Biennial report of the Attorney-General of the State of North Carolina |
Previous | 32 of 36 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
|
This page
All
|
-
505136.pdf
[21.64 MB]
Link will provide options to open or save document.
File Format:
Adobe Reader
Ottl)t ®mbers;itpof igortf) Carolina 2ri)i£{ booU toasi presienteb C54.0 KSTsb UNIVERSITY OF N.C. AT CHAPEL HILL ! 00033944554 FOR USE ONLY IN THE NORTH CAROLINA COLLECTION BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA 1926-1928 DENNIS G. BRUMMITT ATTORNEY GENERAL FRANK NASH CHARLES ROSS JOHN H. HARWOOD* WALTER D. SILER ASSISTANT ATTORNEYS GENERAL •Succeeded by Walter D. Siler, October 8, 1927 LIST OF ATTORNEYS GENERAL SINCE THE ADOPTION OF THE CONSTITUTION IN 1776 to Term of Office Avery, Waightstill 1777-1779 Iredell, James _ 1779-1782 Moore, Alfred- 1782-1790 Haywood, J. Jolui .-- -- 1791-1794 Baker, Blake - 1794-1803 Seawell, Henry 1803-1808 Fitts. Oliver 1808-1810 Miller, William 1810-1810 Burton, Hutchins G 1810-1816 Drew, William 1816-1825 Taylor, James F- '. 1825-1828 Jones, Robert 1*^. .'. 1828-1828 Saimders, Romulus M 1828-1834 Daniel, John R. J 1834-1840 McQueen, Hugh 1840-1842 Wihitaker, 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 I 1892-1896 Walser, Zeb V 1896-1900 Douglas, Robert D 1900-1901 Gilmer, Robert D 1901-1908 Bickett, T. W 1909-1916 Manning, James S 1917-1925 Brummitt, Dennis G 1925- Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2011 with funding from Ensuring Democracy through Digital Access (NC-LSTA) http://www.archive.org/details/biennialrep1926attrny1928 LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL State of North Carolina, Department of Attorney General, Raleigh, Novembei- 10, 1928. To His Excellency, Angus W. McLean, Governor, Raleigh, N. C. Dear Sir.-—In compliance with sections 609S-6099, Consolidated Statutes, 1919, I herewith submit the biennial report of this department for the years 1926-1927 and 1927-1928. Fi'om this report you will see something; of the enormous proportions to which the work of this Department has grown within recent years. In 1925, all the legal work of the State was placed in charge of this otHce. North Carolina has grown to be a great public corporation. In the fiscal year ending June 30, 192S, the Department of Revenue collected for all pur-poses the sum of $32,878.4(»5.60. When called upon to do so, this Depart-ment advises and represents all the agencies and officers of the State who deal with the collection and expenditure oi this revenue. An opinion of this Department is only official when it is given to some officer, department or agency of the State government with respect to official business. However, we endeavor to aid county and town officials in the con-struction of statutes with respect to their duties. This latter type of work has increased tremendously during the present administration. Only the more important of the opinions of the Department are included in this report. One of the most notable cases recently handled by the Department was that of the proposed suit of the State of Connecticut against the State of North Carolina, involving the validity of bonds issued by the reconstruc-tion legislature. Upon presentation of the State's contentions to the authori-ties of Connecticut, that State voluntarily withdrew its petition filed in the Supreme Court of the I'nited States for leave to bring suit against the State of North Carolina. With the assistance of Mr. A. R. Newsome of the His-torical Commission, Mr. Xash made a thorough investigation of all the facts with respect to these old instruments, and the information thus devel-oped will be serviceable should another suit of this nature be attempted. Under the Constitution the Attorney General is the legal advisor of the Council of State and a member of the State Board of Education. Under various statutes he is a member of the Board of Public Buildings and Grounds, State Board of Pensions, Printing Commission. State Board of Assessment, and Chairman of the Mvuiieipal Board of Control. The Department consis.s of the Attorney General, three Assistant Attor-ney Generals, a stenographer-secretary, and stenographer-reporter. I rec-ommend that it be given another Assistant Attorney General, to be assigned to the Department of Education. I shall be glad to go fully into the work of the Department in conference with you. Governor-elect Gardner, or any committee of the 1929 General Assembly. Yours very truly, Dennis G.'Brummitt, Attorney General. EXHIBIT I Civil Actions Disposed of or Pending in the Courts op North Carolina and the Federal Courts. Disposed of in the Superior Courts of North Carolina. ' State's Prison v. Cliife Wliitelieacl, et al. Railways v. City of Goldsboro. Caswell Training School v. Deitrick. Chapman-Hunt Company v. N. C. Sanatorium. Haines, Jones & Caclbiiry Company v. School for Blind and Deaf. hacj, Treasurer, v. Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance Company, et al. State V. Western Union Telegraph Company. State V. Postal Telegraph Company (withdrawn). State V. Sessoms. Pending in the Superior Courts of North Carolina. Anderson Motor Company v. Doughton. B. R. Lacy, State Treasurer, v. Mecklenburg Highway Com-mission. General Motors Company v. Doughton (four cases). Grinnan v. Caswell Training School. State Board of Charities and Public Welfare v. Highhmd Hos-pital, et al. State on relation of Attorney General v. Ice Companies. Laurel Parks Estates v. Commissioner of Revenue, et al. Pickett and Johnson v. State Board of Education. Hans Rees Sons, Inc., v. Commissioner of Revenue. Haines, Jones & Cadbury Company v. State College. State of North Carolina, ex rel., Attorney General v. Snow Hill Railway Company, et al. Durham Public Service Company v. Gaskill Construction Com-pany, et al. Metcalf V. Board of Education. Atlantic Beach, Inc. v. Ocean Beach Co., et al. Disposed of in the Supreme Court of North Carolina. State's Prison v. Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance Co., et al,, 192 N. C, 391. BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 7 Ragaii V. Doughton, 192 N. C, 500. Tate V. Board of Education, 192 N. C, 516. Johnston, et al. v. Highway Commission, 192 N. C, 561. Rich, et al. v. Doughton, 192 N. C, 604. McKinney v. Highway Commission, 192 N. C, 670. Carlyle v. Highway Commission, 193 ]S". C, 36. Barton v. Grist, Commissioner, 193 N. C, 144. Lac3% Treasurer v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., et al., 193 N. C, 179. In Re: Revocation of License of Dr. Robert S. Carroll, 194 N. C, 37. Frazler v. Commissioners, 194 N. C, 49. Newton v. Highway Commission, 194 N. C, 159. Yadkin College v. Highway Commission, 194 N. C, 180. Newton v. Highway Commission, 194 N. C, 303. Smith V. Highway Commission, 194 N. C, 333. Oliver v. Highway Commission, 194 N. C, 380. D. C. Waddell, Jr. v. Doughton, 194 N. C, 537. Palmer v. Highway Commission, 195 N. C, 1. Commissioners of Wake v. Highway Commission, 195 N. C, 26. Caldwell County v. Doughton, 195 N. C, 62. C. W. Lacy v. State, 195 N. C, 284. Rotan v. State, 195 N. C, 291. Brinson, Trustee, v. Lacy, Treasurer, 195 N. C, 394. Atlantic Life Insurance Co. v. Stacey W. Wade, Insurance Com-missioner, 195 N. C, 424. Hass, et al. v. Hass, et al., 195 N. C, 734. Parker v. Highway Commission, 195 X. C, 783. Little, et al. v. Board of Adjustment, 195 N. C, 793. Highway Commission v. Rand, 195 N. C, 799. Hagood V. Doughton, 195 N. C, 811. Pending in the Supreme Court op North Carolina : Town of Greenville v. State Highway Commission. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, et al. v. Doughton. O'Neal V. Wake County, et al. Mavis Bottling Company v. Doughton, Commissioner. Garysburg Manufacturing Company v. Board of Commissioners. Transportation Committee, etc. v. Bus Operators, etc. State ex rel. Corporation Commission v. Railroads. Disposed of in LTxited States Supreme Court : Wachovia Bank & Trust Company v. Doughton, 272 U. S. 567. 8 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL State of Connecticut v. State of North Carolina original. (May 28, 1928, State of Connecticut allowed to withdraw its petition after intervention of Attorney General). Disposed op in United States District Court : Executors of Angler B. Duke v. Doughton, (Ended by Com-promise ) . Pending in United States District Court : Southern Railway Company v. State Highway Commission. State's Prison v. Catawba Construction Company. Pending in Circuit Court op Appeals : State V. Southern Railway and Receiver of A. & Y. Railway Company. Suncrest Lumber Co. v. North Carolina Park Commission. EXHIBIT II List of Cases Argued by the Attorney General and Assistant Attorney General Before the Supreme Court, Fall Term, 1926 ; Spring Term, 1927 ; Fall Term, 1927 ; Spring Term, 1928. AUGUST TERM, 1926. 