Biennial report of the Attorney-General of the State of North Carolina |
Previous | 29 of 36 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
|
This page
All
|
of ti)e (^ntt)er$itp of Bottb Carolina Collection ot jRortj^ Catoliniana UNIVERSITY OF N.C. AT CHAPEL HILL 00033944634 This hook must not he taken from the Lihvary huildin^. Vi C ^^./ i6jan'40 Uian'4i 24Nov'4^ LUNC-SM Ja.3 5 OP-10915 ' Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2011 with funding from Ensuring Democracy through Digital Access (NC-LSTA) http://www.archive.org/details/biennialrep1932attrny1934 c^^'^%1 ,=^3-- BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA VOLUME 22 1932-1934 DENNIS G. BRUMMITT ATTORNEY GENERAL A. A. F. SEAWELL T. W. BRUTON* ASSISTANT ATTORNEYS GENERAL * Succeeded Walter D. Siler, July 1, 1933. Presses of Edwards & Beoughton Company State Printeks Raleigh, N. C. LIST OF ATTORNEYS GENERAL SINCE THE ADOPTION OF CONSTITUTION IN 1776 Term of Office Avery, Waightstill 1777-1779 Iredell, James 1779-1782 Moore, Alfred 1782-1790 Haywood, J. John 1791-1794 Baker, Blake 1794-1803 Seawell, Henry 1803-1808 Fltts, Oliver 1808-1810 Miller, William 1810-1810 Burton, Hutchins G 1810-1816 Drew, William 1816-1825 Taylor, James F 1825-1828 Jones, Robert H 1828-1828 Saunders, Romulus M 1828-1834 Daniel, John R. J 1834-1840 McQueen, Hugh 1840-1842 Whitaker, Spier 1842-1846 Stanly, Edward 1846-1848 Moore, Bartholomew F 1848-1851 Eaton, William 1851-1852 Ransom, Matt W 1852-1855 Batchelor, Joseph B 1855-1856 Bailey, William H 1856-1856 Jenkins, William A 1856-1862 Rogers, Sion H 1862-1868 Coleman, William M 1868-1869 Olds, Lewis P 1869-1870 Shipp, William M 1870-1872 Hargrove, Tazewell L 1872-1876 Kenan, Thomas S 1876-1884 Davidson, Theodore F 1884-1892 Osborne, Frank 1 1892-1896 Walser, Zeb V 1896-1900 Douglas, Robt. D 1900-1901 Gilmer, Robt. D 1901-1908 Bickett, T. W 1909-1916 Manning, James S 1917-1925 Brummitt, Dennis G 1925- o LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL . State of North Carolina, Department of the Attorney General Raleigh, 15 November, 1934. To His Excellency, J. C. B. Ehringhaus, Governor, Raleigh, North Carolina. Dear Sir:—In compliance with statutes relating thereto, I herewith transmit the report of this Department for the biennium 1932-1934. Yours very truly, Dennis G. Bbummitt, B : P Attorney General. EXHIBIT Civil Actions Disposed of ok Pending in the Courts of Nobth Carolina and in Other Courts Pending in Superior Courts of North Carolina Stedman, Treas. v. Consolidated Indemnity Company. University of l^orth Carolina & John D. Blake v. McNeely, et al. Winston-Salem & Southbound Railroad v. Maxwell, Commissioner of Revenue. Federal Land Bank v. J. H. Wilson, et al. Norfolk Western Railway Company v. Maxwell, Commissioner of Revenue. (2 cases) Southeastern Express Company v. Maxwell, Commissioner of Revenue. (2 cases) J. A. Hall V. Maxwell, Commissioner of Revenue. Ross Federal Service, Inc. v. Maxwell, Commissioner of Revenue. M. P. Clark v. State Hospital. Rucker Bonded Warehouse Company v. Maxwell, Commissioner of Revenue. Mrs. Sallie Holderfield v. George Ross Pou, et al. The Texas Company v. Board of Education. Maxwell, Commissioner of Revenue, v. L. D. Melvin. Maxwell, Commissioner of Revenue, v. E. G. Richardson. Allison, et al. v. Sharpe, et al. T. A. Clark v. C. B. Medford, Admr. State Hospital v. Leon G. Stevens, Gdn. State Hospital v. Maggie Stewart. State Hospital v. Security National Bank. State Hospital v. Carrie L. McLean, Admx. State Hospital v. Thos. C. Hoyle, Gdn. Utilities Commissioner v. Plemmons. Utilities Commissioner v. W. Hoke Smith. Utilities Commissioner v. Wade H. Rhea. Utilities Commissioner v. Mackey, et al. Belk Bros Company v. Maxwell, Commissioner of Revenue. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Distributing Corporation v. Maxwell, Com-missioner of Revenue. 8 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL [Vol. City of Greensboro v. James T. Enoch, et ux,, etc. City of Greensboro v. John Sharpe, et ux., etc. Ann Cannon Reynolds, et al. v. Zachary Smith Reynolds, et al. and Maxwell, Com'r of Revenue. Disposed of in Superior Courts of I^^orth Carolina State V. H. L. Drake. Maxwell, Commissioner of Revenue, v. Fidelity Bank. R. K. O. Distributing Company v. Maxwell, Commissioner of Revenue. In re : Central Bank & Trust Company. First N^at'l Bank, Receiver, "Wright Estate, v. Maxwell, Commissioner of Revenue. Thos. R. Hocutt V. University of jSTorth Carolina. State and Park Commission v. Surety Companies. ISTorthcutt V. Peoples Bonded Warehouse Company. State ex rel. Maxwell, Commissioner, v. Reynolds Tobacco Company. Long V. Anderson and Owen. General Electric Supply Company v. State College. State V. Standard Oil Company, et al. Stedman, State Treasurer, and Maxwell, Commissioner, v. Holston Oil Co., et al. TJ. S. Mortgage Company v. Maxwell, Commissioner of Revenue. Stedman, Treasurer, v. Southern Surety Company. Hackney v. Hood, Commissioner of Banks. Ashlyn L. Cannon v. Maxwell, Commissioner of Revenue. Hans Rees' Sons, Inc. v. Maxwell, Commissioner of Revenue. Suncrest Lumber Company v. Maxwell, Commissioner of Revenue. Ravensford Lumber Company v. Maxwell, Commissioner of Revenue. Atlantic Coast Line Railway v. Maxwell, Commissioner of Revenue. Pending in the Supreme Court of ISTorth Carolina State ex rel. State Hospital v. Security National Bank. State and Park Commission v. Surety Companies. State ex rel. Dennis G. Brummitt v. Herman W. "Winburn. State ex rel. Dennis G. Brummitt v. Harry Gorson. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad v. Maxwell, Commissioner of Revenue. Disposed of in the Supreme Court of North Carolina Stone Company v. Maxwell, Commissioner of Revenue, 203 N". C, 151. Hackney v. Hood, Commissioner of Banks, 203 N. C, 486. University of North Carolina v. City of High Point, 203 K C, 558. 22] BIENNIAI. REl'ORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 9 Elliott V. Board of Equalization, 203 N. C, 749. Commissioiier of Kevenue v. Realty Company, 204 IST. C, 123, Stedman, Treasurer, v. Winston-Salem, 204 N. C, 203. State of North Carolina v. Chaminon Fibre Com^^any, 204 N". C, 295. Birchfield v. Dept. Conservation and Development, 204 ]N". C, 217. Maxwell, Commissioner of Revenue, v. Kent Coffey Mfg. Company, 204 K C, 365. State V. Standard Oil Company, et al., 205 N. C, 123. Cannon v. Maxwell, Commissioner of Revenue, 205 ^N". C, 420. Perdue v. Board of Equalization, 205 N". C, 730. Hollowell V. Dept. Conservation and Development, 206 N. C, 206. Utilities Commissioner v. Mackey, 206 IST. C, 554. Utilities Commissioner v. Browning, 206 N^. C, 557. Utilities Commissioner v. Sutton, 206 N". C, 559. In re: Bank of Ayden, 206 K C, 821. il^orthcutt V. Peoples Bonded "Warehouse Company, et al., 206 N. C, 842. Hemric, et al. v. Board of Commissioners, 206 IST. C, 845. Reed v. Lavendar Brothers, et al., 206 K C, 898. State ex rel. Maxwell, Com'r of Revenue, v. S. J. Hinsdale, et al., 207 W. C, 37. Disposed of in General County Court of Buncombe County S. K. Young V. J. C. Champion. Disposed of Before Industrial Commission Price V. State Hospital. Robert W. Tolar v. N". C. National Guard. Bell H. Stronach v. Dept. of Revenue. Gertrude Upchurch v. Dept. of Attorney General. Disposed of in Supreme Court of United States State of Alabama v. State of Arizona, et al., 291 U. S., 286, 78 L. ed., 798. Wallace B. Davis v. North Carolina, 287 U. S., 645., 77 L. ed., 558. Wallace B. Davis, Luke Lea and Luke Lea, Jr., v. State of North Carolina, 278 U. S. 649., 77 L. ed., 561. Luke Lea and Luke Lea, Jr. v. State of North Carolina, 287 U. S., 66?: 77 L. ed. 576. Kent Coifey Mfg. Co. v. Maxwell, Commissioner of Revenue, 291 U. S. 642, 78 L. ed., 1040. State of Tenn. ex rel. Luke Lea, et al., v. Laurence E. Brown, et al., 10 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL [Vol. 22] Agents of North Carolina, 292 U. S. 638, 78 L. ed., 1491. George Whitfield v. State of North Carolina, 293 U. S.—79 L. ed.— Pending in United States Distbict Court Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. v. ISTorfolk Southern Railroad Co. American Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Maxwell, Commissioner of Revenue. Disposed of in United States District Court Yalvoline Oil Company v. Federal Oil Company. United States v. First and Citizens Bank. Transportation Corporation v. Self. City of Winston-Salem v. Powell Paving Company, et al., 7 Fed. Supp., 424. Pending in Supreme Court of jSTbw York State Loftin, Receiver v. University of North Carolina, et al. Disposed of in Corporation Court of Virginia State ex rel. State Hospital v. First National Bank of Danville, Va. Disposed of in Circuit Court or Appeals United States v. Doughton, et al., 62 Fed. (2d) 986. EXHIBIT II List of Criminal Cases Argued by the Attorney General and his Assistants Before the Supreme Court, Fall Term, 1932; Spring Term, 1933; Fall Term, 1933; Spring Term, 1934. FALL TERM, 1932 1. Stat© V, Batemen, from Pasquotank ; A. D. W., defendant appealed ; no error. 2. State V. Briggs, from Edgecombe ; violation of weights and meas-ures act ; defendant appealed ; reversed. 3. State V. Brown, from Duplin; murder; appealed by defendant, remanded, 4. State V. Bryson, from Jackson; murder 2nd degree; appeal by defendant; no error. 5. State V. Burleson, et al., from Mitchell; breaking and entering; appeal by defendants ; new trial. 6. State V. Byrd, from Mitchell ; worthless check ; appeal by defend-ant ; new trial. 7. State V. Call, from Davie; violation prohibition law; appeal by defendant ; no error. 8. State V. Cope, from Haywood ; manslaughter ; appeal by defendant new trial. 9. State V. Dills, from Swain; manslaughter; appeal by defendant; no error. 10. State V. Ellis, from Davie; murder 2d degree; appeal by defend-ant ; no error, 11. State V. Everhardt, from Eowan; public nuisance; appeal by defendant ; no error. 12. State V. Fogleman, from Rockingham ; murder 1st degree ; appeal by defendant ; no error. 13. State V. Franklin, from Avery; worthless check; appeal by de-fendant; reversed. 14. State V. French, from Guilford ; S. A. W. D. "W. ; appeal by de-fendant ; no error. 15. State V. Garner, et al., from Duplin; bank robbery; appeal by defendants ; no error. 12 BIENNIAL BEPOBT OF THE ATTORNEY GENEEAL [Vol. 16. State V. Golden, et al., from Surry; violation proMbition law; appeal by defendants ; appeal dismissed. 17. State V. Gossett, from Guilford; abandonment, etc.; appeal by defendant; no error. 18. State V. Gray, from Cabarrus ; homicide ; appeal by defeoidant ; no error. 19. State V. Gregory, from Guilford; manslaughter; appeal by de-fendant; new trial. 20. State v. Grier, from Gaston ; murder 1st degree ; appeal by defend-ant ; no error. 21. State V. Harrell, from Vance; municipal ordinance; appeal by de-fendant ; no error. 22. State v. Jones, from Wake ; murder 1st degree ; appeal by defend-ant ; no error. 23. State v. Ledford, from Clay ; manslaughter ; appeal by defendant ; reversed. 24. State v. Manos, from Buncombe ; abandonment, etc. ; appeal bj* defendant ; no error. 25. State v. McKeithan, from Hoke; arson; appeal by defendant; no error. 26. State v. McLamb, from Sampson ; secret assault ; appeal by defend-ant ; no error. 27. State v. Pardue, from Wilkes; embezzlement; appeal by defend-ant ; new trial. 28. State v. Raper, et al., from Forsyth; conspiracy; appeal by de-fendants ; new trial. 29. State v. E.awls, from Pitt ; embezzlement ; appeal by defendant ; dismissed. 30. In re : Scales, from Forsyth ; contempt ; appeal by respondent affirmed. 31. State V. Shepherd, from Wilkes ; forcible trespass ; appeal by de-fendant ; new trial. 32. State v. Shipman, from Transylvania; violation banking laAvs; motion by State to docket and dismiss ; error and remanded. 33. State v. Stafford, from Wayne ; murder 1st degree ; appeal by de-fendant; affirmed. 34. In re : Stiers, from Rockingham ; disbarment proceeding ; appeal by State ; affirmed. 35. State v. Stewart, from Surry; breaking and entering; appeal by defendant ; no error. 36. State v. Stinnett, from Orange; trespass, etc.; appeal by defend-ant; reversed. 22] BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 13 37. State v. Varner, from Haywood ; abandonment, etc. ; appeal by defendant ; death of defendant, action abates. 3'8. State v. Wallace, from Lee ; murder 1st degree ; appeal by defend-ant ; no error. Docketed and Dismissed on Motion 39. State v. Clyde Jones, from Green. 40. State v. Mack Rhodes, from Henderson. 41. State V. Davis, from Buncombe. 42. State v. Lea, from Buncombe. 43. State v. Arnold and Champion, from Wake. 44. State v. Whitley, from Guilford. 45. State v. Gettys, from McDowell. 46. State v. ISToland, from Buncombe. 47. State v. Hyatt, from Haywood. 48. State v. Gatewood, et al., from Moore. 49. State v. Bryan, from Forsyth. SPRIN"G TEEM, 1933 50. State v. Amnions, et al., from Buncombe ; mutilation ; appeal by defendants ; no error. 51. State V. Banks, from McDowell; manslaughter; appeal by de^ fendant ; no error. 52. State v. Brown, from Duplin ; manslaughter ; appeal by defend-ant ; no error. 53. State v. Carter, from Bertie; murder 2d degree; appeal by de-fendant; reversed. 54 State v. Casey, from Lenoir; murder 1st degree; appeal by de^ fendant ; no error. 55. State v. Dula, from Forsyth; embezzlement; appeal by defend-ant ; new trial. 56. State v. Gillespie, et al., from Alleghany; robbery; appeal by defendants ; new trial. 57. State v. Harris, from Wake ; carnal knowledge ; appeal by de-fendant ; no error. 58. State v. Ingram, et al., from Forsyth; lottery; appeal by defend-ants ; no error. 59. State v. Langley, from Buncombe ; murder 1st degree ; defendants appeal as to judgment ; remanded. 60. State v. Layton, from Wake ; abortion ; appeal by defendant ; no error. 14 BIENNIAT, REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL [Vol. 61. State V, Lowe, from Guliford; receiving; appeal by defendant; reversed. 62. State v. McClure, from Avery; embezzlement; appeal by defend-ant ; no error. 63. State v. McNair, from Guilford; murder 1st degree; appeal by defendant ; no error. 64. State v. Moore, et al., from New Hanover; conspiracy to black-mail ; appeal by defendants ; no error. 65. State v. Moore', et al., from Sampson; violation banking laws; appeal by defendants ; motion to dismiss allowed. 66. State v. JSToland, from Buncombe ; bribery ; appeal by defendant ; no error. 67. State v. Patrick, from Washington; seduction; appeal by de-fendant; reversed. 68. State v. Raper, from Forsyth ; conspiracy to rob ; appeal by de-fendant; reversed. 69. State v. Smith, from Forsyth ; breaking, entering, etc. ; appeal by defendant ; new trial. 70. State v. Stone, from Wilkes; murder 1st degree; appeal by de-fendant; no error. 71. State V. Whiteside and Cannon, from Buncombe; conspiracy to rob ; appeal by defendant Cannon ; no error. Docketed and Dismissed on Motion 72. State v. Hines, from Forsyth. 73. State v. Lassiter, from Wake. 74. State v. Rogers, from Wake. 75. State v. Hutchins, from Wake. 76. State v. Cranfill, from Forsyth. 77. State v. Fowler, from Davidson. 78. State v. Davis, from Guilford. 79. State v. Riddle and Huffman, from Guilford. FALL TERM, 1933. 80. State v. Bailey, et al., from Lee; murder 2d degree; appeal by defendants; no error. 