
    * Ambrose Boyden, Appellant, versus Adam Boyden.
    Guardians of spendthrifts have no control of the persons of their wards.
    The appellant having been duly appointed! by the judge of probate for this county, guardian of the respondent, pursuant to the provisions of the statute of 1783, c. 38, <§> 8., it having appeared to the judge that he was, by excessive drinking, &c., wasting his estate, the judge, on the application of the ward, had removed the guardian from office by virtue of the statute of 1789, c. 46., and had appointed another in his place. From these decrees the appellant appealed to this Court.
    Upon the hearing of the parties, and their evidence here, it appeared that the appellant had taken prudent care of the estate of his ward, but from a misconception of his powers, had in some cases" restrained him of his liberty, and had bound him in service to a neighbor, who exercised the trade to which the ward had been bred.
    
      Chickering, for the appellant.
    
      J. Richardson, for the respondent.
   The Court

after observing that it appeared to be owing to a misapprehension of his powers by the guardian that he had held the person of his ward in restraint, and bound him to service, and that guardians of this peculiar class had no control of the persons of their wards, reversed the decrees of the judge of probate, with costa for the appellant.  