1. State V. Adams, habeas corpus ; certiorari ; affirmed. 2. State V. Barkley, from Cabarrus ; game law ; special verdict appeal by State ; reversed. 3. State V. Boswell, from Wilson ; murder, second degree ; ver-dict, guilty ; appeal by defendant ; new trial. 4. State V. Burgess, from Burke; assault with deadly weapon; verdict, guilty ; appeal by defendant ; remanded. 5. State V. Church, from Catawba ; breaking-entering, larceny ; verdict, guilty ; appeal by defendant ; affirmed. 6. State V. Crowder, from Vance; embezzlement; verdict, guilty; appeal by defendant; new trial. 7. State V. Edwards, habeas corpus ; certiorari ; affirmed. 8. State V. Franklin, from Burke ; manslaughter ; verdict, guilty appeal by defendant ; affirmed. 9. State V. Gray, from Stanley; murder, first degree; verdict, guilty ; appeal by defendant ; affirmed. 10. State V. Hardy, from Durham ; murder, second degree ; ver-dict, guilty ; appeal by defendant ; affirmed. 11. State V. Holt, from Forsyth; highway robbery; verdict, guilty ; appeal hj defendant ; new trial. 12. State V. Hooks, from Wayne ; liquor ; verdict, guilty ; appeal by defendant; affirmed. 13. State V. Jeffreys, from Wake ; rape ; verdict, guilty ; appeal by defendant; affirmed. 14. State V. Jeffreys, from Johnston ; bigamy ; verdict, guilty ; appeal by defendant ; new trial. 15. State V. Lee, et al., from Harnett ; assault with deadly weapon; verdict, guilty; appeal by defendants, affirmed. 16. State V. Maness, from Moore; seduction; verdict, guilty; appeal by defendant ; new trial. 17. State V. Meyers, from Sampson; liquor; verdict, guilty; appeal by defendant; affirmed. 18. State V. Moore, from Halifax; liquor; verdict, guilty; ap-peal by defendant; affirmed. 10 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 19. State V. Pace, from Cherokee; assisting prisoner to escape; verdict, guilty; appeal by defendant; reversed. 20. State v. Pierce, from Wayne ; liquor ; verdict, guilty ; appeal by defendant; affirmed. 21. State V. Revis, from Buncombe; assault; special verdict; appeal by defendant ; reversed. 22. State v. Ross, from Warren; murder, first degree; verdict, guilty; appeal by defendant; new trial. 2.3. State v. Simmons, et al., from Surry ; manslaughter ; verdict, guilty ; appeal by defendants ; affirmed. 24. State v. Strickland, from Halifax ; assault with deadly weapon; verdict, guilty; appeal by defendant; affirmed. 25. State v. Thompson, from Randolph; house burning; ver-dict, guilty; appeal by defendant; affirmed. 26. State v. Tyndall, from Lenoir ; forcible trespass ; verdict, guilty ; appeal by defendant ; affirmed. 27. State v. Waldroop, from Cherokee; manslaughter; verdict, guilty; appeal by defendant; new trial. Docketed and Dismissed. 28. State v. Devers, from Forsyth. 29. State v. Matthews, from Harnett. 30. State v. Fulcher, from Carteret. 31. State V. Mrs. L. B. Freeman, from Forsyth. 32. State v. Maynor and Oxendine, from Robeson. 33. State v. S. Martin, from Forsyth. 34. State v. J. Bitting, from Forsyth. 35. State v. W. Williamson, from Guilford. 36. State v. Henry Diggs, et al., from Anson. 37. State v. H. Spencer, from Anson. 38. State v. Ray Hunt, from Lee. 39. State v. Lamplin, et al., from Robeson, 40. State v. Edwards, from Greene. FEBRUARY TERM, 1927. 41. State V. Adams, from Surry; assault with intent to rape; verdict, guilty; appeal by defendant; new trial. 42. State v. Anderson, from Hyde; house burning; verdict, guilty ; appeal by defendant ; affirmed, 43. State v. Aswell, et al, from Greene; prostitution; verdict, guilty; appeal by defendants; reversed. 44. State v. Baldwin, from Durham; liquor; verdict, guilty; appeal by defendant ; affirmed. BIENNIAL REPORT OP THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 11 45. State v. Bazemore, from Greene; murder, first degree; ver-dict, guilty ; appeal by defendant ; new trial. 46. State v. Blackwell, from Craven; manslaughter; verdict, guilty; appeal by defendant; new trial. 47. State v. Branch, from Granville ; murder, second degree ; verdict, guilty ; appeal by defendant ; affirmed. 48. State v. Brinkley, from Cabarrus ; prostitution ; verdict, guilty ; appeal by defendant ; affirmed. 