if  one become my bailiff of his own wrong without my appointment he be  Accountable to I but I be not compellable to make he any allowance for his  expense about my business and if I assign to such bailiff of his own wrong a  auditor be can make allowance of such expense Anderson if my auditor make  allowance to my bailiff for any collateral expense which he have expend in my  affair which no not concern my manor whereof he be bailiff such allowance  shall not bind I and note that in this action the plaintiff declare that he be  bailiff to the defendant of certain manor receiver of certain money and so  retain ad to visit to carry on business to take care of and upon account the  allowance be make unto he for his boardwage and other expense in ride daughter  of the Sun to carry on business and by Anderson these allowance shall not bind  the defendant for as bailiff of a manor no expense shall be allow unto he but  those which the bailiff have expend within the manor and if I retain one to go  about my business be be not Accountable Windham if I retain one to follow my  business and deliver to he money to disburse in such business he be  Accountable Anderson it be so true but it be not in respect of the say  retainer but as he be receiver and if he expend more than he have receive be  do it without warrant and no allowance shall be make unto he if the bailiff be  find in surplusage in the conclusion of the account the auditor ought to enter  allocatur super boundary count in surplusagiis so much for such and such  expense allocatis allocandis upon the next account but in this case it appear  upon the evidence that the entry upon the foot of the account be and so he be  in surplusage upon the determination of this account twenty six pound but the  auditor be examine say that it be not his meaning to allow unto he so much but  only to find and express the certainty of the whole account and so refer the  allowance of it to the defendant to who he be auditor and upon that the court  say to the jury if they believe the auditor that they shall find against the  plaintiff for upon the matter here be not any account and so no allowance for  the allowance if it have be accord to law ought to be enter before allocatur c  and such allowance be as a judgement but here be not any allowance for the  auditor do refer the same to the defendant but if the jury do not give credit  to the auditor then the court move the jury to find Leonard it special that  the party be auditor without deed and the find of the account as it be set  down in the declaration and the manner of the conclusion of it videlicet that  the plaintiff be in surplusage upon the determination of the account for his  expense in ride daughter of the Sun to carry on business defendant and for his  boardwage twenty six pound Len king b three Leonard er p mich Elizabeth in the  common bench