81. State V. Baldwin, et al., from Buncombe; assault; appeal by de-fendants; affirmed. 82. State v. Bell, from Macon; conspiracy to murder; appeal by defendant; new triaL 22] BIENNIAL BEPOBT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 15 83, State v. Blakeney, from Union ; false entries ; appeal by defend-ant; motion of defendant to dismiss allowed. 84. State v. Blakeney, from Union; false entries; appeal by defend-ant ; motion of defendant to dismiss allowed. 85. State v. Breece, from Wake; embezzlement; appeal by defend-ant ; new trial. 86, State v. Carter, from Guilford; municipal ordinance; appeal by defendant ; no error. 87 State v. Cofer, from Forsyth ; bribery ; appeal by defendant ; no error. 88. State v. Cooper, from Durham ; murder 1st degree ; appeal by de-fendant ; no error. 89. State v. Davidson, et al., from Cherokee; conspiracy to defraud; appeal by defendants ; no error, 90. State V. Eccles, from Forsyth; manslaughter; appeal by defend-ant ; no error. 91. State V, Evans, from "Wake; doing business without license; ap-peal by defendant ; no error. 92. State v. Ferrell, from Durham; murder 1st degree; appeal by de-fendant; no error. 93. State v. Fowler and Brincefield, from Forsyth; lottery; appeal by defendants ; no error as to Fowler ; reversed as to Brincefield, 94. Goff, et al., from I^ew Hanover ; assault ; appeal by defendants ; remanded. 95. State v. Hall, from Rockingham; murder 2d degree; appeal by defendant ; no error. 96. State v. Ham, from Durham ; murder 2d degree ; appeal by de-fendant ; no error. 97. State v. Harwood, from Wake; petition to vacate disbarment; appeal by defendant ; affirmed. 98. State v. Johnson, from Wake ; A. D. W. ; appeal by defendant ; no error. 99. State v. Keaton, from Forsyth; murder 1st degree; appeal by de-fendant ; new trial. 100. State V. ISTorris, from Columbus; prohibition law; appeal by de-fendant ; no error. 101. State V. Pike, et al., from Buncombe; conspiracy to rob; appeal by defendants ; appeal dismissed. 102. State v. Riddle, et al., from Guilford; highway robbery; appeal by defendants ; no error. 103. State v. Rowland, from Rowan; abandonment, etc.; appeal by defendant ; no error. 16 BIENNIAL EEPOBT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL [Vol. 104. State v. Sinodis, from Guilford; perjury; appeal by defendant; reversed. 105. State v. Tatum, from Orange; worthless check; appeal by de'- fendant ; new trial. 106. State v. Wall, from Eockingham; murder 2d degree; appeal by defendant; no error. 107. State v. "Welborn, from Guilford; proceeding on appearance bond ; appeal by respondent ; error and remanded. 108. State v. Wilson, from Burke; burning barn; appeal by defend-ant ; no error. Docketed and Dismissed on Motion 109. State v. Edwards, from Mecklenburg, 110. State V. Johnson, from Hoke. 111. State V. Edmundson, from Wayne. SPEING TEEM, 1934 112. State V. Aldridge, from Avery; conspiracy to assault; appeal by defendant ; no error. 113. State V. Anthony, from Washington; breaking, entering, etc.; appeal by defendant ; reversed. 114. State V. Bank, from McDowell; worthless check; appeal by defendant; no error. 115. State V. Bittings, from Person; murder 1st degree; appeal by defendant ; no error. 116. State V. Brooks, from Durham ; murder 1st degi-ee ; appeal by defendant ; no error. 117. State V. Cohoon, from Pasquotank; embezzlement; appeal by de-fendant ; reversed. 118. State V. Crockett, from Eorsyth; murder 1st degree; appeal by defendant ; no error. 119'. Currie, et al., from l^ew Hanover; assault, robbery, etc.; ap-peal by defendants ; dismissed. 120. State v. Dalton, from Henderson; murder 1st degree; appeal by defendant ; no error. 121. State V. Dickey, from Mecklenburg; manslaughter; appeal by defendant ; new trial. 122. State v. Dula, from Forsyth ; embezzlement ; appeal by defend-ant ; no error. 123. State v. Eerrell, from Durham; murder 1st degree; appeal by defendant; dismissed. 22] BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 17 124. State v. Henderson, from PendeT; seduction; appeal by defend-ant ; new trial. 125. State V. Hollingswortli, from Forsyth; false pretense; appeal by movant; affirmed. 126. State v. Jones, et al., from Moore; murder 2d degree; appeal by defendants ; no error. 127. State v. Keaton, from Forsytb; murder 1st degree; appeal by defendant; no error. 128. State v. Keeter, from Mecklenburg; manslaughter ; appeal by defendant; no exror. 129. State v. Kelly, et al., from Vance; assault and kidnapping; appeal by defendants; remanded. 130. State v. Klutz, et al., from Anson ; bouse burning; appeal by de-fendants ; new trial. 131. State V. Lee, from Wake; A. D. W. ; appeal by defendant; new trial. 132. State v. Ray, from Orange ; embezzlement ; appeal by defendant ; new trial. 133. State v. Sasseen, et al., from Mecklenburg; municipal ordinance; special verdict ; appeal by State ; affirmed. 134. State v. Satterfield, from Wayne; murder 1st degree; case car-ried over to Fall Term, 1934. 135. State v. Sheffield, from Haywood ; murder 1st degree ; appeal by defendant ; no error. 136. State v. Shore, from Forsyth ; embezzlement ; appeal by defend-ant; affirmed. 137. State v. Stefanoff, et al., from Alexander; murder 1st degree; appeal by defendants ; no error. 138. State v. Whitfield, from Guilford; rape; appeal by defendant; no error. 139. State v. Wilcox, from Robeson; prohibition law; appeal by de-fendant ; new trial. 140. State v. Wilcox, from Robeson; assault; appeal by defendant; new trial. Docketed and Dismissed on Motion 141. State V. Dallas Hamlet, from Duplin. 142. State v. Brown, from Forsyth. 143. State v. Bradsher, from Moore. 144. State v. John B, Thomas, from Richmond, 145. State v. ISTelms, from Guilford. 18 BIENNIAL, REIK)RT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL [Vol. 22] 146. State v. I^elms, from Guilford. 147. State v. Lovings, from Guilford. 148. State v. Geo. Wall, et al., from Forsyth, Summary of Oases Affirmed on defendant's appeal. 67 New trial or reversed on defendant's appeal 32 Affirmed on State's appeal 2 Remanded on defendant's appeal 6 Death—action abates 1 Modified and affirmed 1 Carried over to Fall Term, 1934 1 Appeal dismissed.... 38 Total 148 CRIMINAL STATISTICS STATEMENT A The Following Statement Shows the Criminal Cases Disposed of in the Superior Courts During the Fall Term, 1932, and Spring Term, 1933 Counties 1 o Q a '"3 a a '> a o U 13 < "o t. o5 "3 Alamance 57 15 70 2 61 2 8 1 72 Alexander 48 3 50 1 26 20 5 51 Alleghany— 11 1 12 9 3 12 Anson 25 28 50 3 41 5 5 2 53 70 134 2 70 120 2 14 68 81 4 11 72 Avery 40 2 134 Beaufort 38 43 78 3 41 12 28 81 10 21 43 42 8 14 48 28 57 4 1 32 19 37 14 4 17 6 6 2 1 52 29 Brunswick 57 Buncombe - - 189 114 275 28 261 40 1 1 303 Burke 48 14 59 3 50 5 6 1 62 Cabarrus 184 84 263 5 161 34 72 1 268 Caldwell 34 5 39 28 6 5 39 Camden - 3 8 11 6 2 2 1 11 17 54 12 52 29 103 3 29 79 29 22 5 106 47 17 133 3 19 6 50 35 135 1 4 50 33 109 50 3 24 36 Cherokee 6 139 Chowan* 8 4 10 2 10 2 1 13 Clay 45 2 47 33 1 13 47 Cleveland 74 25 91 8 73 7 18 1 99 Columbus 117 58 1 164 12 126 31 16 3 176 Craven 51 99 143 7 101 19 30 150 Cumberland 19 26 44 1 28 2 15 45 Currituck 2 6 8 4 4 8 Dare 5 1 6 3 2 1 6 Davidson 246 45 278 13 246 27 18 291 Davie 52 27 79 56 6 17 79 Duplin . 61 74 127 8 84 16 35 135 132 169 282 19 222 48 31 301 Edgecombe 56 76 124 8 77 29 25 1 132 Forsyth 503 536 1 940 100 852 183 5 1,040 Franklin 40 21 60 1 39 14 8 61 Gaston.. 226 86 300 12 160 58 93 1 312 Gates 3 9 12 6 2 3 1 82 g 89 1 42 14 34 90 Granville 68 90 152 6 119 17 22 158 30 46 71 5 56 8 to 2 76 Guilford 637 284 -4-- 865 56 709 125 80 7 921 35 44 73 6 60 13 5 1 79 74 44 108 10 72 17 28 1 118 Haywood 196 9 195 10 105 28 69 3 2fl5 Henderson 74 21 77 18 49 20 25 1 95 Hoke... - . 15 19 1 34 1 25 4 3 3 35 Hertford 33 12 66 14 99 25 1 94 20 5 3 99 Hvde 3 26 Iredell 56 22 77 1 71 4 3 78 Jackson 121 10 8 132 7 90 20 29 139 20 BIENNIAL KEPOET OF THE ATTORNEY GENEEAL [Vol. 22] Counties STATEMENT A—Continued OQ Johnston Jones - Lee Lenoir Lincoln Macon Madison Martin McDowell Mecklenburg.- Mitchell Montgomery*. Moore Nash New Hanover. Northampton. Onslow Orange Pamlico Pasquotank Pender Perquimans... Person Pitt Polk Randolph Richmond Robeson Rockingham.. Rowan Rutherford Sampson Scotland Stanly Stokes Surry Swain Transylvania.. Tyrrell Union Vance Wake Warren Washington .. Watauga Wayne Wilkes Wilson Yadkin Yancey Totals.-.. 60 26 15 66 53 106 52 48 75 480 141 78 40 88 54 15 86 105 7 29 8 7 24 98 29 130 97 187 123 134 48 74 22 34 78 132 163 107 13 47 63 335 18 21 46 86 302 198 138 107 8,749* 25 52 19 70 10 11 1 26 4 393 39 38 89 158 58 9 29 10 3 16 89 11 38 46 98 65 47 24 SO 23 22 36 23 1 19 10 38 46 332 27 12 4 96 42 222 117 30 170 83 73 34 130 60 114 47 74 75 788 133 112 74 169 195 100 157 159 16 66 18 8 39 176 38 161 138 380 176 166 67 123 43 51 108 146 186 125 23 84 104 615 42 33 49 174 310 387 141 101 13,153 34 33 6 7 828* 46 29 91 49 76 33 61 47 463 72 45 60 96 149 72 133 113 10 35 14 3 21 109 30 93 97 190 121 96 68 94 42 52 93 123 114 77 12 64 70 434 38 8 38 94 165 136 92 42 9,217 15 5 30 6 6 19 8 10 118 19 5 8 36 63 12 12 27 6 12 4 3 11 30 8 13 12 43 35 35 14 18 3 4 11 30 27 7 4 6 26 88 6 10 22 47 61 26 12 14 8 36 1 5 22 289 60 68 20 43 17 21 22 48 2 62 33 165 32 50 10 2 53 41 7 15 13 144 1 11 12 64 139 222 28 51 2,716 *Corporation. 22 KUaiNIAIi EEIPOBT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL [Vol. I- « « ^ 02 Q « aajSaQ puooag N 1 ^ \ XjaSSng; *"* ' '"' Xjaqijg; *"* 3ni -ja^ug put! Sui^iBaja: CO «< lO o -^ t- t^ to N IM 1-1 (M « Its XuiBSig '^ "^ '"' UOIiBIOJA —S.VVB'J Sui^uBg '^ '^ .-< U5 '"' <~l ^ ^ • '"' (M lO CO N 1— I M 'a 'V m Oi cot- COCO«>0-- !-.««« CO CO CO CO CO (M ajBuiaj^ uo ^inBSSy (M " -H CO N lo t^ » 1-. — 1 CO •- -* 1 rj* Tp T-l C<) CO ^^ ... uosjy "* *"* CO U5 '^ | ABjyy ^ " ' aopioqy uoi^onpqy ^uamuopuBqy •* (M « CO to " a 3o O c E o -a a < aK M d om <: a m h > < uc 03 ffl pq -a 5 2 PQ a o O "a O c B a c3 o u E C9 © 2 a 22] BIENNIAL KEPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAi 23 (N WS CO W O 1-H CO CO i-H (M lO «0 O OO Oi -^r CO CO *-" ^-t '-t IC « *-l T-t i-t CO M i>- «*< tD»-i cr>cooi»-io o Oi t* »-H iC Cq rH OO <M I lO 1—I 03 CO I C^J (M ^t» CO C^l CO »-( iC 1-H O *-i CO '-' 1-1 lO ^H ^ CD O O O Q O d ^ 13 ,0) jrt a s >>^ — — t- >. c ^ oj oj CS c^ •« "5 « OOOOO OMWWE S K a £ ? 24 BIENNIAX, REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL [Vol. 83J39Q pUOOag IM •^ *" "" a9i3aQ ?8Jij /CwSSng o . "^ Xjaqijg '"' Sut t-( CO ^^ ^ COt^ —.(Mt^OTO COOOt^ AiweSiq^ '^ T-i U5 uop'BIOTyV —savbt; SuiifU'Ea CO N ^~* —ICO rtrt—.—Irt ^ '^ a m o (M CO CO *—I 1— 1 oo 1 00 •Av 'a -v »0'»l^(MascO CS^OOi-tt^ -^O^t^i-ltM CO(MW3C^O z s 111 < aiBoia^ no JiriBssy —1 <N N c^ CJ C^J 00 as ,1 o iO -* i-i r /Cia^j'jBg; pnB ^in^ssy CO t^ to rt CO T-l 1-Hco <Mai-<ji-<jiio oii-io^HTt* HOSJV 1—1 »-i " " " S.'BisY >n ^~' CO —1 "-H uot^joqy CO CO " uoi:jonpqv pq _. ^narauopuBqv .- 1-1 ^ -^ C<l 00 o — 1 1oO c c o 1-3 1 o >-5 ^-1 a 1^ c "o oc oo s c 03 "a o p 1 3 a "a >- ao6 o 0) oo 2 e a s cS p £ a j: o Is O a bl C oj o 1 03 03 1 22] BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 25 T-H Oi < »-H W »-. l-( C^ T-H »0 CD i-t cot— CO OOO'-Hi—i'^ Tt<OOT*<Tp'^t« fMOsb-TtHiO COiM i-H CO lO i>- ic r-l lO ^ ^ »-t -rp CS t lO O lO ICO i-i'^<MC<I I 00<MCO ^ CV) ^ i-H »-H C<I Tji oo rr -& o S ^ c 1^ t4 <o o ^ P-t fL( PL4 o o 3 s o oj O (5 CC OJ W M >>.S S £ g S i g £;-3 CO CO H H t3 cs ^ cj c3 c3 ^ 5 15 oi »3 &: ^ &: >H tH 26 BIEJNNIAI/ BEPOBT OF THE ATTORNEY GENEiRAL [Vol. ssBdsaJx 3iqp-ioj 1 •* 1 -4 1 " 1 '^ ^ ! e« Sni(j pwe poojj 1 1 '^ i « ^^ asua^ajj asj^j O -H , '^ n i M rt rt saxBX adBosjj rt — " '"' cq N « —1 :(u3uiaizz3quig; ^ 1-H cs CM .1 " UOpBIOtyY De a c s3upaap\[ Sutqjri'jstQ '^ >« IM » CO *~* J. Z Ul u i paSBS^joxv: SnisodsxQ <M ^snojj A[japjosiQ *"* ^ '^ '"' '"' XoBJidSUOQ Pino JO q^Jig Suii^aouoQ SuipunodmoQ M D "0 "^ 2 '^ ^~* I CO 1 t-H 1—I ^H r^ uosjy ; C^ " ' , .2 g a 03 S d c3 c< >- 1 o >> < c 1 (5 5 ao c 3 AS 3 ffl i u O "3 c 6 03 a i ci 03 "S O O do -a o o O 22] BIENNIAI- REPOET OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAJL 27 rHl(M. C<ICO'<OC^ i-tl(CC •^ ^ (M T-t CO "'J' c^ M C* T-t T-( i-< ^ i-H CO i-t 'CO W3 rt (M i-( iC OS l-C l-H CO •«* i-H ^ S ^ ^ 3 3 c3 03 c3 O O O Q Q S S " S 3 3 -d o S Q P W ii, fe g 5 O la '^ > a g •« 03 c3 o 03 C3 IH h h o o o o o '3 o3 03 o w w p -d "E -^ M ffi W M W 15 1^ 28 BIBNNIAXi EES'OBT OF THE ATTORNEY 6ENEBAL [Vol. 8SBds8Jx aiqtoiOjj N r-" •M CO C^) CQ 1 ^ n rl 1 « ^"' -1 Tr ^^ UOl'JBIOI^ — SM.'B'J aunsQ pui3 qsij; 1 * T-1 ,-( 1 '^ 1 '^ 1 3Su9^ai(j asfB^ »-l -* (M T-l 1 O rt QD -< ^ CC 1 cq S3XBX I '"' aclBosg <N 1 1—t tH ! ^ I '~* •juamsizzaquig » rt .-1 N to CO -H — 1 i M UOT^BIOlyY 1 a s3ui^a9j\[ 3uiqjn:jsiQ 1 Oi 1 CO 1 (M 1 o 1 OQ 1- z lli S UJ ^jjadojjj p83B3:)aoj\[ SuisodsiQ " i " Tjl " I '^ asnog XijapjosiQ i-H Cq 1-1 Vi sfBuiiay o^ A^janjQ T-H AoBJldSUOQ "" W (M Pino SnipunodmoQ M '0 "0 lO 1 CO 1 t^ '^ : ^ CM <M "-H lO CO CO i uosjy u"Bq:j Jtaq'jo Sumang ^ T-H 1 1O cc c •-5 sa4 i a >3; i i 3 S a O •3 d 03 1Q i 1 tH ao o a o o i > o 03 m aO a a 03 2: a O O f 3 ? 22] BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 29 C^ CO Cd t^ C^ 1-c ^ s-g^"g& -a^g-g fcsi&.s PL, pipiJrtpcJp^ Pi X 1X1 w m !BffiHHt> M ^ ^ ^ ^ o ^ 30 BIENNIAL BEPOBT OF THE ATTORNEY GBNEKAL [Vol. 3DUBSm^ ^joddns-uojvj <M "^ '"' aajSaQ pnooay —japan jv CC "* 0(M rtrtlOCCN «-)*•*.-( « eo N —japinj^ saou'Buipjo ['BCIiomnj\[ '"' CO lO CO T-4 *"* M -H Cq -H 2 ^ '"' rt to jaji{3nB[saBj\r (N <M « rt (M CO —1 O —I *"* <M 1 1 jnoqji^ uoissajojj SuioipBaj 'asaaoi^ u Z UJ «5 'jnoq^ty^ ssanisng 3nioQ 'asuaoi'j SuiAtaoay puB ^uaoi'e'j i-HCOi-HiOOi «DcDCCTt<Tj* Ot^M03-<S* Oi O^ ^ '^ -^ A^jadojj o; Ajnfni TJ* ^ CO M •jsaoui '"' '" C<l '"' 3at5(Baiqasnojj S *^ * » QO t^ tn (M ^ JO Suiiqrateo (M " Aja^inpy puB noi^'Bomjo^ <M to (M CO cq CO « IM jCjaSjoj CO « « .- '^ s 3 a a £ < 1 < < C ) c < ) a < < C c i PC t > c PC c 5 c. ' 1 ! £ 1 c> a i c ^ a I E i ) C 1 , "a i S ) C) C a 1 S 22] BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 31 ! 1 1 1 1 ! 1 ! 1 1 1 m 1 1 1 1 1 1 r-( 1 III!! 1 ! 1 ! 1 !!!!! IIImI 1—iIooI m"!!--!! I^III II|_I 1 l-o.—I'Ji t- ' l-HIM CDCOiOOC^ mT-1-a.ocq U50MC.1-* C^rt 1 Im lllrtl lllll l«l.^' ill!! rtl—ill lllli Ill^l l-^lll Ili-HIl COIIll lltll . .-^jiTjHTji 1-1 itNCO*^ i^tDCOM O i-<}<iO<M OO iC^OiC^ »-t t ic<lCO i^^Hic^l iil-^IM tO^i-tO^^ ri !,-(,-( U5-^J1irt-i icCCO<M(M I'll I 1 1 ' t 1 1 '^ 1 i' i' i' i' I 1 I I i' ! I I I 1 1 1 I 111^! lllll 1 .-1 1 M 1 lllll N 1 1 1 l-H lllll »-l=OC<)-<J<''3^ O^H 1-HCO •'iicO^HQOOS OOC^C<ICOO^ ^HOOt^CCO Oi IT-HOOOO r-lr-lC<l(M « 1IMC<1 -H-a.-a<0-^ >0 r-<TO.-l rt^C^cOCS C-Jii-l^lM 1 1—1 1—1 1 ICOIMIC^ ili-<*ii iTtircOi iiCOCOi iiii^l iiiii 1 i' ' *"* ' 1 1 1 1 1 i' .' I ^ i' *"* 1 1 I 1 '^ 1 1 1 I IIIII tti»oi iic^ii osiMcooico foii-^j^i i-^oirsi -ijicoiooeo li; ] ;| ii"IMMiO 11 1 iC^ 1 1 lllll lllll lllll I1-11051 05III1 lllll 1 1^1 lllll 1 1 1 1 lllll |l'*'*ii Miiil Il|i4<l lllMi*-* O '• d -^ C^ IIIIm iti-HCOi-1 tiicoi ^t^cqooi cqilMii CDiO-^i (NiiCOt-i )wan I'eland umbus ven .. aberland-rituck e de -- )lin ham ecombe iklin ton es lam Qville --- sne .