49. State v. Carnegie, from Pitt; appearance bond; reversed. 50. State v. Carpenter, from Gaston ; liquor ; verdict, guilty ; appeal by defendant; alrtrmed. 51. State V. Colson, from Perquimans; liquor; verdict, guilty; appeal by defendant ; new trial. 52. State v. Evans, from Pitt; involuntary manslaughter; ver-dict, guilty ; appeal by defendant ; affirmed. 53. State v. Fleming, from Beaufort ; forcible trespass ; verdict, guilty ; aj)peal by defendant ; affirmed. 54. State v. Fowler, from Polk; liquor: verdict, guilty; appeal by defendant; affirmed. 55. State v. Gibson, et al., from Hoke ; secret assault ; verdict, guiltj^ ; appeal by defendants ; affirmed. 56. State v. Green, from Wilson ; murder, first degree ; verdict, guilty ; appeal hj defendant : new trial. 57. State v. Harris, et al., from Anson ; liquor ; verdict, guilty appeal by defendants ; affirmed. 58. State v. Hartley, from Johnston ; habeas corpus ; certiorari ; disallowed. 59. State v. Helms, from Union ; seduction ; verdict, guilty ; ap-peal by defendant ; affirmed. 60. State v. Holland, from Catawba; murder, second degree; verdict, guilty ; appeal by defendant ; new trial. 61. State V. Hunt, from Lee; liquor; verdict, guilty; appeal by defendant ; affirmed. 62. State v. Johnson, from Mecklenburg ; murder, first degree verdict, guilty; appeal by defendant; affirmed. 63. State v. Lee, from Harnett; murder, second degree; verdict, guilty ; appeal by defendant ; new trial. 64. State v. Maney, from Buncombe ; simple assault ; verdict, guilty; appeal by defendant; new trial. 65. State v. Mehafifey, et al, from Haywood ; manslaughter verdict, guilty; appeal by defendant; new trial. 12 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 66. State v. Mitchell, from Chatham; murder, first degree; ver-dict, guilty; appeal hj defendant; affirmed. 67. State v. Maragousis, from Edgecombe; embezzlement; ver-dict, guilty; appeal by defendant; new trial. 68. State v. McWhirter, from Forsyth; assault on female; ver-dict, guilty ; appeal by defendant ; affirmed. 69. State v. Ridings, et al., from Polk ; prostitution, etc. ; ver-dict, guilty; appeal by defendants; affirmed. 70. State v. Sullivan, from Lenoir; kidnapping; verdict, guilty; appeal by defendant ; new trial. 71. State V. Tomlinson, from Franklin ; seduction ; verdict, guilty ; appeal by defendant ; affirmed. 72. State v. Walker, from Durham ; murder, first degree ; ver-dict, guilty; appeal by defendant; affirmed. Docketed and Dismissed. 73. State v. Williams, from Halifax. 74. State v. H. Howington, from Halifax. 75. State v. Will Mclver, from Lee. 76. State v. Wesley Baker, from Pitt. 77. State v. Wilkerson, from Pitt. 78. State v. D. T. Williams, Sr., from Lenoir. AUGUST TERM, 1927. 79. State v. Adkins, from Yancey; manslaughter; verdict, guilty; appeal by defendant; affirmed. 80. State v. Anderson, from Halifax ; worthless check ; verdict, guilty; appeal by defendant; new trial. 81. State V. Earnhardt, from Cabarrus; liquor; verdict, guilty; appeal by defendant; error; remanded. 82. State v. Blakeney, from Cabarrus ; house burning ; verdict, guilty ; appeal by defendant ; new trial. 83. State v. Boswell, from Wilson; murder, second degree; ver-dict, guilty; appeal by defendant; affirmed. 84. State v. Briscoe, from Gates ; liquor ; verdict, guilty ; appeal by defendant ; affirmed. 85. State v. Colsou, from Pasquotank; assault with deadly weapon; verdict, guilty; appeal by defendant; affirmed. 86. State v. Eubanks, from Lenoir; embezzlement; verdict, guilty; appeal by defendant; affirmed. 87. State v. Eunice, from O'nslow; larceny; verdict, guilty; ap-peal by defendant; new trial. 88. State v. Everett, from Cumberland ; manslaughter ; ver-dict, guilty; appeal by defendant; reversed. BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 13 89. State v. Gooding, from Jones ; liquor ; verdict, guilty ; appeal by defendant, reversed. 90. State v. Graham, from Hoke; murder, first degree; verdict, guilty; appeal by defendant; aflSrmed. 91. State V. Guthrie, from Carteret; liquor; verdict, guilty; ap-peal by defendant ; reversed. 92. State v. Hege, from Forsyth ; liquor ; verdict, guilty ; appeal by defendant; affirmed. 93. State v. Hundley, et al., from Mecklenburg; municipal ordi-nance ; verdict, guilty ; appeal by defendants ; affirmed. 94. State v. Johnson, from.Hoke; abandonment; verdict, guilty; appeal by defendant; new trial. 