North Carolina Attorney General reports

              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 ȣi
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