-- ford__._ -_ fax nett derson tford e le-ell cson pC] v_« ^ O (i^ ^ ^ M 9J (i'<J OOOOO OOQQQ ;3 ;3 c3 03 c3 3 5 •S' o 2 Q Q W ft, li^ -*i 03 ci oj ';3 o3 C3 C3 o ^ "O -S -g 32 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. [Vol. oijqnj Sui;onj!)sqo '"' aouBsmj^ 'J' *"* '"' -^ -^ rt ^joddns-uo^ CO -H rt QO "" -H r-l 38139IQ puooag ^ (MiC« OCsIrtC^O « •» CO « rt ^ '"' 88jSaQ %S1\^ '^ —japjnjt *" '^ saouBuipjQ iBdioiuni\; o '"' "^ noi:)i3jOTj\ — SM.'B'j 3\0XV[d\ JO^OJ\[ w t^ .-1 lO « cq O .^ CC ,-H ^ fjl M ja^HSnBjBuBi\r rt cq c<3 =D tH en -* CO cq 3 !>nom;j\^ UOISS9JOJJ ** o ^noq^jAV ssauTsng §uiOQ 'asaaoj'j "^ UJ 1- < c„ ^^,, •^OOCOOlCi «*<«OOOS'* -^.^C^CDi-i COCOCO-<**iC pUB j^uaOJ'B'7 A:>aadoaj o'i Smtuj CO cyD "^ •^ »-4 »— t '^ :jsaoui ^~' '"' '^ ^^ 3ui>('Baiqasnojj t^ CO •* t^ Cft -^J^ S as cq rt iO ^ " '- A'ja^^oq JO SajiquiBQ -^ t^ CO " -^ Aja!)|npV pUB nOl^'BOIUJOjJ " rt CO CO o " * AjaSjo^ CO ^ ^ ^ to «< rt <^^ -H « oq '-' OO O 1 C O a 'o fi a 1-1 c c o c "3 P -a > a 1 o 01 o > o w cc s CI 1 12; O a c O c :: B CS CL, c 03 O cr a. 22] BIENNIAL EEPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GBNEKAi 33 !>.»-» Tji ir3 CO »-< i-H ^H CO i-H CV) CO C<J OO CO 05 05 05 t^ (M CO lO I »-H Cq lO CO Ol »— t CO t>> 05 00 <Mi-l CO^HOOCOIO l-^CO^HC^ M ^H -<*1 I t>- C<l l-H ,-C 1-t 1-t CO cs «*( to 1-t »-t C^ IC i-H C<J 1-t C^ CO (M Oi OJ to -^ ^ i-H M ,-t i-H <M uf «-t CO CO CO cci »-HCO»-H (MCOiO^-HCO »-< CO rH t— TH C4 t^ t^ l-H ^ f-, t-^ :iS r^ 4-^ c3 .S O O O rt p^ p^ rt rt gMooso t3SSS.a c3 o3 ^ c3 c3 ^ ^ ^ >H >^ 34 BIENNIAL EEPORT OF THE ATTOENEY GENERAL [Vol. sapunoQ o:> SB jb^ox KS 2J SS ^ZD it5 Cs 1^ CO c^ cc o - •n o -J= CO CO - CO C-1 OS CO O CO C3S CM o ira CO CO 9no3UBii3as;i\r IM CM n to to »0<MC0»r3CM i-(^H»-tcO«5 83[38q3 asaiq^jo^ ^^ M n '^ t^ CO CM '^ Xou'bjSba. CM ssBdsajx I ^^ i (M <M CM »—( T-t -^ CO '"' 3ai3(B3iqajo:)g 00 >o * 1 iapuT?ig **^ uoi^onpag TO —1 l-H -H CM rt rt -H CM *"* *"* " 1 —SAV'B'^ [ooqog CO 2 Z Ui S 1 itjaqqoa f-H ^ -H CO IM « 1 WDtgo Sapsisay ' N rt (M '^ ^ dojQ SaiAoraay^ CM adBH ^^ CM aoi!)n:>psojj tr~ CM *"* ^H ^H UOl^BlOl^ •«<00rH(MCO OCi0.-icD«0 a>-<1<-*01^ rH lO « (M rt -O" 3 ""^ 5 3a;uosiO(j CO iJjntjaj -H « '" i lonpnoosij\[ i^iogjo .2 1oO a 03 < •0 X < >> d oi 61 d s a 01 < < o .2 d 1s 1 2 i aoo a 3 A! 3 P9 Oi 03 O 1 c 0) a £ 03 O a u a e 03 o 1 cS B OS £ i 22] BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 35 1-1 CO i-H O 1-H C^^NOCOCO ^-tOlOOiOiO O>ift!D00O> « CsJ CO M lO<N t^-<**^^l>. I ^H icq^HCO i-H ITS Oi CO CO W *H CO *-t t^ ^ ^H ^H r* lo ^H CO <M ,-H »-l CO I CO I CO CO VH I T-t (M r-f eq CO 1-1 i-H C^ I Cq N 1-H ^H <M 1-t OS O CO ITS -^Jl .-H W3 »C Cfl CO OS f-H CO 1-1 CO 1-1 lO CO iO f-( CD '^ 6 a> ^ ^ ii o 2 Q a o u o ^ -^ U O Q Q P Q Q K fe t. as C3 C3 OJ *S 03 oj „ _ „ o o o o o o « 0) 5 a> :3 03 03 o3 a; O ffi W III K g ^ -6 ^ ^ M W W Js ^ 36 BIENNIAi RBa>OBT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL [Vol. sspunoQ 0^ SB it?;ox OuO5to^oC-O*CcOo^«O> i^co-»<a>co .-ioooo(^(M -Httsmooo i-l»ot^t-t^ r1lT-<t^t^^H OCOCO^-flO snoanBij8osii\[ - r I '^ *"* I oo 1 C<1 IMCOtO MM^JiMCil 8i[oaqQ ssamiJOA\ i rH M 00 1 CO --1 1 >-l 03 to 1 CO QO i-H CO CO -^ "' XonBjSBA 1 T-. CO i C<) ssBdsajx T-l *-l ^H I '"' to M 1 »-* T-( .' ^ ^ SapiBajcqaio^g 1 05 o i o 1 <M 1 C^ C33 kO CO jspuBis rt « cq I *"* 1 '"' noi^onpag <N 1 T-l *^ y-i 1-H •* i W •a 3 c aopB[oiA —s/vvbt; looqog u S 111 V) i^jaqqoy; >ra IM Ui ^ —1 lO « jaogjO 3at^sis9^ (M <M rt M t^ O (M (N dojQ SuiAotnay^ " " aclBH ^~* '"' nopn:)psoj(j '"' 1-1 »-* C<I 00 t^ (M —BMVj noi:jiqiqoj(j (Moo(M<-H>-i ooot>-<i<oo ooc^-Hco incocq 1 rtrt rti-l (M—1 (Mt- -ati-l Mrt (MCOTO' <»< 3uinosiO(j " j<:jntj8(j '-' CO (N "^ }3npaoosii\[ iBiogjo •* 1 o O a o a o 1-5 (0 a o •-5 a) Oa 3 o a O .2 _a' e3 o P i a <B 3 "3 o M a o oo a 03 W d o o, S 03 O 2; i 00 ao 0) M CI o d a 4 ca o 22] BIKNNIAL REa'ORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 37 oooot^o oococqooT-* (MqoiO':0'*« u3-<s*coeo»o oat^ocoo c^i-^o-rioo r~t i~t ^^ CO -^ co-<j<ooooo t^c^-^ioi-H looac^icsioo oso-<j*c^w:> co-^cs-vo n IT-IIOO 1 lcOOCO!M ICO 1 t 1 eO>0>OMM cqtO—iiOCO 00(MCO«OCO to CO (II03I T-(T-t-^(Nt^ l-<^lt»-l T-Hlr^«<J4,-* (O^^T-tr-l lC<|tOll o lllll liill nliii iiiii lco||i iloail CO iicqt^oi T-iiaic^i icqii*-( cqiiii T-iiT-tcq-^i* co»oos<-<i CO lill-qi lllll ImIII lllll t^lt-11 OCqrJIOleO o lll^l —Irtlll lllll lllll lllll l'<t<lll M l.-ilml ll-*cq-g< Icol—iT-H T-ilrt,-il rtcqrtll coI(nII s lllll lllll lllll "^ I 1 1 1 lllll 1 1 "^ 1 1 to 1(m1>oI Ii-i-*oc<i Icqiico lllll IrHcoil u5cqT-.<Mi I 1 1 1 t—tt—t 1 11 lllll ic<J 11 1-1 1 IM lllll Ii-HCOOt-i Irtll-* It-hIII cqoolll rtlr-lico oo IIIimI llrtll lllll lllll ImIimI i-hIf-iII CO IllrtI llllcq iillll lllli-i I-h1II Ii-hIi-iI g lllll COIiii C^Jiii-^ (MCOiii It^COCQiO oo *-i^Hcoocci i-HcoiOoooi lot^ iT-H^ c<iior-.^cc io-siimt-io •^t^<o-^i^ r-l t^cM?Oir5<M C<lT-ii05C0 COt>-CO i-l i-HCO C^ t^05»0'* oo iiiii iiiii iiiii iiiii i i " i i i " i i i o li'-'ii lllll lllll r-H-^iii C<J»-HCOC<li 00 CO iiiii iiiii i i i i " iiiii i '^ i i i iiiii CO i J i i i i i i J i iiiii i i .s i i iiiii iiiii igiiiJ^isi'Hiiii iiSii iiiji iiiii ifllll o-SomI £ 9. "^ ; ' ii,Sii :iim? Ill'' l|§ ij ?|i|g ^^^^i ^.sllg gciMi Ssgl^ gii.^1 gl^§§ ^ pL, fi, PM lilJI m^a g|||| $ii^.^. fin p:j p^ rt rt rt tf M m m m m t« H H P > p: ^ ^ ^ ^ &: & >h jh "3 o [Vol. 22] BIENNIAi REPORT OF THE ATT0RNE;Y GENERAL 39 STATEMENT A- 1 The Following Statement Shows Criminal Cases Disposed of in Courts Below the Superior Court, Reporting to this Department, During THE Fall Term, 1932, Spring Teem, 1933 Counties Alexander Bertie Brunswick Buncombe Cabarrus Caldwell Chatham Chowan.. Columbus Craven Cumberland... Davidson Duplin Franklin Gaston Gates Halifax.. Harnett Haywood Henderson Iredell Lee Lincoln Madison McDowell Mecklenburg.. M'oore Nash Orange. Pamlico Person Polk Richmond Rockingham. - Surry Tyrrell Union. _.. Vance Wake Washington... Wilson Total 72 45 84 286 409 360 89 35 410 103 485 479 116 60 980 52 262 457 184 273 23 22 117 188 310 2,313 253 149 128 29 82 98 247 341 424 14 466 263 198 34 174 11,114 95 77 47 94 94 130 41 254 204 435 127 128 90 319 65 341 308 34 68 21 28 33 7 37 1,416 332 197 148 37 113 37 174 329 53 10 369 150 194 90 228 6,963 81 135 156 306 482 432 210 68 635 273 847 563 232 139 ,155 115 556 712 193 311 41 49 142 181 309 ,228 539 324 265 66 188 124 389 602 451 24 768 378 377 115 370 16,531 31 34 73 43 12 11 144 2 48 53 25 30 3 1 8 14 38 501 46 22 11 1,551 58 127 80 272 494 304 173 57 423 241 623 520 136 113 1.126 94 457 576 207 197 44 50 108 131 286 3,356 472 232 217 57 148 135 285 556 401 18 630 344 280 83 225 14,336 15 12 40 57 9 96 46 18 142 55 226 77 38 36 75 17 105 126 32 52 29 295 57 88 32 72 100 42 4 121 67 79 33 2,528 1,197 OO 81 140 161 333 503 454 219 76 666 307 922 606 244 150 1,299 117 604 765 218 341 44 50 150 195 347 3,729 585 346 276 66 196 135 421 670 477 24 835 413 392 124 403 18,084 • 2 Corporations. 40 BIENNIAI, EEPOET OF THE ATTORNEY GENEEAI. [Vol. 3ai38Q pnooag o 0. —Aa'B[3jna; «P O /CiaSSng o ^aaqug '' CO an EH 3ni Hj* lO /tui'BSig OS" li S O M < S K S O -' •AV a 'V 00 «= N O OO lO * 1 (M 1 Q ^ 2 a H n 6. Eh « Q W ^ e a ^ 1 aiBUia^ no ^in^ssy ^ t^ CO CO CO 1 jtja'jjBa; paB ^jn'sssy CO * M t^ o •* t- 1 nosjy O a ^^Bjgv CO 00 "S 1 ta o o H Eh a uot^joqy uoi:jonpqy a Eh -<! Eh !jaatnuopn'Bqy " <M CO W s o •J >J o n H § O ao ci < s u < 1 <1 & ^ ^ -4: o3 m 't. 5 1 (-1 ac e fq o o c £ 03 o "a 1 o: o: Xt & cc ao £ o o O 22] BIENNIAI. REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENEaiAL 41 CO lO CO CO W5 C^ CD CO Tj* l>. CO i-i OO »0 00 !> (M OO OO CO *0 i-< <N - ' - s J§ .2 iS o o o o o « ^ 3 ;3 ^ ^ ^ O O Q Q P 9 S u; -^ s >> -ij &'§ M 2 9 5 5 "« o 2 P P W fe fi oj ^ d^ h ki o o a o o 42 BIENNIAI, EEPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENEmAL [Vol. —AjBiSjng • AjaSSng CO Aaaqijg 3u! lO rt c» o ^ AlUBSia uopBiot^ —SMB'J 3ul5[UBa adBJi o^ o c o 1-H 1 i CO M a V " "i to CO 1 CO t~ 1 CO •- 1 Z ur Sw t- < aiBniaj uo ^jn^ssv ^- •O IM i CO ^Ciaj^Bg puB jynBSsy •^ OO 00 CO rt OS T^ 1 uosjy '"' A-Bjyv (N •^ 5D C<1 CO CO I in uorijoqy uoijonpqv *"* 1 ^uauiuopuBqv C^ " t^ t^ "'l § d 1 'c 1-5 It 1-5 1 a 1 1^ Cc 1^ a o .2 X d o Qo 1 a 'a ao c o OO 4 New Hanover Northampton 1 J P 2 o d .S Os 22] BIENNIAX REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENEKAl, 43 !>. ^H CO C^J GO lO -^ CO J "2 2 a a .9 5 T) a^ - S 5 S rttfrt rtcCWMW 3 f g &i-3 O! M H H & I ho ^ d B M o "3 2 03 o3 03 C3 ti ® (0 „ „ g O j«i o « ^ 5 OS IS ^ & ^ tH >- 44 BIENNIAL REa»ORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL [Vol. ssBdsajx ^icipjo^a: 111 1 1 '"^ 1 1 '"'1 M « 1 CO 1 aop'BIOI^—SM.B'J 3niQ puB pooj UOl^^IOIA.—SMB^J auiBQ puB qsi^ j \\\ HIM "ll 1 to O asna^ajj; asjBjj 1" III .IM 1 1 C^ I "^ 1 saxBj, adBOSg ! 1 11'"ill CO 1 1 CO 1 CO 1 ^uaniaizzaqrag 111 "1 1 *"* noi^BiojA —e,WBq; uoi^oaia s3 Co s3ni^aaj\[ Suiqjn:jSTQ 11 1 1 Tl^11 t- 1 1 *"* 1 ""* 1 I ca jt;jadoj<j paSBS^JO];\[ SaisodsiQ 1 1 '^ 1 1 <M zu S asnojj jtjjapjosjQ 1 1 -"Ji 1 1 ""* S siBraiuy 0!f /^^janjQ 1 '"' AoBJidsnoo PIRO JO q'jJta SujiBaonoQ /^uojajT SnipuDOdraoQ "M 'O '0 1 * 1 11 1 1 00 1 i-( «5 1 £. •-! 1 1 CO 1 uosjy UBq^ jaq^o Snrama 11 IM 1 m .2 3 oO Alamance Alexander Alleghany Anson Ashe Avery... Beaufort Bertie Bladen Brunswick Buncombe. c .in 3 m c §1 :> o aa 73 a oj o c3 03 uatawoa.... Chatham .. Cherokee 22] BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENEKAI. 45 *-l (N T}1 CO CO y~t CO lO M r-t CO 05 t^ ^H t^ 13 a « -2 '^ 3 U c3 cd id O O O O Q Q Q 3 3 -u o 2 Q Q H fe (i, m -M 03 oj 0) C3 ^ M t4 Fh o o o o o O O O' L> 1^ 5- •*- a ^ XI .~ -5 t. >1 fl S c3 ci si (u o w w w w C3 O >) C3 W K M A 46 BIKNNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENEBAL [Vol. ssBdsajx aRPJO^ 1 e<i 1 '^ 1 (M (M «0 t^ 3ruQ puB poo^ ' lO *"• auiBO puB qsij m CD CO 1 asu3:>8jjj asiB^ '"* »-i saxBX ad^osg IN ?D 05 T(> .-1 '"' juatuaizzgqiug T-H c^ « rt s c so sSnijaajv 3uiqjn^siQ C<1 « OJ lO 05 Ia paS'BS^ioi^ 3nisodsiQ ^ z llj S lU asnojj ^[japjosiQ 00 <N ' H CO sjBuituv o'i AjiatuQ *— 1 *"* AOBJidSUOQ PUMO Xnoiajj Snipnnoduioo M "0 r>- cq = : t^ w O CO "^ nosay uBq; aaq^o Suiujng c "S o 2 a o 1-5 a 1-5 1 c '3 c 8 C oa c 't. * 1Q o b d 2 >- £ o c o o > o a a 1 2 cc "S £ oi 1 J cO a: c C3 h o c 03 OP c 1 22] BJENWIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 47 U5 t^ to OO l>. (M CO <M 1-H C<l -^ (M OO kO o v 0) 't^ o CLi CU (Xi IX Ph o fl a <u ^ g o o o tf rt « ;j!, _d g "3 g p & 3 03 !< a « o a ^o)o-5-w 3Sfci?iM "^.^r'fC r'^ri^"'' tf M M M M w CO Eh H D > ^ ^ &: & & ^ ^ >H >H 48 BIENNIAX. EEPOET OF THE ATTORNEY GENEBAI. [Vol. ojlqnJ SuT'jonj'jsqo aouBsmj^ « I ^aoddns-uo^ M Ol '"' 1 aajSaQ puooag —aapjnj^ —Japanj\i; saouBuipjo i«diorani\[ '^ "^ nopBIOt^ — SJAVJ apiqa^ JO!>oj\[ N CO CO CO * o CO (M OS 1 aa?q§nB|8UBi\[ ae 3 JO £o *"* *"* '"' I i 1- ^noq^ij^^ ssanisng SutOQ 'asuaoyq <»< 111 SuTAiaoay^ puB Auaoj^T; 03 o M >0 50 lO 1-1 •* Oi 1 cq 1 J;; X?J9doi<j 0^ Aanfni (M CO CO ^saouj SuTjj'Baiqasnojj CO 10 Sniyqiu'BO ^ 2 itaa^inpv puB noi^Bomjo^ o oi to '' i XjaSjOjj ^ 3OO a; c (S £ < a a< >as u a 1 <5 < > 1 1 1 1 c s 'i a; £ ooa 3 m 3 c £ o o s 1 o ci a a £ 03 O 0) s O 22] BIENNIAI. REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 49 US O O »0 i-H O C* CO »0 1-1 t-i 00 <£> t^ C^ CD CO OS O t* CS ^H t O <£> C^ 00 -^ fl « .s i 5 s M p ;33 wAj Wo3d cv3j O O U Q P P P P H fe [i( S5 m =3 > ;3 c3 03 :€ q; s: ."s fi « (u at «j ' -^ "5 -S i? 50 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENEKAL [Vol. aouBsin^j CO ^joddns-uo^ CO Oi CO 33l3aQ pUO09g —japinj^ " »-( 1-H —J8pjni\[ saoaBnipjo iBdtoiunj\[ ^ o ^~* (M aioiqaA JO^ojv CO ^- * 3 §CO Oi >rj 2 J3?I{3nBISU'BI\T g CO ^noq:ji^ uoissajojj im 1- ^noq'jtjW ssauistig; 3UI0Q 'asuaotq <N '"' *"* z u 1- SaiAtaoay puB /iuaoivj o oo * >o o CO r- —1 ira fe it'jjadojj 0^ Xjnruj « CO en CO to Ol o ^saouj SutJiBajqasnojj •<»( CT UOt^B[OTA <N M ^ja:>loq JO Suiiqui'BO M CO a> r.. <M Aja^jnpV pUB UOJ^BOIUJO^ ^i 2 lO oo IM CO <i< iCjaSjo^ '-' ^ .S o O c o -*- c ja O 1-^ na o 'E 13 01 1-^ o ac 1 1 "a is o Oo 3 aa a "a s > ao& e o oo 2; *-> >o 03 W 1 2: cc a (S o 2 6: cO s c o c £ a ej op c 09 ! 22] BIEIfNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 51 '"' ' ' ' ' ' ' CO 1 ' 1 1 ; 1 III II 1 II''' s ,,1^1^^ I^.TJII llttl "(lilllf-H l.l^^i lll>.ll 00 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 *"* 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 to lllll tlloOt titll 0911110 IIICOI lllll 1 ' 1 . ' CO • Ill III 1 1 ' 1 ' 1 CO llc<ill Ic^l-ml lllll tolllo tocolll llc^ll 1 i-»iOOi 111.1 C0iii»O CTt-Hiii iirt.i CO lllll lllll lllll '"'III' lllll 1 1 1 1 I ^ •* ^ lltol-< loill>.l lllll ollrtO >o«oltol IInII iic^ic^ .r*i-^i lllll c^ii lo co'^i'^i iicaii oo tllll li-liTjii lllll COlllb- 11-llTjHi ll-«JHll y-l 1 1 lllll lllll lllll ^ I I 1 1 1 I I I 1 lllll 00 lllll lllll lllll M 1 1 1 t^ lllll lllll s IIII-h1I1I liolol lllll IIII.O immIII IItpII , icq. lllll i.iirt « III i.c^.i CO CO lIiIc<ilco lirqill lllll wlllco coilcol llc^ll 1 1 ; ; ' lllll 1 1 1 IN II 1 1 1 N 1 1 i lllll lllll lllll 1 1 1 1 '"' lllll 1 i i i i IS Dder -- rquimans rson t Ik ndolph jhmond beson ckingham wan therford cnpson )tland mly )kes rry ain msylvania rrell ion nee ke . rren shington tauga yne kes son. dkin _._ ncey "3 3 ^ £; >. a c3 cj cj cj rt rt si rt rt tf M M M M IB t» h E-i t> >^^^^ ^ ^ ^ >H >H 62 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL [Vol. sapunoQ o^ sb jb^ox O CO 9no9UBiiaosii\[ ejfoaqQ ssaiq^jo^ ^H C^ XOUBJS'B^ ssBdsajx 3upjB8jq8J0')g japuBjg uoi^onpag -SMB'3 looqog iijaqqoy^ jaogjO Supsisa^ dOJQ SutAoniajj adBy^ uot^mpsoitj UOpB[OI^ 3aiuosiO(j ^intjaj; ^onpuoosij^ l^PHJO 03 g J § " - a -g ^ ^ ^ <D <5 « OS t: Ja 3 •< ffl W PQ fQ ^ . - -. ? ^ « 3 3 03 33 es m pq o o o --J s S g c4 C3 03 ^ ^ o o o o o 22] BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAI. 53 lO CO i-t o «0 r-t -ftl CO t^ C^ CO ^ OO (M CO i-H (M r-t C^ CO W3 O I W3 iO I o CO CO (M CO O t-t <M ^ ^ ij o S O O O O O ^ ,i4 3 p cS iS C8 O O Q Q P t3l3-la&o'2a I(Slstlrtsis, 3l2>3^i^ i^MfS'Sa 3 «3 « £ JJ :'sp3oiH<^>>^ua siO>>a> < a A) a sk i^-t 54 BIENNIAL, REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENEKAL [Vol. sspnnoQ 0^ sv I'b^ox 1 o 1 lO t o 1 to 1 05 1 I^ Oi TO t^ i II • . CO CO 1 1 t^ CO 1 (M 1 snoauBjposi]^ t^ CD '"S IC CO UO .I 1 s^o^^o SB^m'iioj^ <M OO CO * « •* SouviS'e\ <M cs -* ^~* CO ss^dsajx »o •^ C<1 * SutJjBajqajo^jg '^ o japa^is '"' '"' *" noi^onpag IM — ( UOICCBIOI^ —SM'B'j poqog Ajaqqoy; « e<i •-C IM '^ jaorgo 3npstsay; * CO t^ lO rt IM dojQ SniAoraa'jj cq '"' CO CD adBa (M uoic|n^t^sojjj 00 CO •* M S3 05 CO OOS OlO rt 05 ^2 i Sainosioj ^jntiaj CO ^onptioosii\[ IBioigo .S "S oo do a o >-> i ao 1-S i 'c g C c3 c oi c 03 1 Qo t 1 o eo 1 o 1 >o a 1 c a a s 1 o a. o c ;= £ Ah O c 22] BIKNNIAL BEPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 55 1 1 <o 1 1 03 2 * o CO 1 <!< W 10 CO (N cq CO .