95. State v. Lambert, from Swain ; larceny ; verdict, guilty ; appeal by defendant ; new trial. 96. State v. Leonard, from Cabarrus; manslaughter; verdict, guilty; appeal by defendant; affirmed. 97. State v. Lewis, from Cabarrus ; school law ; verdict, guilty appeal by defendant; reversed. 98. State v. Melvin, from Sampson ; murder, first degree ; verdict, guilty ; appeal by defendant ; new trial. 99. State v. Mickle, et al., from Forsyth ; violation of automobile law; verdict, guilty; appeal by defendants; affirmed. 100. State V. Mintz, et al., from Onslow ; larceny ; verdict, guilty ; appeal by defendants; affirmed. 101. State V. Montague, from Buncombe ; murder, second degree verdict, guilty; appeal by defendant; reversed. 102. State v. McFarland, from Lee; assault; verdict, guilty; ap-peal by defendant; affirmed. 103. State v. Nance, from Forsyth; seduction; appeal by de-fendant; new trial. 104. State v. Perry, from Lenoir; liquor; appeal withdrawn. 105. State v. Pridgen, from Greene; liquor; verdict, guilty; ap-peal by defendant; affirmed. 106. State v. Rouse, from Lenoir ; larceny ; verdict, guilty ; ap-peal by defendant ; new trial. 107. State v. Schlicter, from Halifax ; violating banking laws certiorari ; reversed. 108. State v. Shew, from Wilkes ; larceny ; verdict, guilty ; ap-peal by defendant ; new trial. 109. State v. Wadford, from Lenoir; embezzlement; verdict, guilty ; a]3peal by defendant ; new trial. 14 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 110. State V. Waldroop, from Cherokee ; murder, second degree ; verdict, guilty; appeal by defendant; affirmed. 111. State V. Winston, from Halifax; liquor; special verdict; appeal by State; reversed. 112. State V. Yarboro, from Halifax; worthless check; arrested judgment ; appeal by State ; reversed. Docketed and Dismissed. 113. State V. Taylor, from Pitt. 114. State V. Brooks, from Pitt. 115. State V. Massengill, from Wake. 116. State V. Charlie Imbler, from Davidson. 117. State V. Eoy Davis, from Mecklenburg. 118. State v. Sam Angel, from Yancey. 119. State V. W. A. Smith, from Cherokee. 120. State v. Will Taylor, from Gaston. 121. State V. Sherman Haney, from Haywood. 122. State v. R. and A. Jackson, from Haj^wood. FEBRUARY TERM, 1928. 123. State v. Boswell, et al., from Guilford; robbery; verdict, guilty; appeal by defendants; affirmed. 124. State v. Charles, from Forsyth; larceny and receiving; ver-dict, guilty ; appeal by defendant ; affirmed. 125. State v. Crowder, from Vance; embezzlement; verdict, guilty ; appeal by defendant ; appeal dismissed. 126. State v. Deadmon, from Davie; house burning; verdict, guilty ; appeal by defendant ; new trial. 127. State v. Dowell, from Forsyth; liquor; verdict, guilty; ap-peal by defendant ; affirmed. 128. State v. Edwards, from Lenoir; liquor; verdict, guilty; appeal by defendant; affirmed. 129. State v. Garland, from Yancey; manslaughter; verdict, guilty ; appeal by defendant ; affirmed. 130. State v. Gerukus, from Mecklenburg; criminal abortion; verdict, guilty ; appeal by defendant ; affirmed. 131. State V. Gill, from Wake; municipal ordinance; verdict, guilty; appeal by defendant; affirmed. 132. State v. Harris, from Greene ; larceny ; verdict, guilty ; ap-peal by defendant; reversed. 133. State v. Holt, from Johnston; liquor; verdict, guilty; ap-peal by defendant; affirmed. BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 15 134. State v. Idol, from Guilford; liquor; verdict, guilty; ap-peal by defendant ; new trial. 135. State v. Jarman, from Lenoir; liquor; verdict, guilty; ap-peal by defendant; affirmed. 136. State v. Jenkins, from Graham ; assault with deadly weapon ; verdict, guilty ; appeal by defendant ; new trial. 137. State v. Johnson, from Davidson; false pretense; verdict, guilty ; appeal by defendant ; new trial. 138. State v. Johnson, from Kutherford ; liquor ; verdict, guilty ; appeal by defendant; new trial. 139. State v. King, from Lincoln ; larceny and receiving ; verdict, guilty; appeal by defendant; affirmed. 140. State v. Maslin, from Forsyth; embezzlement; verdict, guilty ; appeal by defendant ; affirmed. 141. State V. McCall, from Buncombe ; larceny ; verdict, guilty ; appeal by defendant; new trial. 142. State v. McLawhorn, et al., from Pitt; liquor; verdict, guilty; appeal by defendants; affirmed. 