Opinion ID: 1510213
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Report of the Auditor.

Text: At the time the auditor was appointed, there had been 17 suits consolidated for trial. The order of appointment authorized the auditor to hear testimony, determine what issues were admitted, and what in dispute, to make findings, computations, etc., if anything was found due the plaintiff, to apportion the amount among the various defendants  all in order to enable him to testify at the trial to a jury of these actions as a witness, and for no other purpose. Later, 2 of the 17 cases were taken from the consolidated cause and reconsolidated for trial. In refusing to admit the report of the auditor in evidence, the court said: I don't think the auditor would apply to this one case. At the time the audit was made the court was under the impression that the 18 cases would all be tried as one, and in addition to that it would be necessary to change pounds to kilos and dollars to kronen, and then again kronen to dollars, and of course the jury would be not able to compute it; but now, as the court isn't going to submit to the jury the general verdict, but several interrogatories, and then determine what the entire damage was in kronen, and then the court make the computation, and for that reason the report ought not to be submitted. It appears from the record that, in the consolidated case of 17 original cases in which the auditor was appointed, the pleadings were materially different from the pleadings in the 2 cases on trial. It is apparent, also, that the auditor was appointed for the purpose of simplifying the issues in the 17 cases and preparing himself to testify as a witness, but that the court thought that the services of the auditor were not needed on the trial of the 2 consolidated cases. While the power of the court to appoint an auditor in a case of this kind is well settled, it is equally well settled that the report may be used only if, and so far as, acceptable to the court. Ex parte Peterson, 253 U. S. 300, 312, 40 S. Ct. 543, 547 (64 L. Ed. 919). We think there was no abuse of discretion in refusing to admit the report in evidence.