-1 OS S 1 00 ! I CO '"' * CO CO i-'S 2S5 CM '^ IM 2 cn -^ ot^ * s m '"' •* 1 (M cq «•^ 1 1 o *"* ^ s '"' 1 >»< 10 02 1 -* OS rt CO c^ CO 1 1 CO •0 1 ^ ^ 00 cq 1 '"' J2 1 t~ 00 '"^ (N '"' 1:^ 1 I *"* *"• C TT 1 U^ rt rt ^^ '"' t-- 1 1 '"' ^ 1 Ca -H C<1 CO -(T (M 1 1 to '"' '"' 1 rH t^ ^^ 1 ! CO 1 1 CO {^ CO (M CI3 CO t^ -H t^ ^; Oi i i " M >o Pender Perquimans Person Pitt 1 "o c c: c o s t c c o 'S c c 03 O t: ° leg T3 1 S "a ja m mm > 1 'c \ ca > 1 c 1 cc "b C 1 CI <u c c i 03 > c >< c 56 BIENNIAL, REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL [Vol. STATEMENT C The Following Statement Shows the Criminal Cases Disposed of in the Superior Courts During the Fall Term, 1933, and Spring Term, 1934 Counties Alamance Alexander Alleghany Anson Ashe Avery Beaufort Bertie Bladen Brunswick — Buncombe Burke Cabarrus Caldwell Camden Carteret Caswell Catawba Chatham Cherokee Chowan Clay Cleveland Columbus Craven Cumberland. Currituck Dare Davidson Davie Duplin Durham Edgecombe.. Forsyth Franklin Gaston Gates Graham Granville Greene Guilford Halifax Harnett Haywood Henderson... Hertford Hoke Hyde.. Iredell Jackson Johnston Jones 58 28 64 9 45 9 6 16 105 1 161 4 148 78 26 6 34 21 51 16 277 175 150 24 201 92 48 11 ^ 15 9 62 48 64 18 24 16 137 16 2 7 39 8 89 54 141 83 55 65 56 85 11 11 3 1 176 37 54 33 52 70 125 169 56 91 434 446 17 15 304 101 1 1 94 56 136 38 40 311 205 44 48 165 74 179 24 77 19 38 95 36 33 3 24 63 46 108 11 73 50 24 50 83 70 54 21 103 149 217 31 54 62 397 169 283 55 2 24 107 76 38 140 9 46 132 214 117 135 20 4 208 85 117 259 140 777 32 397 2 91 184 77 476 87 231 191 83 129 66 27 104 121 119 67 1 11 14 3 10 2 5 2 5 35 7 103 75 51 45 16 97 93 79 25 25 39 383 161 186 48 2 24 85 69 38 131 6 38 98 152 73 83 "12 3 172 62 92 204 81 711 15 220 1 50 136 119 107 74 112 59 16 86 78 122 49 22 43 26 22 5 1 26 10 17 58 29 168 11 71 5 30 17 73 13 32 20 10 18 2 47 119 3 19 8 6 3 58 1 23 31 18 40 4 15 15 13 32 37 1 6 111 1 39 26 12 73 10 88 74 12 3 8 2 22 36 C P 22] BIENNIAi REPORT OF THE ATTOBNEY GENERAL 57 STATEMENT C—Continued Counties IS — o a "3 s (0 >c oO '3 cr d g s "J a c 5 o 13 53 44 99 43 27 45 417 128 62 37 80 47 49 86 52 18 30 26 3 10 63 54 141 61 141 98 74 79 32 21 30 147 128 113 115 23 35 53 252 24 9 26 81 488 160 159 139 27 64 12 11 3 37 6 365 1 27 42 78 79 139 62 36 6 36 16 20 12 70 18 49 64 95 47 27 27 39 2 17 32 13 9 11 5 45 35 305 38 16 1 91 33 208 28 2 76 2 2 15 1 40 115 56 107 43 60 48 693 124 84 72 154 lis 185 145 83 24 65 41 18 22 129 70 181 120 298 141 91 97 69 25 44 170 135 132 123 27 80 87 495 59 24 25 165 476 336 177 140 2 3 3 4 3 89 5 5 7 4 11 3 3 5 1 1 5 4 2 9 5 14 4 10 9 4 3 9 6 5 3 1 1 62 3 1 2 7 45 32 10 2 32 85 33 61 31 47 29 497 72 22 53 81 98 128 89 68 14 42 34 17 13 101 63 102 97 177 85 41 92 55 23 41 97 120 95 74 21 58 74 398 42 11 27 81 184 180 116 66 5 23 10 14 13 9 5 132 9 27 12 30 28 20 18 8 5 17 5 3 5 21 9 31 17 29 41 23 14 16 2 3 14 15 14 10 6 6 9 63 17 10 3 9 13 34 8 16 144 48 37 13 46 1 2 1 9 3 1 1 40 117 56 110 46 64 McDowell Mecklenburg Mitchell 51 782 129 Montgomery 89 79 158 126 Northampton. - . 40 40 12 7 3 3 4 11 1 5 188 148 88 24 66 42 Perquimans 23 22 Pitt 133 Polk 72 Randolph Richmond 56 10 102 19 35 1 1 4 2 190 125 312 Rockingham 145 101 106 Sampson 1 1 73 25 Stanly 3 68 6 28 42 16 5 96 3 4 1 47 179 141 137 Transylvania — Tyrrell 126 28 Union 80 Vance 88 Wake - 557 62 Washington 25 27 34 56 50 25 26 53 268 138 46 50 4 13 172 Wilkes 521 Wilson --- 368 Yadkin 187 142 Totals 8,717 5,135 109 13,092 869 9,256 2,020 2.615 71 13,961 58 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL [Vol. < H ^ ^ ^ « fe agjSaQ puooag •" *" 89JS9Q ^tSJTjJ XjaSSng; '"' IM 1 * CO (M C»-*-»«0'>St O500O'* CO CO •* 1 jiuiBgig; '^ '"' ^ "^ noi!)'BioiA CO - '"' '"' (M IM >-l rl lO t^ ^^ I "M a V ec t> •* C^ Csl CO CO -< M COCOOCO CO ajBiiiaj uo ^inBssy -* M ^ rt oq O M * r-< M (M M Aj3:}}'eg puB :nnBssy ^ M O i-H r-l 00 rt 05 o rt la (M « <-l r-1 1-1 uosjy " A^jgy to (M CO US uopjoqy <N uoi^onpqy '^ (M 1 Cfusuiuopu'Bqy ... (N O) o apoO c £c 5 a > ic <: <; 1 1 5 fq t (U c 1 c n a ac 3 ffl a ca O 1 co -0 £ 03 1 1 ci 03 O o o 22] BIENNIAI. REa'OBT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 59 a I ' la (M »-H <M CC (M Cq rH rH . rt 1-1 (M O ^ »o O500CO C^U^O"5CO CO-^CvIOlO c^ <N m IM M rt i-< "-H •* (M I N « »-l 00 C^ 1-H CO M 1 CD t rH C^ CO CD i-t iO i-H *-( lO (M ^ * /< > S > a K £ -5 r ^O^OiOJ-OSOg Os OsP^Q^P^ n J H T3 .; J o •^i-^S0Sj5-?e>Si ^oStor'fSd^SS «o*c-.S*f*Hfrl3Sp'aTj3 S-IJ^S 1-s'SSs ^^l&g Q Q w fe fe oaooo owwww - . J — o £ J4 "O -a -!* 60 BIENNIAL EEPOET OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL [Vol. aaj33Q puooag t- * " c AjaSSng; -H «0 *"* Ajaqijg: as o OS oo o CO 50 CO ^ CO CO CO —1 SmvSiQ cq CO .-H ^H UOl^BlOI^ CD 1 " r-t ,-< n " o " ao 3 C '"' s * CO cq •t •M -a 'V cq t~ cocM asaicot^i>O. ecwsoocoio eo»ooi»-HW5 -H rt M CO IM ajBuiaj uo ^inBSsy CO T-l r^ rt CO CO CO CO rt OJ (M CO fe JiM^^'BQ puB ^inBssy to (M lO '"' ^ s "*^-"« " " uosjy c^ c^ itujjgV ^H Cvl C^ « CO t^ uot:>joqy '"' uoi!jonpqy '^ <N :)narauopuBqy 1^ T-H CO Oi CO ^^ »-H ^^ rt to 1a § 1 i o ia j 'c 1 c c i 1 3 "a i > £ ot "c o oQ > eK 2; 2 S 03 1 1 o a bl si o E ,5 CI (2 22] BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 61 C<> I rt -( I C<< O 1(5 O 00 U5 t* lO *1< •'I* -^ CO 1-1 t^ 00 «D * «-« C4 1 rt .1 i-l CO t^co^H^*-^ ococ^cq OOCOOit^^H WSCflOO'^CD -iJlcOiO^lO T^COOCDO 00 >-l CO '^ "I M CO C» 1 IM OO « IN i-i CO eo (M ^ t» 1-H CqffO^HC<»«0 OOCOCOC4C4 »-Ht^^^ t^ «o IC 00 ^H ^H I -^ 05 (N »-H lO .-1 T(l «< "-I rt CO Tt a tn Cq 03 ^H CO U5 fci »- ii r; *^ _: t fi.S fl ^ a >..-www Sgg52 Ss? S(9^ha §33J3 B 4) O 3 tH >* 62 BIENNIAJL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENEKAL [Vol. ss^dsajx aiqiojo^ Ol ^ •^ Tl '^ *" U5 UOT^'BJOIA.—SMB'J 3nja p^^ pooj: rji N « (M 3Sn3}8J(J asj^B^ -1 •* « e<i '^ 1-1 ^H 1 saxBX ad^osg " " CO -H .-( * " juauiaizzaquia " " CO CO -^ (N JO " •g 3 CS S3np89j^ Suiqjn^siQ CO —1 CO o^ ^^ N lO o 1 a P93b3!)ioj^ 3uisodsiQ <N -Ol ^~* uS asnojj jt(japaosTQ ^~* CO rt >»" * si'Buiiav o:> ^:natUQ " ^D'BJldSlIOQ IM Pino JO ij^Jig; Sui[B90uoo SuipunodmoQ M <J1 T-1 t>. 0'«J<—<cO'-l -^CQCO^-I CQ «-H >!< uosjy UBq') J8q;o 3umjng M 2 a3 o O c 03 a < a > a 03 c > >< C 1 3 -if i (-1 m ao o 13 3 n 3 m a XI a "3 c <u aa 03 o a 1 o3 o 03 X 1 o a X "S o 4 2 -a O 22] BIEJVNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 63 la I COCO^-H(N I !-( iTjit^ 1-i r-l CO Cq I 1-H riO CN CO r -^ (M lO 1^ TJ4 i-i -^ »-H lO C^ CC CO rt C^) <M i-H 1-1 CO i—' c^ o C*^ (u c « J5 ^ « O g o o o a o ^ -^ ^ t^ B i t ;;) 3 C3 03 c3 UOQGC GQW&nfo lis S S| II 3 J ^;g O 64 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL [Vol. N IM '"' CO r^ "^ tC ^ 3njQ poB pooj^ nOI^^IOIA—BAl'B 'J e<i rt CO (M >-i -H s '"' asua^ajj asi^j 1-H »--l cq r-( t- -1 M IH ^^ 88XBX adBosg N " O (juaraajzzaquia CO OO 1* M »-l M C^ UOI^BIOt_\ —BMBT aoi;oa[a •a 1 sSai'^aaj^ 3uiqin:jsiQ 00 to — c 03 ^ o 1 a X'jaadojj P33b3}JOj\[ 3niSodsiQ IM c^ <M UJ asnojj A[japjosiQ CO ^H ^^ sjBmiuv o^ A^janjQ " jts'BaidsnoQ " ^ t-t >ji r^ JO q^Jja SajiBaonoQ jCnojajj Suipunodtuoo 'M " M 1-H CO i-f t^ irj^Hcocqc^ cDooeo " nosjy m .2 a 3o O c c c c ^ a 1 c 1 c 1 c c 5 c 1 > £Ca cc cc X 1 > c d K a c c c E Cj c c c c 1 ca Ph a ce o3 P^ 22] BIENNIAL REPOET OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 65 lO i-H T-H I 1-H Ol T-H CO M y-> I c^ CO CO GO ' W5 CO CO CO <N CO tH CO M C^l CO 1-t OS --• c^ »0 M lO 1-1 1-1 i-< 00 1-1 Oi (M »-t Mt J7 o a -a >2 S-o (» ^ S a ^ CI ,« 03 & •= a £ S K g <s !; -a CO CO H El D ^ a GJ o3 c^ ^ cj a a o M o >>;3 i2 t5 a tS S S ,"* ."^ ^ ^ ^ >H Ph 66 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENHaiAL [Vol. aiiqaj Sm'jonj^sqo 1 "' aDUBsmj^ ^H i-l ^ •* :)iodcins-aoNj ^^ M 1 o cq 1-1 e<i 3ai38Q pnoo3g —japjnj\[ ii <M M * e« CO N 1-1 t o w cq cq cq CO 1-1 cq 38J38Q ?SJtJ —J3pani\[ *"* ssauBntpjo [Bdioiunj^ "^ cq uot^'B[oi^—SAiBq; 1-1 00 CO M 1-1 1 lO OO OO tH O i-t i-i »o i3^q3n'B[snBjf CO « (M i-l 1-1 « N CO 1-1 rt cq -H a s C U 1 CO ^noq'jijj^ ssauisng 3U10Q 'asnaoi']; 1 "^ SniAiaoa'y; puB AnaajBi CO -H»H M-* l-H 03.-110 CO C3i 1-1 C7> t>- cq rt .^jiadojj o^t .^jnfni 1 CO rt 1 tH CO *^ tSBOUl »-l "^ '"' 1-1 cq cn '"' IM CO CO CO t>- aOI!>'B10I^ i " JO 3nijqniB£) <N .-1 (N * jtj3iinpV puB uop'Bomjo^ to cq (M (M —1 " cq /fjaSjo^ '- IM i-l <M rt rt (M ! il 0<1 •* ^ .2 a 3o O si 1 a < a OS .a -2 < a O a < i •3 > "51 03 D T3 03 5 Brunswick Buncombe a; Pi 3 03 03 o "3 o a T3 e 03 O 1 1 1 o a 03 O 22] BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 67 CO O "^ 00 CO CO CO O CO ^H CO lO CO *—' OJ T-H CO '^ CO eo lO lo »-< (M CO t^ i-H Tt< CO ^^ »o T-t t>- COCO COOiCOOO-^ CO c<»co O icsjcoeo coi-H CM '^ c^ cc T-« 1-1 CO O CO "^ CO OS COt-^tO i-HOi-HC0»0 Ot-»C^COW3 1-1 CS CN CO i-H C<I IM CO ^ W 1-1 1-1 1-1 CO "ii CO Oq I 1-H O C<1 lO o ^ ^ s s 2 -tJ c3 C3 « Ca 01 tH t4 L4 o o o o o ^ X ^ Q U Q IS <u s in ~ ^ t; >. a 3 C3 03 CO QJ O W W K W t ^ -o S o >> £ « K m W A »? 68 BIENNIAL EEPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL [Vol. aouBsm^ '^ " <N e<i CM ^joddns-uo|<[ ^~' cq .-( CO "^ -1 CM ^ CM 38j3aQ puoo9g —japjnj\[ CO(M*<**iOC^ -^COMC^ICO C^WOiCC"'** (MCO-TjieO^H CI 83J39Q JSJIJ —Japanj\[ '"' '"' saouBaipjo [BdToinnj\[ CO '"' T)< rl rt i-H -"ji oq » rt rt CO lO CO CO CM N 1 ia}i{3nt!isn'Bj\[ to N CO <N CO cq * w e^ to CO CO g3 B (jnomj^ noissgjoij SniopoEjj 'asuaoiT; Q 1- Z UJ S UJ ?noq')i^ ssantsng SuiOQ 'asuaojT; C4 SniAiaoo'y; pnB Kuaaivj •Wt^t^OCO TKCOIM00-* t~t-O00i-l (M'-ilCq CO CO rt<M« cq<M<MCO'-l-H g CO 1 •^ eo <*< Cq -^ ''l^ 1-H CM CM %S30Ul -H « '"' « *—1 1-H "^ """ 1 SnijjBaiqasnojj t^ * -H IN IM IN 2 O CO '-' CO UOI^'B[OIy\^ —SM.'B'J mi'B9H JO Sniiqtu'BO ^ ^ •o< Ol IN CO '-' j^ja^jnpv pnB noi'}'Boiajoj[. to Tl< ca c^ CO i< C<1 -H <N <»' eq SisSio^ N cq N -H « (M •-1 CO '-' .S a 3oO d o >-» ao 1-5 J oa 1c3 C o Cc &o Qo a -a c ao c o h Oo to 03 12; >o a 03 a 1 12: cc a o 1 cO a a o c 1 asoa 1 Ok 22] BIENNIAL REPOET OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 69 ZO CO l-H C<l 1-1 tH (M ^ i-H C^ (M C^fMC^COCq aiTj<Ot^CO i-i C^ (M lO CO O rf 1-1 1-H i-( (N C^ i-M '^ CO O CS lO T-l C^ t CO CO »-l T-H CO 00 Tt< I O CO OOC<l»-<t'-C^ ^fCOOO^J^Oi CO OO T~i fO cOi-H COt—i-^CN .—iC^^ lOi-'iO'^cD oic^csjcooo coco «-t 1-1 (M t^ 1-1 ^H 1-1 C^ I 1-1 1-1 (M (N Cq t^ CO 1-1 CO t CO lO Tp -<ji cq (M t C^ CO -<*< lO 1-1 1-1 CO '^ ^ o S G fl V a> 0) 't^ o PLl PL( Ph A^ Ph 03 .5 O O O fc; fr; p^ p^ pcj IH m W K^ 5 C ^ G ^ 3 « O o3 O W CQ OQ 02 02 3 ^ S >; fl M CO £h £h P Cd c3 cd c3 o3 o3 r^ ?7^ o3 ^ ^ ^ g >^ >< 70 BIENNIAL EEPOKT OF THE ATTOBlSrEY GENEBAL. [Vol. aai^nnoQ 0% sb i'b^oj, cDcoi-O^CN^eOO WCiOcCo<cIoClOO»00 lOt^-CO^sOilCC^t -^^OfMOcO 00 -^JH snognBiposTj^ T-H 10 CO 1-H C^ CO t CO 8^33^0 ssajq^jOj^ J!.ouviS-B\ ssBdsajj, 3nn[B9jq8J0ig lapoBis uoponpag uot:>'Bioi^ -SAiB'7;[ooqog jtiaqqoy; jooggo 3n;^eis8y^ doj^ SaiAoraay; adB^ uoi:>nji:jeojj »o ^ >n N t^ eo cncq-«^t-H -^eocoo W N CO CO 00 <*< 1-1 10 Sntuostoj; ^jntjaj i)onpaoosij\[ jBiogjo ^ a >""3 .s d ^ :3 S ej rr ill !n ^ ^ ^ a-3 > ffi V Jii h <i ffl PQ m ffl o ^ t:a T3 F! P P 03 03 CS pp w o o a *> • " a s S S ^ -^ o C3 c6 c€ ^ fJ^ 00000 22] BIEaSTNIAL EEPOET OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 71 Oi t- CO CO o (M^COt^ (M-^t^OtM lOC^iOW •^^(MC^ -^fM ^HGO (M05-«*IOO CO C<I C5 ^H W l-H T-H ^ (M ^ QO CD t^ Cq fji T-t I CO CO (M t^ O '-^ CO "-I CO I (M N IM i-l t- IM O —H kO o» OO lO -^ CO ^^ 1-H rt to -( CO cq I CO i-H r- t- o CCI o -* o -* ^cqi>. cococ^a; — CD TJH ^^ O CO ^ -^ 03 m S f; a OlClOlOlOg OiOSSQsQfQe Q^QSH^fegf*c oS-agogogS o .9 « "ft '^ 3 3-d -a 5 o « » s w ^ 03 ^ c3 c O W ffi ID tE o >. 5 g 72 BlENNIAIi EEPOBT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL [Vol. sai^anoQ o}^ sb i^^ox cMot«^*'o^t^^icOo oco-^i-Hcq OiOioscoco oocoooTfto i-HTjico»r300 CJ°°*^S<^ g-^Joo^cD sno3aBj[a3sij\[ 1 N Tp o eq 1 1^ r lO CO to .I CO <-l a^DaqOasajq^jOA^ .. 1 (M t •* CC •-(»-« OJ 1-1 1 (N M rt T-l itou^aSBA ssBdsaJX |.. 1 ^ i T-c CO t^ TO rt cq 1 rt « 1 r-l _ SaiJiBajqaio^g I *^ ,M 1 * to i CO * 1 "5 "S japuBig ! ^^ r "^ aoi:}onp8g " 1" N w . (M rH r^ Cq rt ' '-' "^ •a <s s c UOl^BIOIA. —SMB'j (ooqag o 1 Q 1- Z LJ s CO Xjaqqoy; " CO M <M -1 r- CO .-1 j8Digo Sapstsay; <N '^ 03 T-l IN -* *^ dojQ SniAouia^ '^ rH »-l "^ ad^H l-H ^-H '"' ^~* aoi^n:jpsoj(j -H lO o> « UOJ^B[OJA —BtAU'j nopiqiqojj; ooT-t^cct^ cqwwco^ cooOTjfOico ousutj^Hcq Saiaosioj; ^jnfjaj ^onpuoostj\[ iBiogjo '^ i Cc a o >-5 DC c o 1-5 'c aa 1-1 c c r o § o 1 .9 1o Qa 01 "3 a 1a o 8 ;2; hi 1 oi W ? <u IS a3 p. B a o cM o d 1 03 1O3 Oh 22] BIBimiAi EEPOBT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 73 C^DtJIMCOfM 010(M»0^ COcOi^St^Oa f-Ht^cDOOO OOt-^C^iOt^ Cq^OOt^C^ 05 <^^ rt iM rt —( lO lo CO T-l '^ ^ 1 CO to lO C<l 1 t^ « rt CD CD 05 '"' CO '"' '"' CM t~ '^ 1 1 1 TJ4 CO 1 05 c-q C<1 CM 2 T-H <M t^ CM CO 1 rj( to C-) 1 r-l CO 1 —( (M CO >-H 1 O --1 CO 2 '^ »o ' 1 "^ 1 ^~' ri" 1 1 t^ o CD o:. iji OT 1 ^~' M 1 M CO •^ '"' U5 Tl CO 1-1 — 1 " (M 1 -H cq 1 i-H 1 (M 1 -H (M CD 1 rt S 1 *"* t 1 Oi -* t^ !>. -»i —1 in lllleq oocntoll Otptji J2 '"' 1 C^ 1-H cq -H 114 (M (M 1 1 1 l-H l-H 1 i-H t- CM CO IM o l-H T-l cq 1111 I I '^ CM ^ »-l *-H '^ ^^ '"*'"' I'll 11 rt (M 1* CO c^ CO i i -;3co<N CD CD eot^cococq lOiocq^-HTS* ^csfHt^o o<mco»oo »oos T-(C3 CDC^ITJic^Cl CO CO t^tOCl »-* i-H Cq lO IC Ci^ (M CT> 1*4 OO C^ CO Tt4 r^ '-' CO '^ i " 11 rt lO 1 '- J? '- 134 <p c £ 2 Ph c Pi -^ s ptl ^§ i .a Pi Pi § c p^ c Ph Cj o Oh P^ c c £ 03 a > C Surry Swain Transylvania Tyrrell Union- Washington Watauga Wavne -- 2 i o ^ "c C [Vol. 22] BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENEBAX 75 STATEMENT C-l The Following Statement Shows Criminal Cases Disposed op in Cotjhts Below the Superior Courts, Reporting to this Department, During the Fall Term, 1933, Spring Term, 1934 Counties "0 o O a .2 "rt "3 S -0 a oO T3 ID 'p < "S 1 ; ; 1 ( )therwise ; ; ; I Disposed of o Alexander 27 40 70 303 580 374 124 23 351 115 472 90 123 61 1,869 25 13 250 611 133 275 96 72 225 150 252 3,291 241 169 112 16 129 273 445 622 23 470 363 347 45 641 5 110 56 95 122 70 155 41 246 191 637 31 125 79 472 58 29 340 508 30 72 32 70 46 9 36 2,049 241 154 187 33 94 162 405 61 12 401 198 234 112 919 2 1 8 2 1 32 153 lis 354 680 413 271 60 558 279 996 112 230 133 2,179 82 41 553 1,038 152 307 120 140 261 151 258 4,707 447 307 278 49 218 410 733 639 35 817 530 564 147 1,402 3 8 44 22 31 8 4 41 27 113 9 18 7 162 2 1 37 89 11 40 8 2 10 8 30 633 35 18 21 6 25 117 44 54 31 17 10 158 26 141 81 337 700 354 244 50 376 230 773 110 160 113 2,122 72 41 476 885 163 198 128 140 226 135 228 4,465 411 223 241 43 200 318 729 594 27 696 605 448 110 1,162 5 13 23 59 2 69 35 14 169 60 241 9 34 26 106 9 1 82 155 1 2 22 3 32 156 Brunswick. Buncombe Cabarrus 126 398 702 Caldwell... Chatham... 21 444 279 Chowan 64 Columbus Craven. 53 16 85 2 52 1 113 3 1 2 599 306 Cumberland Davidson. 1,109 121 248 Franklin Gaston 140 2,341 84 Granville 42 Halifax.... 32 88 590 Harnett*.. Haywood 1,128 163 Henderson Iredell 103 46 347 128 Lee 1 38 22 35 599 39 62 30 6 19 76 90 38 6 95 47 89 41 280 1 7 2 25 276 28 40 26 4 2 142 Lincoln... 271 Madison ._. McDowell Mecklenburg Moore 159 288 5,340 482 Nash. 325 Orange .. .. 299 Pamlico. 49 Person 5 41 27 51 2 79 9 44 6 115 4 1 3 224 Richmond Rockingham Surry 435 850 683 TsTrell 35 Union .. ... 871 Vance 561 Wake 581 Washington 157 1,560 Total 13,917 8,927 14 20,954 1,904 18,681 2,828 1,333 17 22,869 1 Corporation. 76 BIENNIAL REPORT OP THE ATTORNEY GENERAL [Vol. aajSaQ pnoogg « o m 88I38Q ?SJIj[ Eh" « O O ^aaSSng KO S t3 Xaaqug g « T-l T-t c^ o CO o - H g 1^ ». (M P5 - w i « K g W '"' <M M 'a v >o CD CO OS t^ to 1 N 1 aiBtaaj no mriBssy ^JH e^ to "S '^ I a Q j?j8')'}'Ba; puB ^inBSsy IN CO O (M CO (M OO N t^ IM (M 1 H H go o 5 gg IS uosjv AVIQY <M - OO I noi:}joqy W noi^onpqy 13 EH o 1 U (jugniaopn'Bqy " CO '"' rH <M IM "S 3 O O t i: £ < < > < c< 4 < 1 < PC t a C C PC a £ c £ a "S fC X et c 1 •z "a c d z £ 1 I 1 c o o O 22] BIENNIAI. REIPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 77 CO lO i-H OlO lO i>. o lO CO t-H CO 1-H OO CO i-( T-t Cq rH 'd ' -2 a « Si OOOOO OOQQQ Q Q W fa tn 03 OS (ri t4 ti ^ o3 cd 03 a3 S O raco^t^t^ ,jv,ttMu«u,; u.'i-'i'^v^ OOOOO OWWWK WtnK£»? 