143. State v. Newsome, from Wayne; murder, first degree; ver-dict, guilty ; appeal by defendant ; new trial. 144. State v. Ray, et al., from Yancey; murder, second degree; verdict, guilty; appeal by defendants; new trial. 145. State v. Ray, from Yancey; non-support; verdict, guilty; appeal by defendant ; new trial. 146. State v. Toler, from Caswell; manslaughter; verdict, guilty; appeal by defendant; new trial. 147. State v. "Whittle from Catawba; liquor; verdict, guilty; appeal by defendant; affirmed. Docketed and Dismissed. 148. State v. Alston, from Chatham. 149. State v. Gardner, from Pitt. 150. State v. Thaxton, from Lenoir. 151. State V. F. McLamb, from Johnston. 152. State v. J. H. Holt, from Johnston. 153. State v. Osborne, from Lenoir. 154. State v. Garfield Jones, from Craven. 155 .State v. Powell, from Wake. 156. State v. Wellington, from Lenoir. 157. State v. Newkirk, from Columbus. 158. State v. Thomas, from Forsyth. 159. State v. W. O. Hicks, from Davidson. 160. State v. Coffer, from Stokes. 16 BIENNIAL REPORT OP THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 161. State V. Clyburn, from Mecklenburg. 162. State v. French, et al., from Henderson. 163. State v. Gasperson, from Buncombe. 164. State v. Jim Bell, from Cherokee. 165. State v. Sibbold Smith, from Swain. SUMMAKY OF CASES. Affirmed on Defendant's Appeal 57 New trial or reversed on Defendant's Appeal 48 Reversed on State's Appeal 3 Remanded on Defendant's Appeal 1 Appeal by Bondsman — 1 Appeal withdrawn -. 1 Remanded for judgment - 2 Certiorari 4 Appeal dismissed 48 Total 165 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 17 CRIMINAL STATISTICS STATEMENT A The Following Statement Shows the Criminal Cases Disposed of During the Fall Term, 1926, and Spring Term, 1927. Counties « 2^ -a "o O a S '•V a E oO '3 co < oM P, "o .2 "^ u o o 3l o o H O Alamance 42 25 65 2 34 7 23 3 67 34 18 5 37 18 2 39 15 39 Alleghany Anson 3 18 117 268 369 16 251 26 106 2 385 54 103 52 98 2 9 49 69 5 9 54 Avery 4 28 1 107 Beaufort 27 23 48 2 36 7 7 50 Bertie 23 100 114 9 68 27 25 3 123 Bladen 14 22 403 11 15 167 24 36 521 1 1 49 25 26 327 25 11 59 37 Buncombe 183 1 570 Burke 159 26 175 10 113 9 59 4 185 Cabarrus 78 47 115 10 68 15 42 125 Caldwell 173 29 194 8 106 19 74 3 202 4 50 9 2 38 5 6 85 14 3 4 88 10 2 6 88 Caswell 3 1 14 Catawba 93 25 114 4 90 10 18 118 Chatham 94 84 173 5 148 8 22 178 Cherokee 44 3 43 4 28 15 2 2 47 Chowan 22 17 39 31 3 4 1 39 Clay Cleveland 77 73 4 50 8 18 1 77 102 30 116 16 57 14 56 5 132 Columbus 121 64 181 4 125 29 25 6 185 Craven 42 44 85 1 61 13 12 86 Cumberland 54 54 1 97 12 70 18 21 109 Currituck 2 3 134 7 3 51 8 4 173 1 2 12 9 1 157 9 8 5 16 4 6 Davidson 185 Davie 37 9 44 2 32 12 2 46 Duplin 111 102 4 195 22 149 29 36 3 217 Durham 185 217 363 39 265 48 86 3 402 Edgecombe 41 92 127 6 98 17 17 1 133 Forsyth 360 185 502 43 462 60 22 1 545 Franklin 55 31 84 2 58 24 4 86 Gaston 274 97 352 19 241 32 96 2 371 Gates 30 27 55 2 41 10 6 57 Graham 40 1 39 2 27 5 9 41 Granville* 61 77 134 4 111 8 20 139 Greene 17 39 56 45 5 6 56 Guilford 272 189 439 22 377 41 41 2 461 Halifax 104 205 297 12 218 34 57 309 Harnett 116 37 148 5 103 11 36 3 153 Haywood 91 7 93 5 43 13 41 1 98 Henderson 71 32 98 5 73 6 22 2 103 Hertford 41 70 103 8 70 21 20 111 Hoke-. 16 3 19 12 34 15 1 13 11 7 • 4 12 3 35 Hyde 15 *1 Corporation 18 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL STATEMENT A—Continued Counties 01 73 "o O a 3a a T3 a) '> a IB < 0. "o iz; t, o5 aj .-^ 3I H Iredell 35 13 44 4 32 15 1 48 Jackson 35 4 38 1 27 4 8 39 Johnston _ 74 43 32 40 95 81 11 2 89 60 17 1 106 Jones 21 1 83 87 117 72 90 157 187 2 20 118 153 9 26 30 28 2 159 Lenoir 207 Lincoln.. 104 17 117 4 77 17 27 121 Macon 145 10 151 4 96 20 39 155 Madison 90 7 93 4 73 8 16 97 Martin 15 21 34 2 34 2 36 McDowell 171 14 164 21 121 10 51 3 185 Mecklenburg*. Mitchell... .. 416 59 78 38 387 720 57 109 61 83 2 4 502 37 39 28 65 8 12 11 232 14 61 22 5 1 804 59 Montgomery.. Moore 35 23 113 61 Nash-- 62 77 83 97 134 156 11 18 90 137 13 26 42 9 2 145 New Hanover. 