
    ARMSTRONG, ET AL. v. MILLER.
    Guardian and ward — intent—investment—exceptions to report.
    Where a guardian has had opportunity to show by his own oath or otherwise his inability tá? invest the money of his ward, but omits to do so, the court will not presume him unable to vest it, to excuse him from inteiest. '
    It will not aid such a presumption to show, that if the money had been invested in stocks then esteemed the best in the city, the loss might have been total.
    An exception to the master’s calculation of interest, will not be allowed) if the error is in favor of the party excepting.
    In Chancery. Exceptions to the report of the master made under the decretal order of the court: see 6 O. R. 118.
    1. Because the master charged interest from the time the money came to the hands of the guardian, without allowing him time to invest it.
    2. Because the master stated an interest account of the receipts and disbursements instead of making rests.
    
      Fox,
    
    in favor of the exceptions.
    F. Worthington, contra.
   By the Court.

The respondent had the privilege of showing before the master his inability to invest the money of his ward, and the master had power to examine him- on oath. He made no .effort to satisfy the master, that he could not invest, nor does he now attempt to show this, but asks the Court to assume that he could not invest for a year or so; and one reason urged is, that if he had inVested, in the best stocks in the eity, it would have been a total loss, as all the banks have failed. As matter of history, we know money could be readily invested at 6 per cent, interest. The statement of the interest account by the master, in the way in which it is done, is more favorable to the respondent than the method he sag-' gests in his exception.

The exceptions are disallowed.  