78 BIENNIAI. REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL [Vol. cq 38JS8Q ^SJt^ i?j3S3ng viiaqiig Sni M CO <M CO AraBSig 0-1 noi;>'BIoi\ "^ •a o 3 _C C o CO '"' CO Ji C •M -Q -y ^ 2 rt £) CO ^ 1 Z ill S UJ ai^ma^ no ^in^ssy CO OO CJ i^ cq S '"' 1 fe Xia'j^'Ba pnB (^riBssy 05 •* rt to ^ CO OO C<1 1 nosjy Xvigy CO CO >*^ ro -* noTCfioqy " CM uoT^onpqy ^namuopn-Bqy -^ " -a< r-a g cc i: < c I 'Z i 1- c 1 1 1 IS X ' c ) "tt I* E cb c C 1 a>cr S tt IZ c c E c 2 c C <1 C C c E a O3 03 22] BIENNIAL REPOKT OP THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 79 O -^ O CC 2 & ^ p s s « 03 ." O O O rt rt p^ p:^ rt o a -,3 _ S Q. J^ ^' OJ ^ M CQ 4) w oj cd ^ cj ^ fl g o 3 S * 5 5 aj 03 ^ ^ &: >H >H 80 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL [Vol. ssBdsgjtx ^iqpjoJ '~ C^ •^ 3njQ puB pooj UOIiBJOt^ — BM.'B'J '^ CO asua^ajjj asjB j ^~* CO " S8XBX adBosg N ^-4 i-t CO CO ! ^uauiaizzsquig •» a3 c c o g3up8aj\[ Suiqjn^STQ CO cq (M •>»l '^ - I i d t- A^jadojj pgSBS'jJoj^ SuisodstQ " M •^ z asnojj AjjapiosiQ to M 1- (/3 sjBiniuy o^ X^ianjQ '^ r-l ^oBJidsaoQ •* Pino SuipunoduioQ M -0 -O 00 "* 2 O CO o 1 uosjv <M apoO a Ce i dc a < >a U < c 1 c I< a 1 > < c K c a e 3 1 1 a aoac 3 ffl a 1c "a a 6 c3 1 1 1 0) 22] BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 81 lO I cq l-H CO ' <-< <M (M lO C^ »o CS i-H ^ -« -3 fi OOOOU OOQQG - « ° 5 -^ Q Q H fc< fe £ 5 &-S -2 n3 iS k. >> e C3 C^ C^ 0) O ffi W W ffi a K a »£i 5 -Si 82 BIENNIAL REPORT OP THE ATTORNEY GENERAL [Vol. asBdsajx ajqiojo^ t- " ^ 3njQ pn^B pooj """ ^~* CO asaa^aiJ asjcjj IM ^ M <N 1 saxBX '^ adBosa » '"' cc n an ^aaraajzzaqrag "^ uopBiojA •a 3 co sSupaaj^T SuiqjrusiQ '^ * to t^ ro <M cq J. d 1- paSBS^JOpf SaisodsiQ '"' IM '" '"' (M z S Id asnoji XjjapiosrQ o * C<3 »- gCBoitav o'} /C^janjQ M -< (M ytOBJldSUOQ •o Pino AUO[8J SuipnnoduioQ •A\ O "0 * t^ Ol 00 05 05 a> o> •at o> 1 uosjy uBq? J8q:>o Sutujng; " .2 3O O cc i: C a c c ( c c c J -5 "a c c b ca i. a 1 a > d £c 6j Cc 1 1 cc f-a> cca H 0. cc c £K t-c :2 1 c C c t C C 1 P. J<1 a 0! O 3 22] BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 83 Cq rt * T^ t^ oJ .5 O O O C4 tf tf rt tf ^ ° a I al^ £ 5 C o 03 O fS 02 M 35 3i b-2 fi 2i g t- S ^ !? '3 M m H E-i & £rj d ^ c^ ^ ci g o 3 o ^ ^ & >H >< 84 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL [Vol. aouBsmsj ?joddns-uo_K^ U5 CO aajSSQ puooag —aapjnj\[ —japanj^ saanBHipjo IBdiDiunj^ a[aiqa^ io'}oj\[ ja^q3n'Bisu'Bj\[ ^noq^i^ uoissajoaj ^noq^t^ ssauisng SuioQ 'asuaoi'j SuiAiaoay puB Auaoj^q; jC')jadojj o^ ;?jntui ^(saoui SuiJCBajqaenojj UOI^BJOl^ JO SuiiquiBQ Aja^(npY puB uotj'Bomjoj; i?ja3jo^ 2 S -^ S a M o « ^ < ^ < ^ ?^ "s .S ''> 2 > m (u J^ h <ij pq m m M a fcH « ^ O ly t^ fe n-J 3 3 c« c3 c3 pq ffl O O O fe " s ^g -3 im CO -^ » a> C^ C3 c3 J^ ^ o o o o o 22] BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 85 d »-< CO OO ^H la ^ ^ ^ * ^ M > > 9 r; -^ o S? Ti i3 03 O O Q Q ri 5 -a o Q Q H fe fe S5 03 > c ^ -*^ 03 03 (D 03 03 tH »-i h o o o a o ;3 c3 03 C3 O) O W W ffi ffi t ^ -a ^ ^ a) o >> a, " II! ffl W Jt: .? 86 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL [Vol. " aouBSin^ CO CO '^ ^loddns-uoj^ CO c;i « •-H CO oi (N 1 aajSaa pnooag —i9pjnj\[ ^^ ^ —japjni\[ saonBuipjo l'BdTo;nnj\[ " CO (M to o to " ira to o 1-H (M ^ " 1 ja^q3nBisnBi\[ T-l CO •g 3 C (inoqij^ aoissajojj o 1 6 jnoq^i^ ssaaisng; 3niOQ 'asnaoiq CO z LJ s SniAiaoay; puB vCuaojBq «o CO lO CO CO Tjl •» CO oo -- 1 c/3 jC'jjadojfj 0!> Aljntni cq CO lO CO •O CO "i (jsaonj 3aTi['B9jq9snoij CO " uopBioiA JO SuiiquiBO Tt* ^ •* CO ^ 53 o CO Ais^inpY pnB uoi^BO[nioj[ '^ to « (M O C5 >o ;?J93lOj[ ^ CO 1 § c c e o >-5 'o c 1 oo J i c Q b 1 > 113 s 6 "c O a % i > o W & c £ 1 C c c c £ o 1 22] BIENNIAL REa'OET OF THE ATTORNEY GENEBAX. 87 O <M CS I "3 § H t< >" 43 -t; 0) V q; .Th o Ph Ph p4 Ph P^ ft § g M ^ g ° 2 n a -g ^ o ^ 03 .S O O O Pi P^ « tf rt O fl T3 h ° fl :g a -g d ^ 3 « O c4 O (S CQ CO 02 » s i s &« M 02 H E-i t> rg OS ^ OJ Oj Sa; K H .rt c S o -3 S ^ :r" tr' 03 e8 &: & ^ >H tH 88 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL [Vol. s8i:juno3 0^ sb i'b^ox ;" 1 § 1 =o cc 1 O 'J' ; s sno8UBjiaosij\[ 1 '"' i O C3 ' —1 O.) I 10 sjioaqo ssai^jOAi ' !M I ^ . ^ n AouBaSBy^^ ss^dsajx 1" 1 '"* 1 -^ en 1 c^ >o 1 (M 3ut5IB8iq3JOig japnBjg ^ t^ aoponpag §3 C Co —SAiB^ jooqog 1Q 1- Ajaqqoy; Z UJ S 1^ laoijjo SuT:)sisay; •»ti C-J C>3 X5 '"* fe dojQ SuiAouiay; '"' adBy; uoprnpsojj <M >o uopBioi^ —SMB^j uopiqtqoj(j S S ^ « o n CO 00 3uinosiO(j Ajnfj9(£ :>onpuoosii\[ {Bioijjo .2 oO g s < T3 03 -2 a OS M < d o d < 4J 03 d -§ 03 s m ao a m oi S u 03 o d OI •a a 03 1 03 1 03 03 Is u a 03 22] BIENNIAL EEPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 89 64 599 306 1,100 121 248 140 2,341 84 42 590 1.128 163 347 |S: "^ll^i ^^'i*^! rt!;;*^ S"!'~'l ;^^!J2 \ rti.^O .iiCJi (Mill, t^,.i, ,„^,„ , 1 1 j 1 ir3 ^ , 1 T-H 1 I 1 1 i' J '"'III! J 1 c^ CO *-! 1 n iii^DC^ OOiiii CDiiii—t l>-iii—It ,cot^iCO 1 !)'!!! i' 1 ' 1 I h 1 1 t 1 1 '"' 1 ! I 1 1 1 I I 1 lli<M(N mi!«i ;;ill «il!l lioilio 1 1 1 1 1 ! ^ ! 1 1 1 '^,'111 ! ! 1 1 1 ; i '^ ! 1 1 I I 1 I I *"* 1 r 1 1 ! 1 I ' 1 '"' 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 I I'll! CO 1 i 1 1 11111 11111 1 1 d' 1 1 1 lllio— 11111 miller rtllll Ict^c^jcts 1 1 T-C 1 1 1 1 rt 1 cq 1 1 1 1 11111 1 rt 1 rt 1 1 1 cq 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 '"'1111 11111 1 1 '"' 1 1 I ijlloj iiii; "^iiii siiii I'j'ovl^ 1 -OiHI'IC> COiW3-^ lOiiO' CO.iiC^ ic.<*^i05i i-*0»OCO II T—iiicOi t^ii,»o ^*i itHi i.^C^iTQirt II i fr i iiii! iiii i i i i i i i i i i i ^ i i i i i )wan v^eland umbus ven nberland rituck e /idson fie --. jlin rham ecombe syth nklin ton es-ham nville ene Iford : nett /wood iderson..^ tford 1 i C 1 — o > > a ^ 3 C3 o3 O O Q Q Q 3 -w 5 2 Q Q H fe u. :3 :3 t- >> C 3 d c3 c3 aj O ffi ffl M W i. ^ « -S -S W MH h-3 »-S 90 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL [Vol. sai^onoQ 0^ s-e jb^oj, Cs I-- o- 2? c c^ c o- o-snoauBijaasij\; (M oo n * to 0> lO o 1 CO CO «o « CO CO j /?OUBJSBj\ <M T»l ssBdsgjx -* CT oo to •f "5 " " : 3ut^B8jq8JO!)g t^ aapuBis '"' " uoi:)onpag -o o 1e —SMB^ [OOTJOg 1 a jfjaqqoy^ oq as '^ C<1 Z UJ s bJ t? jaojgQ 3ui^sie8y^ CO CO C<1 S '^ -< cq 1 fe doiQ SuiAOuiajj ^~* — C-) aclBy; '"' *— ' uoT^n'ji'jsojj; ^— * « o CO -1 uopBiojyv —SAiBi noijiqiqojj O s h^ 2S 22 CO -wi 1 Sninosioj .^jntJ9jj ^onpnoosi]^ jBiogfo 3o O cc c o 1-3 aao ooe 03 1 Qo 1 a "a i > o6 C o oc oc c I s 2 t: O c o o i tS Ah O I 22] BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 91 i is i i linioi i.iii co.i.n« —1.-. icci«:ii tiiii oojtcct^ cocc i-*JHioOi 11. .r COit OO »OlO in 1 1 o 1 1 U3 CO cq' 1 1 -^ 1 1 iiolrtl II'll ccltMlM toco CO 1 1 Mf o .-HIM I 11111 coll-»-^ TO-* o 1 1 " o 1 ^ 1 1 1 1 t 1 i-H 1 1 1 1 1 ^ * • j IM 1 i (MimI 11111 cnil'-Hco IM-* lo 1 1 t^ 1 1 cq i CO rH 1 cq 1 11111 (N " '"' 1 1 11111 (N 1 1 1 '"' '"' o o 1 1 CO IdrcOi iilli —il.iOO (NO •^ 1 1 •<»i cq 1 1 '^ 1 1 111'^ * ^~' 1 1 cq Cl I '"' 1 I 1 1 I I '^ CO M 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 cq 1 1 1 n 1 1 t^ o 1 1 CO I 1 1 1 O 1 1 ccooiicoqoil 11111 tc-olilloooo OS-* T-H Qot^ rt 1 CO • 1 1 1 . 1 <)( 1 I * rH IN o I 1 CO 1 1 CO oo -" i 1 1 •* CO i Pender Person Pitt Polk Randolph a o £ i e 9 * g c o o OS tf Rowan Rutherford Sampson Scotland Stanly Stokes Surrv... Swain Transylvania Tyrrell Union aoc > 1 C cc bC 1 5 1 Wayne Wilkes Wilson c >a c OS 1 1 "o Eh 92 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENEKAL [Vol. STATEMENT E Superior Court Courts Below Superior Court Comparative Statement as to Sex, Race, Judgment, etc. From July 1, 1932 To July 1, 1933 From July 1, 1933 To July 1, 1934 From July 1, 1932 To July 1, 1933 From July 1, 1933 To July 1, 1934 13,153 828 2 13,092 869 16,531 1,551 2 20,954 1,904 1 Total 13,983 13,961 18,084 22,859 White 8,749 5,062 170 2 8,717 5,135 109 11,114 6,963 5 2 13,917 8,927 14 1 Total 13,983 13,961 18,084 22,859 Convictions, Including Submissions. 9,217 1,982 2,716 68 9,255 2,020 2,615 71 14,336 2,528 1,197 23 18,681 2,828 1,333 17 Total 13,983 13,961 18,084 22,859 22] BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 93 STATEMENT F Alphabetical List of Crimes Superior Court From July 1, 1932 To July 1, 1933 From July 1, 1933 To July 1, 1934 Courts Below Superior Court From July 1, 1932 To July 1, 1933 From July 1, 1933 To July 1, 1934 Abandonment Abduction Abortion Affray - Arson Assault and Battery Assault on Female A. D. W -- Assault with Intent to Kill Assault with Intent to Rape Banking Laws—Violation Bigamy Breaking and Entering Bribery Buggery Burglary—First Degree Burglary—Second Degree Burning other than Arson... C. C. W - Compounding Felony Concealing Birth of Child Conspiracy Cruelty to Animals Disorderly House -- Disposing Mortgaged Property Disturbing Meetings Election Laws—Violation Embezzlement .-.,- Escape Failure to List Taxes False Pretense Fish and Game Laws—Violation... Food and Drug Laws—Violation... Forcible Trespass r Forgery Fornication and Adultery Gambling or Lottery Health Laws—Violation.. Housebreaking Incest Injury to Property.^.. Larceny and Receiving License, Doing Business Without... License, Practicing Profession With-out Manslaughter Motor Vehicle Laws—Violation Municipal Ordinances Murder—First Degree Murder—Second Degree Non-Support Nuisance 157 17 16 115 43 394 198 1,283 127 74 17 30 909 4 1^ 47 42 249 10 48 11 40 42 78 9 148 52 8 128 53 4 141 172 136 71 3 603 16 87 2,481 187 582 39 12 311 55 26 173 33 19 152 26 446 216 1,505 126 78 19 42 797 8 27 1 54 33 269 2 43 18 46 29 94 2 124 52 126 75 10 129 157 132 99 1 548 23 75 2,351 5 4 252 469 28 18 344 77 30 171 3 261 2 1,216 299 1,473 5 1 3 9 433 20 41 40 122 20 70 10 36 119 9 63 6 202 313 15 18 131 2,288 11 4 1 1,329 348 129 3 3 299 2 1,462 371 1.762 15 7 3 12 508 10 17 47 29 114 19 197 719 15 20 109 1,963 45 4 10 1.518 609 5 124 93 94 BIENNIAI. REPORT OP THE ATTORNEY GENERAL [Vol. STATEMENT F—Continued Alphabetical List of Crimes Superior Court From July 1. 1932 To July 1, 1933 From July 1, 1933 To July 1, 1934 Courts Below Superior Court From July 1. 1932 To July 1, 1933 From July 1, 1933 To July 1, 1934 Obstructing Public Highway Official Misconduct Perjury -. Poisoning. Prohibition Laws—Violation Prostitution Rape Removing Crop.. -. Resisting Officer Robbery School Laws—Violation Seduction Slander... Storebreaking. Trespass .- Vagrancy Worthless Checks Miscellaneous - Total 3 13 38 10 ,881 78 20 27 88 271 6 75 21 409 137 36 202 362 13,983 2,957 66 32 22 90 312 14 298 132 29 113 373 13,961 1 5 2 7,095 101 2 48 78 17 8 15 18 25 341 45 252 715 18,084 10,409 70 6 22 122 27 2 10 31 8 323 54 120 1,073 22,859 STATEMENT G Comparative Statement of Disposition or Violations or the Prohibition Law, for THE Years 1932-33, 1933-34 Superior Court Courts Below Superior Court From July 1, 1932 To July 1, 1933 From July 1, 1933 To July 1, 1934 From July 1, 1932 To July 1, 1933 From July 1, 1933 To July 1, 1934 2,004 341 521 15 2,185 325 429 18 6,368 510 214 3 9,473 710 Nolle Pros 224 2 Total - . 2.881 2,957 7,095 10,409 22] BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 95 fees Transmitted by Attorney General to State Treasurer Since February Term, 1932, Through February Term, 1934 State V. Foy --- - $ 10.00 State V. Luke Lea, Wallace Davis, et al 30.00 State V. Shipman 50.00 State V. E. Harrell 10.00 State V. Luke Lea. 10.00 State V. McKeithan _,. 10.00 State V. Everhardt 10.00 State V. Lattimore .- - _. 10.00 State V. Bryson 10.00 State V. Gossett - _. 10.00 State V. Call - - 10.00 State V.Ellis 10.00 State V. Ingram - --- 10.00 State V. Shoemaker 10.00 State V. Dills- 10.00 State V. Dan Harris - 10.00 State V. Manos - 10.00 State V. Layton 10.00 State V. Evans - 10.00 State v. Clyde Fowler 10.00 State v. Davidson, et al 30.00 State V. Rowland 10.00 State V. Carter - 10.00 State V. Harwood 10.00 State V. Shore - - -.. .-. 10.00 State V. Dula - -- _ 10.00 Kent Coffey Manufacturing Co. v. Maxwell, Commissioner (U. S. Supreme Court) 20.00 State V. Johnson _ 10.00 Total. $ 370.00 THE WORK OF THE OFFICE Opinions We print a few of the more important opinions of the oflBce. The appropria-tion for printing the report does not permit of including a larger number in this publication. During the two year period, the office wrote 7,123 letters. This, of course, includes not alone formal opinins, but also correspondence. Official opinions or rulings are given to State departments, officers and agencies. In addition to that, we give advisory opinions to local officials upon request from them. We regret that the staff is not sufficient to enable us to do more of this kind of work. Criminal Cases Tables are included showing criminal statistics assembled by the Depart-ment. It is hoped that the law may be so amended as to make this service of greater value. Civil Cases Exhibit I contains a list of civil cases pending or disposed of in the various courts, and also of all cases in the Supreme Court of the United States in which this office participated. The number and importance of these cases has constantly increased. They relate to all phases of governmental services and activities; the more impor-tant of these, of course, are those dealing with taxation. As the State has extended its services. State taxation has greatly increased and, as a conse-quence, new problems in this field have arisen. Taxpayers are more disposed than ever to contest applicability of taxation laws to them, and especially if they find any grounds for the contention that the particular statute may be unconstitutional. We call attention to some of the more important of these cases: Atlantic Coast Line Railroad v. Maxtvell, Coitimissioner of Revenue The Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company did not include in its Income tax return for the year 1931 moneys received by it from the Federal Govern-ment for railway mail pay. The Commissioner of Revenue thereupon assessed against the Railroad Company additional income tax which, with interest, amounted to $4,403.98. The Railroad Company paid the tax under protest and sued for its recovery, under section 510 of the Revenue Act. At the hearing in Wake Superior Court, Judge Henry A. Grady rendered judgment for the defendant. Com-missioner of Revenue. The case came up to our Supreme Court and was argued at the call of the Seventh District, Fall Term, 1934, and has not been decided as this is being written. Another case of similar nature—Winston-Salem Southbound Railroad Com-pany V. Maxwell, Commissioner of Revenue—awaits determination of this Atlantic Coast Line Railroad case. [Vol. 22] BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 97 Norfolk Western Railivay Company v. Maxwell, Commissioner of Revenue This is an income tax case in which plaintiff is contending that it has no taxable net income in North Carolina. The case was heard by Judge J. Crawford Biggs, Referee, under a compulsory order of reference. It involved a study of many intricate facts and figures, making a voluminous record. Judge Biggs decided