174 Northampton _ Onslow 47 74 82 39 125 110 4 3 78 76 18 25 33 6 6 129 113 Orange* Pamlico 116 46 101 29 201 71 16 4 146 47 25 6 43 22 4 218 75 Pasquotank Pender 20 33 16 45 35 75 1 3 23 54 6 16 6 8 1 36 78 Perquimans 42 55 94 3 60 14 20 3 97 Person 101 61 159 3 132 8 22 162 Pitt 84 124 63 47 145 162 2 9 109 115 31 27 7 26 3 147 Polk 171 Randolph Richmond 216 89 33 60 236 141 13 8 100 105 3 9 144 29 2 6 249 149 Robeson 87 52 46 176 9 125 18 42 185 Rockingham ._ Rowan 22 30 22 30 43 59 1 I 42 54 3 2 3 44 60 34 122 27 16 120 30 """2' 2 47 233 57 3 11 2 43 181 36 7 53 12 50 Sampson Scotland 10 11 244 59 Stanly Stokes 18 41 10 26 25 65 3 2 23 62 1 2 3 3 1 28 67 Surry Swain 144 84 11 7 14 147 101 8 4 114 81 13 23 25 1 3 155 105 Transylvania- _ Tyrrell Union 66 6 28 9 2 18 70 8 42 5 4 74 3 37 1 5 1 3 3 1 1 75 8 46 Vance 93 51 133 11 85 34 25 144 Wake 397 378 735 40 520 124 125 6 775 Warren 33 37 69 1 40 13 16 1 70 Washington Watauga Wayne Wilkes 8 89 47 261 8 4 68 18 1 13 89 115 249 3 4 1 30 8 47 111 137 8 9 1 23 16 37 3 117 1 2 93 116 279 Wilson Yadkin 182 71 170 5 296 76 56 184 59 44 1 120 16 4 352 76 Yancey 73 2 69 6 29 7 39 75 Totals 8,644 5,265 70 13,124 855 9,445 1,552 2,868 117 13,982 *1 Corporation. BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 19 Recapitulation of Statement A Total Number Criminal Actions Disposed of 13,982 Males- 13,124 855 3 Total 13,982 White . 8,644 5,265 70 3 Total - 13 , 982 Convictions, including 9,445 1,552 2,868 117 Acquitted. _ _ Nolle pros . _ _ _ Otherwise disposed of Total - 13,982 20 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 111 ^ ,r, H H nosiy 1 "* o) ^ ^ ^ TO 93jSaQ pnooag " (N XiaSSng '^ ^jaqug (M XniBSig ^ (N oq XpjB^SBg nostOfj 0^ ^duia^^v ujng 0% ^dtuajjv 8dl3JJ 0^ '"' "" "* *"* '"' CD t^ ^ rt lO 05 CO —1 —1 (M 00 TO (N TO lO rt r-( TO to l> TO <N •* t^ Tj< 05 Aj8^c)Bg puB ^p3ssv »— 1 Tt'OO'-ICDTH'-llO'-IOO'-IOOINCOt^'-ICO N rt cq (N uosjv iM TO ^Bjjgv 00 cq 1> T)< cq N <M uoi'jjoqy uoi^Dnpqv ^ 'juauiuopu'Bqy (M CO IM TO ^ C^ Tj< (N C^ "^ 1> Tf i-H '* oO ia S < C < >> a M < cc d< >> >< P CD 1 a ooc d PQ a: -a 3 S o 0) o 1 o O g 1- o 0) o c 03 O -a O 03 6 c > 6 3 XI s _3 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 21 1 i I 1 1 I 1 1 1 i 1 1 i 1 1 1 --H C^ 1 1 C-) 1 M 1 ^ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 l^rt \ n '• m '< •-! '• '' 1 l-i ' ' '^ i-H 1 lrt(N 1 Iotm I 1 1 i!N p MNNNNrNNNMM NNNNNm 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 '"' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ^ 1 1 Irt 1 Ic^lrtrt lo:](M 1 1 loi.-<lM Irt 1 1 1 1 l(N i 1^ 1 1 1 1 ICO 1 1 iii.-(i(MiC>3.-lliii"-H'-iit-iit-( (NiilM -^1 COO 1 i.-iio03t^iMTHt^ooco ii>Tt<cD iocooi^cnrt>ncO'-^TtiTt<irao-tc-)cct>cD i C)l^cO'-iC0'*(t^l>"O3(N00'-it~iO i c-i ^ i-H rt .-1 CO rt >-( Tt< C-) m c^ oj ca CO '^ to (N iO ^ C^ 1-1 -* O Tf CO > > n t; M a > ff o C3 ce 0) o3 <D '-i(M-X>0>OI>C^>-iC^I 2 aj o I I —; {> T3 *J3 o GJ Qj — o ^ -p -§ ^ M —I 3 3 -s „ ill - _ - „ P -^ "3 G rt o3 cS c c; ."t^ 22 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL nosjy "" C '" a3j39Q puooag '"' O) .-1 oa *"* '"' ^^ XjaSSng '-' Ajaqug '^ ^ Xm-oSig ^ l>i 0^ 1-1 ^ (M ^ (M rt (N ^ '^ y^pjE^SBg ^ nosioj o^ ^dtnaj^v 3 ojng o; ;dui8c)}y o 1 m adBy; o; " cq " " eg rt CO bJ i 1 ocooiOTf<i^-*t> .-1 C-1 rt 1- ^Oa^^^g puB c^p'Bssv i-l(MC0SO(MO'-lC0OC-lrt0C'*<-*O00^"-i"-l.- -H .-1 (M CO ^ CO 1 nosjy f-H .-( Tf Abjhv -^ * IM C-4 « lO <M " !M Oi 1 uoi^joqv uoijonpqv CO M .-H .-- CO ;uauiuopu'Bqv rt rt (N IN ^ ^ CO ^ CO rt lO (N ^ -H -1 .0) >1 £ a co oo X §^ >oc ei Cs D. E c O i o c c; O 3a 1 n ft s E '3 ft ft ft "o ft "o ac 03 ft C O £ cc O £ C c C C3 o CC £ OS C/3 c 'c c -S t/} 03 a: BIENNIAL REPORT OP THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 23 1 '"' 1 1 r 1 fq I *"* Tf< 1 cq ^ 1 CO r r ^ r CO 1 ^ o '-' 1 1 1 1 1 (M (M 1 Tj* ic<iei305i^omTt<ioM03i>io 1 CO (M .-H rt 00 1 l.-ic<icoco l.-iooiooTtico to 1 1 1 1 "^ i ^ 00 * 1 1 1 OJ 1 CO CO 1 1 oq 1 II 1 '^ o> 1 1 rH 1 rt 1 rt o "^ 1 CO IM i(NCOini-i ii-H^TjflM irt 00 Transylvania TyrreU Union Vance Wake a o i i > 1 Wilson Yadkin Yancev 5 o 24 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 3njQ pUB pOOj[ ' 9eU3^8JJ 8SIBJ m CO -H -< '-' ^ l-l O) .-H rt rt rt >-l l-H CO '"' CO saxBx CO adBosg CO t^ ^ ^ '-' ^uaui3|zz9quig; CO '^ o (N '-' M< (N SA\B7 uopoaijj g3 _C Ceo sSui^39p\[ Suiqjn^stQ .-H i-H Tt( •* * .. lO CO ! J. 1- zu pa3BS}jop\i; SuisodstQ " 00 ^ CO ^ C<1 i-i CO C<l <N - CO CO ssnojj AijapjosiQ rt CO (N ic 00 Tf( CO w (M --< rt 1 ^ ^ CO ^ .