the case against the Commissioner of Revenue and an appeal was taken to the Superior Court of Wake County. Hearing was had before Judge Grady and extensive briefs submitted by plaintiff and by this Department. Judge Grady has not yet rendered his judgment. Another case involving similar facts and contentions has been brought by this Railway Company against the Commissioner of Revenue. The amount involved in the case now pending before Judge Grady is $86,421.71, plus interest from various dates. The amount involved in the second case is $51,193.11 and interest from date of payment. Southeastern Express Company v. Maxioell, Commissioner of Revenue This action was brought to recover the sum of $25,876.80, franchise privilege tax, paid by plaintiff to the Commissioner of Revenue, under section 205 of the Revenue Act of 1931. Plaintiff alleged unconstitutionality of the tax, as applied to it, under the Interstate Commerce Clause, and the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, part of its contention being that the tax was confiscatory. Answer was filed by this Department. The case is still pending in the Superior Court of Wake County. The issues involved are similar to those in Railivay Express Agency v. Max-well, Commissioner of Revenue, 199 N. C, 637. The facts in that case showed that the franchise-privilege tax paid by the Railway Express Agency amounted to slightly in excess of 12 per cent of its revenues derived from intrastate business, the principal contention of the plaintiff being that the tax was confiscatory. The Supreme Court of North Carolina decided the case in favor of the Commissioner of Revenue and no appeal was taken to the Supreme Court of the United States. Ross Federal Service v. Maxivell, Commissioner of Revenue This case involves validity of section 104 of the Revenue Act of 1933 levying an annual license or privilege tax of $1,250, upon those engaged, under con-tract or for compensation, in the business of checking attendance or amount of admission receipts at theatres. This company paid the tax of $1,250 under protest and sued for its recovery. It alleges that its gross receipts from the business in the State for the year 1933 was $13,931.72 and the expenses of operation $12,885.73. Its principal contention, then, is that the tax is con-fiscatory. The case is pending in the Superior Court of Wake County, and whatever the result there, will probably go to the Supreme Court of this State. 98 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL [Vol. State and Maxwell, Commissioner of Revenue, v. L. D. Melvin and Great American Indemnity Company and State and Maxwell, Commissioner of Revenue, v. E. G. Richardson and Gi'eat American Indemnity Company These are similar actions brought by the State on relation of the Com-missioner of Revenue against the defendants, former deputies in the Department of Revenue, involving claims against them and the defendant Great American Indemnity Company, surety on their bonds, growing out of their services as such deputies. The amount claimed in the Melvin case is $587.45; against Richardson and his surety $4,814.63. These cases are pend-ing in the Superior Court of Wake County and will be tried as soon as they can be set for hearing in their order on the calendar. T. E. Alliosn, et al., v. C. R. Sharpe, Registrar, Hugh G. Mitchell, Chairman Board of Elections of Iredell County, L. P. MoLendon, Chairman, and State Board of Elections. This is an action brought in Iredell Superior Court by T. E. Allison and Robert W. Dockery, alleging that they were qualified, under the Constitution and laws of this State, for registration as voters, and that the Registrar, C. R. Sharpe, had unlawfully, and in violation of the Constitutions of the United States and North Carolina, refused to register them. The action was brought July 19, 1934 and demurrer filed by this Department August 18, 1934. The demurrer has not been passed upon and the action is still pending. State Hospital for the Insane, at Raleigh, v. Security National Bank, Guardian for Earl N. Betts This ease was heard at March Term, 1934, Wake Superior Court. It involves claim of the State Hospital against the estate of an ex-soldier of the World War for care and maintenance of such soldier in the State Hospital. His guardian has in hand securities purchased with funds received from the Federal Government for the benefit of said soldier. It contends that, under the Federal statutes, such funds, and the securities in which they are invested, are exempt from all debts of its ward, including the account of the State Hospital for his care and maintenance while an inmate of that institution. Our contention is that such funds, and the securities in which they are invested, are not so exempt, but are liable for payment of this account. Judge Grady rendered judgment in favor of the State Hospital; appeal was taken by the defendant to the Supreme Court and there argued at the call of the Seventh District, Spring Term, 1934. It was ordered for re-argument for October 30. On the re-argument, Messrs. J. D. DeRamus and J. H. Whit-tington, attorneys for the Veterans Administration, submitted a brief as amici curiae and we submitted supplementary brief. The amount involved in the case is $3,550, but we have pending other claims of like nature involving a much larger sum. Belk Brothers Company v. Maxicell, Commissioner of Revenue This action was brought in Wake Superior Court October 12, 1934, and answer filed October 24. Amount involved is $3,620. Plaintiff, for itself 22] BIENNIAL KEPOET OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 99 and its affiliated companies, is contesting the applicability to it of the new definition of "chain store" contained in Section 162 of the Revenue Act of 1933. The case, of course, will be determinative of that question as it applies to all other like organizations in the State. Thomas R. Hocutt v. Thomas J. Wilson, Jr., Dean of Admissions and Registj'ar, and the University of North Carolina. This action was brought in the Superior Court of Durham County in March, 1933, by Hocutt, a negro, against defendants, seeking a peremptory writ of mandamus commanding defendants to admit plaintiff to the School of Phar-macy of the University. Answer was filed by this Department for the defendants and hearing completed March 28, 1933 before Judge Barnhill. Defendants demurred ore tenus and moved to dismiss the complaint. Judg-ment was entered allowing the motion to dismiss for that the writ of man-damus was not the proper remedy. Notice of appeal to the Supreme Court was given but the appeal was not perfected. The Park Commission By Chapter 212, Public Laws of 1933, membership of the Park Commission was changed from eleven to five, the members to be appointed by the Governor. The act also provided that the Governor should appoint a committee of three of such members to investigate action and expenditures of the former Com-mission. That investigation has never been had. Under the old Commission, the fees of attorneys for the Park Commission were paid out of funds provided by the Laura Spelman Rockefeller Memorial Foundation. With possibly a few exceptions, such fees of such attorneys, as were approved by the Attorney General, were also submitted to, and approved by, the Governor then in office. These expenditures for fees were also examined, audited and approved by representatives of the Rockefeller Foundation which supplied the money for the payment. By Chapter 260, Public Laws of 1933, Chapter 48 of the Public Laws of 1927 was amended, providing for approval of attorneys for the Park Com-mission by the Governor and not by the Attorney General. Since that time the Attorney General has not been consulted a.bout, nor had any relation to, handling of condemnation cases for the Park Commission. Just prior to that time the old Park Commission had concluded purchase of lands from the Suncrest Lumber Company containing 32,853 acres, for which $610,454.78 was paid. Since then the new Park Commission has concluded condemnation and purchase of lands from the Ravensford Lumber Company containing 32,709 acres, paying therefor the sum of $1,088,992.59. At the time of the passage of the 1933 acts, this office was handling, in the Superior Court of Wake County, the case of State of North Carolina and North Carolina Park Commission v. U. S, Guarantee Company, Metropolitan Casualty Insurance Company of New York and Century Indemnity Company of Hartford. The action was brought upon the depository bonds of these several companies given to secure deposits in the Central Bank and Trust Company of Asheville. At the time of bringing the action there was a balance of $122,716.65 of deposits of the Park Commission in the failed bank. Intricate questions of law arose in the handling of the case. It was tried 100 BIENNIAL EEPORl OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL [Vol. before Judge G. Vernon Cowper January, 1934, Special Term of Wake Superior Court, the judgment being for the State and the Park Commission on the main questions involved, the Court holding against their contentions with respect to an item of interest. Cross appeals were taken and the case is now in our Supreme Court. Northcutt V. Peoples Bonded Warehouse Company, et al. This case, tried in Anson Superior Court September Term, 1933, involved question of liability of the State warehouse system and its funds with respect to cotton in warehouse. On appeal, 206 N. C, 842, the contention of this Department, that funds in the hands of the State Treasurer are not liable, was sustained. State ex rel. Maxwell, Commissioner of Revenue, v. Reynolds Tobacco Company In this case the defendant Reynolds Tobacco Company as'ved for a revision of income tax assessed against it and refund of $80,632.09. This company had theretofore, in payment of its income taxes to the State of North Carolina, included in its return interest paid to it by the United States Government on certain tax refunds. It claimed exemption of this interest, so paid it by the Federal Government, under Section 317.d of the Revenue Act, which excludes from the definition of gross income "interest upon the obligations of the United States." This Department took the position that interest paid the taxpayer upon refunds by the Federal Government was not such "obligation of the United States" as came within the statute. The Commissioner of Revenue declined to make the refund. In the meantime, the case of American Viscose Corpora-tion V. Commissioner of Internal Revenue was decided in the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, 56 Federal (2nd), 1033, construing a similar provision in the Federal Revenue Act in accordance with the contentions of the State. Petition for writ of certiorari in that case was denied by the Supreme Court of the United States October 10, 1932, 287 U. S., 615, 77 L. ed., 534. Thereupon the Reynolds Tobacco Company consented to abandon its appeal, and judgment was entered dismissing the action. Ashlyn L. Cannon v. Maxwell, Commissioner of Revenue, and Stedman, State Treasurer The sum involved in this action was only $768.65. The Commissioner of Revenue made refund of certain taxes collected as aut^iorized by statute, but declined to pay interest on the refund so made. Plaintiff sued for the recovery of this interest. The position of the Commissioner of Revenue and this Department was that he was not authorized to pay interest where refund was voluntarily made, but only when recovery is had by action, as set out in Section 510 of the Revenue Act, and cognate sections of preceding Revenue Acts, for the reason that the State does not pay interest unless it expressly contracts to do so. The case was decided in favor of the Commissioner of Revenue and State Treasurer by Judge Cranmer, May Term, 1933, and, on appeal, affirmed by the Supreme Court of North Carolina, 205 N. C, 420. 22] BIENNIAL BEPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 101 Hans Rees Sons, Inc. v. Maxwell, Commissioner of Revenue The plaintiff brought this action in Wake Superior Court March 8, 1934. It therein sought to recover franchise taxes paid for the years 1931, 1932 and 1933, amounting to $5,709.10, with interest from dates of payment. In its complaint, of 27 typewritten pages, it presented all the usual contentions of alleged unconstitutionality under Interstate Commerce Clause and the Four-teenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution, alleging that the tax deprived it of its property without due process of law, imposed a tax upon its property situated outside the State of North Carolina and was a burden upon inter-state commerce. Answer was filed April 5, 1934, controverting material allegations of the complaint and undertaking to show that the tax laws of North Carolina were, and are, favorable, rather than otherwise, to plaintiff as a foreign corporation. On February 13, 1934, plaintiff took a voluntary non-suit. State ex rei. Attorney General v. Herman Winburn and State ex rel. Attorney General v. Harry Gorson In these cases the Attorney General filed motions in the Supreme Court asking that rule be served on these defendants to show cause why they should not be disbarred. In the case against Winburn the evidence showed that he had formerly practiced in Louisiana, and, upon charges filed against him, had consented to ask that his license to practice law be cancelled. He received license in this State at the Fall Term, 1928, of our Supreme Court and was later admitted to practice in the several Federal courts, including the Supreme Court of the United States. On October 9, 1933, he was disbarred from practicing in the Supreme Court of the United States, and subsequently disbarred by the District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, and the United States Circuit Court of Appeals. The Court referred the motion, and the answer thereto, to a committee of the Bar, and on its findings, and in the exercise of its inherent power to act in the premises, the Supreme Court of North Carolina disbarred the respondent Winburn, 206 N. C, 923. The motion with respect to Gorson was filed in the Supreme Court of North Carolina, October 16, 1934, by the Attorney General. It is based upon information and certificates showing that the respondent Gorson had hereto-fore practiced in Pennsylvania and had been disbarred by the courts of that state. Thomas W. Elliott v. State Board of Equalization This case grew out of a controversy with respect to maintenance of schools in several districts in Chowan County. The ease went to the Supreme Court and there, 203 N. C, 749, it was held that the State Board of Equalization did not have the power to make the consolidation and discontinue certain schools as attempted, and upheld the right of the Districts to necessary allocation of funds for the maintenance of the schools. 102 BIENNIAL REPOET OF THE ATTORNEY GENBRAI, [Vol. Stedman, Treasurer, v. City of Winston-Saletn In this case, 204 N. C, 203, the Supreme Court held that a city is liable for the gasoline tax. In O'Berry v. Mecklenburg Cownty, 198 N. C, 357, the Court had held to the contrary. The law was amended by the General Assem-bly of 1931 so as to include a municipality, with the result as stated. In the Winston-Salem case. Maxwell, Commissioner of Revenue, v. Kent Coffey Manufacturing Company This case involved income tax paid under protest by defendant Kent Coffey Manufacturing Company, the amount being $4,295.27, with interest from date of payment. While the amount involved is small, yet the case was one of great importance and attracted attention following the Hans Rees case, de-cided against the State by the Supreme Court of the United States, 283 U. S., 123, 75 L. ed., 879. The case was decided against contentions of the State on the hearing before Judge McElroy, Caldwell County, May Term, 1932. Appeal was taken by the State and judgment reversed by the Supreme Court of North Carolina, with an elaborate opinion, 204 N. C, 365. The taxpayer then took the case on appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States where it was argued January 15, 1934. On January 22, 1934, that Court, 291 U. S., 642, 78 L. ed., 1040, sus-tained the contentions of the State and affirmed the judgment of our Supreme Court, holding that the case was controlled by the Underwood Typewriter case, 254 U. S., 114, and not by the Hans Rees case. Perdue v. State Board of Equalization The Department has handled for the various other State departments a number of compensation cases. Probably the most important is that of Perdue v. State Board of Equalization, which, on appeal, went to the Supreme Court, 205 N. C, 730, where it was held that a person employed by a graded school district, as teacher in athletics, was an employee of a political sub-division of the State and not of the State. Central Hanover Bank and Trust Company v. Norfolk Southern Railroad Company This is a receivership of the Norfolk Southern Railroad Company pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Con-troversy arose as to payment of franchise taxes due to the State of North Carolina. The taxes, amounting to $94,603.19, were finally collected in full. This Railroad Company holds lease of the Atlantic and North Carolina Railroad, majority of stock of which is owned by the State. Many interesting questions arise in connection with the rights of the State in this regard. This office, through Assistant Attorney General Seawell, is assisting Mr. R. A. Whitaker, attorney for the Atlantic and North Carolina Railroad, in these matters. Alabama v. Arizona, North Carolina et al. This was application by the State of Alabama for leave to file complaint in original suit in the Supreme Court of the United States againt nineteen 22] BIENNIAL REPORT OP THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 103 other states, including North Carolina, to procure an adjudication of invalid-ity as in violation of the Commerce Clause of the Federal Constitution, of the statutes of the defendant states forbidding the sale of goods produced by convict labor. The several acts of the defendant states were passed in pur-suance of the Act of Congress, passed January 19, 1929, known as the Hawes- Cooper Act. The North Carolina statute is Chapter 146, Public Laws of 1933, forbidding the sale of such convict-made goods. The Act went into effect January 19, 1934 in pursuance of the Hawes-Cooper Act. This Department, for the State, filed its return to the notice to show cause why the application of Alabama for leave to sue should not be granted. And the Department also filed brief in support of its contentions. When the case came on to be heard in the Supreme Court of the United States January 9, 1934, Alabama obtained leave to, and on a later date did, submit an amendment eliminating fourteen of the states, including North Carolina, from its petition. That disposed of the case so far as North Caro-lina was concerned. However, Alabama proceeded with its application against Arizona, Idaho, Montana, New York and Pennsylvania. The Supreme Court handed down its opinion February 5, 1934, denying leave to bring the suit as against these other five states, 291 U. S., 286, 78 L. ed., 798. The constitutionality of our act forbidding the sale of prison-made goods was not directly passed upon in that opinion. But no further action has been taken by Alabama or the purchasers of its convict-made goods. It may be reasonably assumed that the case disposes of the effort to declare the act unconstitutional. State V. Wallace B. Davis This defendant was convicted at April Special Term, 1931, Superior Court of Buncombe County, of publishing false reports with respect to financial condition of the Central Bank and Trust Company. On appeal to the Supreme Court of North Carolina no error was found and the judgment was affirmed, 203 N. C, 47. The defendant's motion in Superior Court of Buncombe County for new trial having been denied, the Supreme Court granted motion of this Department to Docket and dismiss his appeal, 203 N. C, 327. The defendant then filed petition for writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court of the United States. This office submitted brief in opposition to the petition. The petition was denied October 17, 1932, 287 U. S., 645, 77 L. ed., 558. The Luke Lea Case At the July-August Special Term, 1931, of the Superior Court of Buncombe County, Luke Lea, Luke Lea, Jr., and Wallace B. Davis were tried and con-victed of a conspiracy to misapply the funds of the Central Bank and Trust Company and misapplication of such funds. On appeal to the Supreme Court of North Carolina, the argument was presented for the State both orally and by brief by this Department, and the judgment affirmed June 15, 1932, 203t N. C, 13. The defendants then filed petition asking our Supreme Court to review the record and reconsider the opinion so filed. This petition was denied June 29, 1932, 203 N. C, 35. The defendants then filed petition in the Supreme Court of the United States for writ of certiorari, seeking to review the action of the Supreme 104 BIENNIAL EEPORT OF THE A'lTOKNEY GENERAL [Vol. Court of North Carolina, upon the contention that, in their trial, they had been denied due process of law guaranteed by the Federal Constitution. De-fendants, through their counsel, filed an elaborate brief in support of their petition. This Department, on October 8, 1932, submitted brief in opposition to the petition. The petition for writ of certiorari was denied by the Supreme Court of the United States October 24, 1932, 287 U. S., 649, 77 L. ed., 561. In the meantime, the defendants applied to the Judge holding the Superior Court of Buncombe County for a stay of execution, pending the application made at July Term, 1932, Buncombe Superior Court, for a new trial, on the grounds of newly discovered evidence and for alleged jury attaint or alleged disqualifications and misconduct of the jury before whom they were tried. The motion for a new trial was denied and defendants gave notice of appeal therefrom to the Supreme Court. This Department, assisted by Solicitor Nettles of the Nineteenth District, thereupon had the record in this motion for a new trial certified to the Supreme Court of North Carolina, and, on October 4, 1932, made motion to docket and dismiss the appeal as being frivolous and for the purpose of delay, under Supreme Court Rule 17.1, 192 N. C, 845. On October 19, 1932, the North Carolina Supreme Court allowed the motion to docket and dismiss, 203 N. C, 316. Thereupon, on October 27, 1932, Wallace Davis entered the State's Prison. The defendants, Luke Lea and Luke Lea, Jr., thereupon filed with the Supreme Court of the United States petition for writs of certiorari, both to the Supreme Court of North Carolina and the Superior Court of Buncombe County, seeking to have reviewed both the record in the original trial and in the motion for a new trial. Their counsel supported their petition with brief, and brief in opposition was filed by this Department November 9, 1932. On November 19, 1932, the Supreme Court of the United States denied this second petition for writ of certiorari, 287 U. S., 668, 78 L. ed., 576. These defendants, Luke Lea and Luke Lea, Jr., were in Tennessee, of which state they were residents, during these various proceedings in the Supreme Court of North Carolina and the Supreme Court of the United States. Extra-dition was sought, and on February 7, 1933 Governor Hill McAlister of Tennessee, after full hearing and argument, this Department being repre-sented by Assistant Attorney General Seawell, honored the request of Governor Ehringhaus for the rendition of the Leas as fiigitives from justice. On March 14, 1933, the Leas were arrested at Clarksville, Montgomery County, Tennessee, and sued out writ of habeas corpus, which was heard by Judge John T. Cunningham of the Criminal Court of that county. On April 11, 1933, Judge Cunningham delivered a written opinion sustaining the demurrer of the North Carolina officers, dismissed the petition, quashed the writ, and remanded the Leas to custody. They thereupon took an appeal to the Supreme Court of Tennessee and were allowed bail in the sum of $15,000 each. On June 25, 1933, the appeal was argued in the Supreme Court of Tennessee at Nashville. Its opinion was handed down December 9, 1933, at the next sitting of the Court at Nashville, every point raised being decided in favor of the contentions of the State of North Carolina and its officers. The Leas then filed petition for writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court of the United States, thereby seeking to have the action of the Tennessee Courts reviewed. Under the Federal statute, they had three months in which 22J BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 105 to file the petition. Justice Braiideis extended the time twenty days. The defendants, through their counsel, submitted brief in support of their petition, and this office submitted brief in opposition. The petition was denied by the Supreme Court of the United States April 30, 1934, 292 U. S., 638, 78 L. ed., 1491. Thereupon, the mandate from the Supreme Court of the United States was sent down to the Supreme Court of Tennessee, and the defendants, Luke Lea and Luke Lea, Jr., were arrested and delivered into the custody of the North Carolina agents, Sheriff Laurence E. Brown and Deputy Sheriff Frank Lakey, of Buncombe County. They entered the North Carolina State Prison May 10, 1934. It will be seen that a considerable period of time elapsed between the con-viction of these defendants and their incarceration in the State's Prison. That was due principally to the necessity of extraditing them from Tennessee. However, the procedure was in accordance with that established by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and of the States of North Caro-lina and Tennessee, with respect to such matters. Honorable A. H. Roberts, ex-governor of Tennessee, was employed as special counsel to aid this De-partment in that state. He and his firm rendered this State a very fine service, not only with respect to the legal problems involved, but also in the successful handling of the case in its practical aspects. Assistant Attorney General Seawell was in special charge of the case for this Department in the arguments before the Governor of Tennessee, the Criminal Court of Mont-gomery County, and in the Supreme Court of that state, and in the preparation of all the briefs. And his w^ork measured up to that high standard of ability and fidelity as lawyer and member of this Department for which he has such a distinguished reputation. As to the time element, comparison may be made with another important case arising at the same time. At the August Special Criminal Term, 1931, of Transylvania County, T. H. Shipman, J. H. Pickelsimer, T. R. McNeely, and Ralph Fisher were convicted of conspiracy and misapplication under the banking laws, and sentenced to the State's Prison. On appeal to our Supreme Court, no error was found and the convictions were sustained April 6, 1932, 202 N. C, 518. They thereupon sought a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence and alleged misconduct of jurors. Application was denied in the Court below; this Department thereupon made motion to docket and dismiss the appeal, and the case was, by the Supreme Court, on October 19, 1932, remanded to the Superior Court of Transylvania County for new sentence on account of an error in the former sentence, 203 N. C, 325. At the December Term, 1932, Translvania Superior Court, final sentence was imposed upon the defendants. The case was not taken to the Supreme Court of the United States. These defendants, Shipman, Pickelsimer, McNeely and Fisher, were in-carcerated in the State's Prison March 11, 1934. It will thus be seen that the defendants in both cases were convicted in the same month. The Leas reached the State's Prison May 10, 1934; Ship-man and his co-defendants reached the Prison March 11, 1934. Incarcera-tion of the Leas entailed extradition from Tennessee upon their resistance, upon writ of habeas corpus, through the courts of Tennessee, and up to the Supreme Court of the United States; the defendants, Shipman, Pickelsimer, 106 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL [Vol. McNeely and Fisher were in North Carolina during the fifteen months period from their final sentence in the Superior Court of Transylvania County in December, 1932, to their incarceration in State's Prison March 11, 1934. State V. George Whitfield This defendant was convicted of rape and sentenced to electrocution at Octo-ber Term, 1933, Guilford Superior Court. On appeal, no error was found and conviction sustained June 20, 1934, 206 N. C, 696. Defendant filed, in the Supreme Court of the United States, petition for writ of certiorari. Through cousel, brief in support of petition was filed in that Court, and brief in opposition, prepared by Assistant Attorney General Bruton, filed by this Department. The petition was denied October 8, 1934. Scott M. Loftin, Receiver Florida East Coast Railway Comjjany v. William R. Kenan, Jr., Lawrence G. Haines, Trustees, University of Nortli Carolina, et al. This action was brought in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, May 31, 1932. The interest of the University of North Carolina in the litigation arose out of Item 8 of the will of the late Mrs. Mary Lily (Flag'ler) Bingham. Under that Item she directed her Trustees to pay over to the University the sum of $75,000 per year for the purpose of paying the salaries of professors, the be-quest being given in the interest of education of the youth of North Carolina and in memory of her father, William R. Kenan, and her uncles, Thomas S. and James Graham Kenan. It is under this bequest that the Kenan pro-fessorships were established and are now being maintained at the University. The estate was placed in trust for a period of twenty-one years, at the end of which time the will directed the Trustees to pay to the University "such sum in cash as, at the rate of interest then current in North Carolina, will produce an annual income of Seventy-five Thousand ($75,000.00) Dollars, the amount of such sum to be determined by my said Trustees." The plaintiff, as Receiver of the Florida East Coast Railway Company, brought the suit, contending and asking that, under other Items of the will, the Trustees be required to apply funds of the trust estate in their hands to the needs of the Railway Company. The case, then, involved a construction of Mrs. Bingham's will. Evidence was taken under the direction of the Court, and the case came on for hearing June 25 and 26, 1934 before Judge Aaron J. Levy of the Supreme Court of New York, (which court corresponds to our Superior Court.) Judge Levy has not yet rendered his opinion. Mr. George Gordon Battle and his firm of Battle, Levy, Van Tine and Fowler, of 37 Wall Street, New York City, are assisting this Department as special counsel for the University, and are rendering a fine service in the case. Anne Gannon Reynolds, et al., v. Zachary Smith Reynolds, W. N. Reynolds and R. E. Lasater, Guardians, et al. The cause entitled as above is pending in the Superior Court of Forsyth County. It involves distribution of the estate of Zachary Smith Reynolds, who died at Winston-Salem July 6, 1932. There are many interested parties. 22] BIENNIAL KEPOKT OF THE ATTORNEY GENEKAL 107 The estate is largely the share of the said Zachary Smith Reynolds in the trust estates established by his father, the late R. J. Reynolds, and his mother, the late Mrs. Katherine S. Johnston. Available information is to the effect that at the time of the death of Zachary Smith Reynolds his share of said trust estate was worth approximately $22,000,000. On November 12, 1934, this Department filed intervention in said suit on behalf of the State of North Carolina, on relation of A. J. Maxwell, Com-missioner of Revenue, seeking collection of the inheritance tax. Complaint was filed on that date and order made by Judge P. A. McElroy, holding the courts of that district, permitting the state to intervene for that purpose. The amount of the inheritance tax claimed by the State will depend upon final distribution of the estate among the claimants. Based on a proposal of settle-ment made by some of the parties, the inheritance tax would be approximately $2,000,000. Needs of The Office We are requesting that the General Assembly allow the Department four Assistant Attorneys General, one at a salary of $5,000 per year, and the others at a salary of $3,600 each. While the business of the State has grown enormously in recent years, and there have been increases in the personnel of other departments commensurate with such increases, such has not been the case with respect to the Attorney General's office. On the basis of data assembled in April, 1932, other states have assistant or deputy Attorneys General as follows: Alabama, 6; Arizona, 4; Arkansas, 5; California, 24; Colorado, 10; Connecticut, 5; Delaware, 4; Florida, 5; Georgia, 6; Idaho, 4; Illinois, 28'; Indiana, 10; Iowa, 6; Kansas, 5; Kentucky, 6; Louisiana, 6; Maine, 4; Maryland, 5; Massachusetts, 10; Michigan, 13; Minnesota, 10; Mississippi, 3 assistants and 2 special agents; Missouri, 9; Montana, 4; Nebraska, 7; Nevada, 1; New Hampshire, 1; New Jersey, 15; New Mexico, 4; New York, 104 deputies and assistants, 32 investigators, and 17 title examiners; North Dakota, 5; Ohio, 19; Oklahoma, 8; Oregon, 5; Pennsylvania, 22; Rhode Island, 4; South Carolina, 2; South Dakota, 5; Tennessee, 7; Texas, 18; Utah, 4; Vermont, 1 special investigator and 1 special counsel; Virginia, 2 regular and 4 special assistants; Washington, 6; West Virginia, 3; Wisconsin, S deputies and assistants and 4 investigators; Wyoming, 3. Law Enforcement Crime has become one of our major problems. North Carolina should have a better set up for enforcement of the laws. This should head up in the Attorney General's office. That can be done under our present Constitu-tion and without encroachment upon the constitutional powers and duties of other officers. There is need for a re-writing and codification of our criminal laws. This is especially true with respect to laws relating to criminal procedure. The statutes should specify and definitely set forth the duties of law enforcement officers so that no officer and no citizen can doubt as to what those powers and duties may be. A definite and sustained effort should be made to enforce existent laws. Until that is done, little good will follow enactment of new laws creating additional offenses. 108 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENEIRAL [Vol. 22] Plenary evidence exists of wide spread violations of the Corrupt Practices Act in the primaries of 1932 and 1934. The law authorizes the Attorney- General and the solicitors to make investigation of violations of this act. Of course, they cannot do that unless funds be provided for that purpose. Two years ago I asked for an appropriation of $5,000 per year for investigations under the Anti-trust and the Corrupt Practices Acts. I am again submitting request for such appropriation. Solicitors should be paid a reasonably adequate salary and required to give their whole time to the duties of the office. This would give them fuller opportunity for preparation of their cases. OPINIONS TO GOVERNOR AND BUDGET BUREAU Balanced Budget—Salaries—Duty of Governor as Director of Budget 16 July, 1932. For the opinion of this office you have submitted certain questions here-inafter stated. The nature of the inquiry may be best seen by a preliminary statement of the factual and legal situation. Under the Executive Budget Act, Chapter 100, Public Lhm^s of 1929, the Governor, as Director of the Budget, is charged vi^ith the duty of keeping the expenditures from the general fund for the current biennium within revenue receipts for that period. In other w^ords, that act requires a balanced budget at the end of each fiscal biennium. That purpose is expressed in the concluding sentence of section 26 of the act: "The purpose and policy of this act are to provide and insure that there shall be no overdraft or deficit in the general fund of the State at the end of the fiscal period, growing out of appropriations for maintenance and the Director of the Budget is directed and required to so administer this act as to prevent such overdraft or deficit." Certain powers are conferred upon the Governor, as Director of the Budget, for the accomplishment of this purpose. These relate generally to allotment from, and cuts in, the appropriations made to spending agencies of the state. Certain appropriations from the general fund are not subject to cut or diminution by you, as Director of the Budget. Included within these are salaries of school teachers, the Judiciary, and cei'tain constitutional and other officers. Chapter 371, Public Laws of 1931, directs that the appro-priation for maintenance of the six months school term "shall be paid in full for the objects and purposes as therein set out." Having made a survey of anticipated revenue for the fiscal year 1932-33, you have reached the conclusion that the budget cannot be balanced by cutting the appropriations that are within your control. Upon the situation described, your questions, then, are as follows: (1) May the Governor, as Director of the Budget, direct that a ratable percentage of salaries, but less than the whole amount due, be paid each month to all officers and employees? (2) Or, may the payment of such salaries be made only as revenues in the general fund may be available for this purpose, this latter course resulting in the deferment of the payment of such salaries for each month at an increasingly distant date ahead? I am of opinion that either course may be followed by the Governor, as Director of the Budget, with the advice and consent of the Advisory Budget Commission. The ratable percentage of revenue available for the payment of such salaries may be determined each month from a survey of revenue collections, section 26 of the Executive Budget Act. Or, the payment of all 110 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL [Vol. salaries for each particular month may be made at such time as such survey of revenue collections will show that funds are available for their liquidation. Upon the adoption of either course, the State Treasurer would have the right to retain in the Treasury such reasonable balance as would assure payment of all vouchers as they may be presented. The action so taken by you, as Director of the Budget, would not mean that there had been a cut in salaries. It would simply be a deferment of the payment of such salaries, or ratable proportion thereof, until funds were in hand and available for that purpose. The State would owe for the unpaid balance of such salaries until provision had been made for their payment. Terms of Col'rt—Substituting Special Term fob Regular 23 December, 1932. I have before me the request of county officials of Pender County, dated December 5 and 21, 1932, with respect to the terms of court for Pender County. I know of no law conferring upon the Governor the power to abolish or call off a regular term of the Superior Court. Nor do I know of any statute giving such power to the board of county commissioners. There have been instances where, because of the supposed exigencies of the occasion, certain terms of the Superior Court have not been held. I think that this can only be done by the appearance of the judges assigned to hold the court at the time named, and his adjournment of the court without entering upon any business, or by adjournment of the court under C. S. 1448, when the judge fails to appear. The matter of such adjourn-ment of the court is, however, for the court itself, and not for this office. The Governor may call special terms of court, C. S. 1450, et seq. Such special term may be ordered to be held in a county during the holding of the regular term in such county. But, I do not think that such special term can be substituted for the regular term. I need not here go further into this matter of holding a special term in a county while the regular term is also being held. It seems to me that the desire of the Pender County people, with respect to a change in their March Term of court can be attained by an act of the General Assembly, when it meets in January. It would seem that the bill can be easily and promptly passed changing the March court to a mixed term. We are unable to find in the office any opinion contrary to what is here being said. Constitutional Amendment Affecting Insurance Policies—When Taking Effect 27 December, 1932. The Secretary of State inquires when the Constitutional Amendment, affecting insurance policies (which was carried in the election on November 8), goes into effect. 22] BIENNIAL REPOET OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 111 It was submitted under Chapter 262, Public Laws 1931, which provides the manner in which tlie amendment, if carried at the election, shall be certified and recorded, but is silent as to its effective date. That being true, the amendment takes effect from the date of its ratification by the voters at the election November 8. 12 C. J., 721, In Re Advisory opinion to the Gove^-Tior, 24 Fla., 500; Wade v. Moille, 112 111., 79; State v. Campbell (Ohio), 115 N. E., 29. Appointments to Fill Vacancies on Various Boards, Etc. 12 May, 1934. In yours of May 13th, you call attention to Section 2 of the Griffith Machinery Bill creating a State School Commission, to be constituted as follows: "The Governor as ex-ofhcio chairman, the Lieutenant Governor, State Treasurer, and State Superintendent of Public Instruction, and one member from each congressional district to be appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate." You inquire whether it is necessary for you to make these appointments before the adjournment of the General Assembly, or whether the appointments may be made thereafter, and con-firmed at the next session of the General Assembly. In my opinion, the act contemplates the appointment at this time, and confirmation by the present General Assembly, and that is the practice in these cases. However, I quote from an opinion rendered by the Attorney General February 21, 1926, which has some application to this case: The rule in regard to filling vacancies where the original appoint-ment is made by the Governor, by and with the consent of the Senate, is thus defined in Salisbury i\ Groom. 167 N. C, 223: "The Governor alone under the general power to fill vacancies conferred by sub-section 3 of section 7636 of the Consolidated Statutes, may make appointment (to vacancies), when the Senate is not in session. Such action could only be for the interval until the Senate meets and the two agencies specially provided by law, to-wit: the governor and the Senate shall concur in such appointment." If the appointment is not made before adjournment of this session of the General Assembly, in my opinion original vacancies will occur at the time designated for the members of this Commission to begin their several terms of office, such original vacancies occurring by reason of the failure to make the appointments, and of the Senate to confirm. You have the power to fill these original vacancies by appointment, appointees to hold until the next General Assembly, when you should make further appoint-ments and present the same to the Senate for confirmation. Of course, you may appoint the same persons if you so desire, but not necessarily so. Consolidated Statutes 386, as Amended by P. L. 1933 Chapter 243 6 March, 1934. I think that the Public Laws of 1933 amended Consolidated Statutes 386 in order to remove from the law an anomalous condition under that section; 112 BIENNIAL REPORT OP THE ATTORNEY GENERAL [Vol. for instance, a person might have been serving a ten year term and mean-time apply for restoration to citizenship. It is my opinion that the word "discharge" now in the section must be taken to mean final discharge, — that is, after the final expiration of the wrong doing. I do not think that the section gives a paroled prisoner the right to apply for a restoration to citizenship during the term of the parole, for then we would have the situation referred to above, as upon breach of the parole the prisoner could be returned to the penitentiary and serve there as a felon after he had been restored to citizenship. I repeat that in our opinion the word "discharge" does not relate to the date of the parole, but must be taken to mean the final discharge of the prisoner which, in contemplation of the law, would mean the time at which he became no longer amenable to the law for his offense. Police—Appointment by Govternor 25 May, 1934. In reply to yours of May 23, based upon letter of Mr. Fred W. Bynum, inquiring as to the appointment of policemen for the mill village surround-ing the plants of the Entwistle Manufacturing Co. and the Hannah Pickett Mills, I beg to say that the former inquiry on this subject was as to the appointment of policemen for these corporations, and, in our opinion, this might be done under the authority of the appropriate statute mentioned in our letter. However, I do not know of any authority or any law under which the Governor might appoint a policeman for a mill village. Indeed, the question as to what authority is to be exercised by policemen appointed by the Governor for railroads and corporations is rather a complicated one. I think, however, that such authority is supposed to be confined to the protection of the property of such railroad or corporation, and to the apprehension of persons who violate the law especially applying in such case. It is not my opinion that policemen so appointed would have a ge