-H C) 1 Suijiajia^unoQ AoviidsuoQ >o "^ Pino JO q^iig Suix^aouoQ IM CO Auo]aj SntpnnodraoQ rt rt rt CO CO O) CO t^ CO >o O) ^ CO IM <N CO --I CO 1 .2 3OO 0. c s c c: < c < cc c< 53 < o c c: S C eo c 3 W a. 3 03 o 1 c S 03 u oj "3 OS O o: 03 o o 2c o 1 o > X. c "3 O c o3 o BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 25 lo o <M ro •-I CD cvi IM CO (M CO rH Ttl rt -H CO ^ c-q i-H t^ t^ lO 05 CO rH CJ lO -* (M -H I lO I 1-1 i-H Tf CJ -< t-< I --I I>(MI>.i-HCOcDOOOC'lC^OO)050iO'-<iO»0(M»-i C^C0(NTt<C>lI>CDO'-iT}<rti-(O a =r 5 ,S (0 > fl o 03 aj 0^ -r; i5^^55'S'o2S'S£2£3'3Sc3<D<uop^ i d S ^ -S Q g oj <p us o -g °3'« S -S ^ _g U (U ~ c 1-5 1-5 1-5 26 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SnjQ puB pooj; SA\Bq aui'BO puB qsij *"* '"' asua^ajj asi^ej[ * (N '^ ^ ^ (M --I (N !M (N CO i >IJOAi. o; 3JniiB^ S8XBX jsiq; o"} ajnjiBjj t^ (N adBOsg r •n (M <M ?u9uia]zzaqnig T-H * (N -' '^ ^ (M CO i-H (M 1-1 IM CO 1 s.wBq; uoi'joaja ""^ g 3 _C Coo sSni^aaj\[ SutqjrusiQ IM IM (N IM C^ T-l 1 llJ X^iadojj paSBS^joj^ SnisodsiQ IM Tj< <M i-i 1-1 l-H " ' CO CO !N a (N 00 1 111 asnojj AjjapjosTQ C<5 CD .-1 en (N CO I> <N Tf ,-(,-( rt rH rt t> 1 oi A^pnjo .-H TO "' '-' '^ ^ Supiajja^unoQ XOBJidSUOQ PINO JO q^Jig SunBaouoQ Xnopj; SuipunodraoQ guodi3ajV4. pai^aonoQ SniAjjBQ (M CO (M I> t> -H T-H 1—iTfiOl'-it^iOOOt^ c^ .-1 ic CO IM rt O .2 g OO ^1 C o cO wc 03 o 1 C o3U Ph 1 cd .£ 5Du O £ "3 PL, C "3 T3 C 03 t: co S cc O £ ci r oo o3 o 1 o cc c s o: CO CI 1 CO > a 1 > 3 02 g '3 (A BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 27 <N Tt< I 1 CD 1 t^ 1 II 1 (M 1 IM TJH ^ CO 1 -H O Ol TO 1 1 00 1 '^ 1 1-1 1 oi O 1-1 i> . lO rH Tl< 1 CO r-l t^ 1 1 05 r S 1 ^ rt CO -H 1 rt (N CO t^ 00 1 i-H 1 t^ lO t> CO 00 iM CO CD 1 1 (N C<1 i> CO 1 T-H 'D >0 CO ' 1 ?7 CD i-l -^ t^ C-J CO Transylvania Tyrrell...' Union a c > 03 1 C 1 ° C C SI 3 c3 03 C a) 03 :^ c IS >1 i 03 o c-i 28 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IM SM'B'J AjBir[IJ^ aa^qSn^jsuBj^ CO lO 00 i-H 1 IM -< IM IM -isng 3UI0Q 'asuaoi'j ^noq^ij^ U0I8S9J0J J pqn CD If. ejonbiq; 3ut(}B0txo'}ni »OCO>005»000^^<:D:D»OOOCOcO i-liMlNTfOSCOO^iOOO CO lO 05 -H lO c^ * 3 C C8 Ajjadojj 0^ ^anfuj Tt< -H IM "" r (N ^ (M rt s ^S90UJ C-) Tfl "^ ! i SniTijng asnojj -* Suii[Bajq8snoH CO CD CO "-I CO IM CO <M CO Tf CO 00 Tfi IM 00 S.VL^q ^?1'B3H CO JO SaqqiuBQ CO * O 05 i 05 00 ,-1 lO t^ 1 puB noi^'Borajo^ <M <M -H 00 * (M CO CO CO CD O) CO AjaSJO^ <N ^ 00 (N (M CO CD tM '-' CO ^ CD i-l ss^dsaix 8iqP-io j[ •-H i-H -«< 00 C^ C^J 1 '^ _0J o CC 1 < c X c X < >c et < < < > t- < a X. a ca -z 5 IX 0. £ c t c IX fX 21 cc £ 1 "a J £ < 1 c cs c > -c C ,1 C ,£ £ BIENNIAL REPORT OP THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 29 <N -I -H -I (M * i-H tD^0'J^00Tl^C0CSOCC0<^J'0ll0^-CC00^CC^^OC0(^^>CT*<O0i00'-^M^-O05^^C<500 (Na5(NOO.OO>C(Mt^-*>-ii-HC<3<>)rot^C0t»iM>C00CD0000i-iT(<t>.t~MC3>O'-lO >0 •OCOINOCOmC'li-ltD'-l'-HCOIMMCJCO ^i-Hi-tcO-^CDt^iO t>COM-^ IN (N I tH ^ Oi Ol t^ 00 O 1-1 <M CO IM * I 00 IN —I'-HOO'Ht^t^lN,-! '-iTt<OC0O'*H.->c<3 IN "-I Tj< IN » r-l Tjl IN >* n I lo CO >o £ -p •? ft s s 33-eog3"5O SJ$3 SC3 gcQaj^^o3c3C^S£T^) ^-5^^ 3c353c6ajQ30>iO t>,aCfflgeo3e3o3 O Q =§ c OOQQQQQWfet5 0000aOWKWWtnWWA^»?.^»3^3S:§§:SS§:S 30 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL *"* IM SM-eq XaB;i|ti\; j9^q3n'B|sn'BX\[ rt M " ^ CO CD ,-) rt CO -^ IN CO -isng SuiOQ 'asuaoiq; ;noq^i^ noissajojj; Snioi^O'Bjj 'asnaoiq ' pqn SntAiaoay; pnB Auao.iBq "S sjonbiq O'HOTtit^'-HOt>c0-*^C'JOO3^>-i(NOO^0000t0O^ _c coo 1 Ajjadojj 0} Ajntuj rM ^ t> 1-H CD l> ^ •-< (N 1 UJ ^S90UJ ^ ^ "^ '^ 1- < 1- C/5 aniuang gsnojj IN §ni:>^Bajq8snojj o to o .-1 C-) lO 00 (M lO ^ .-HCDr~lO00l>COO2CD'-i(MCO swe^ Rn'^^H ^ JO Sntjqui'BQ rt TO CD CD "-H rH 00 t^ rt CO Tt< CO Ajaipipv pU'B UOlJ'BOIUJOj; (N CO -* (N !M (>) CO (N !N CD ^ * (N IM <M CO XaaSjo^ (N >0 (N rt ^ — '-* .-1 1> (M rt CO Tjl ^ CO ssBdsaJx ^NP'iod! 1-1 rt <N 00 (N .-1 -^ t> <N rt •-< IM 1 a a cc 5 2 a. > c c tr a 2 r £ c _c c C &c C c £ c p-c c E a c c 5 Q. P- fi. t£ c Ph c c ^ c Cc 1 c p= £ c p: 1 cr 1 C CC c £ a: X c 1 ' >, c BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 31 Tf (N 00 "-H TO'-lcD'-lC0'*-^O5>-lMtD i-c C^ (N 1-1 (M IN 00 T-i 1-1 t*^MlOOO(cNDCOD'*OOC:'HC<3C-4t-- <i<i-l^cDO)(N -I -^ t^ N —I (N (N 1-1 -ay - . I r, H 3 » m C fi -^ 32 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL sgpnnoQ o; SB ib;ox a a * c tr cc i c tc 2E ^ oe h- Tf CO cq CO to 00 snoau'BnaosijY «D --I t^(NOO'#"5>-H«005(M00 CO ^ (N CO t^ocq'i<cqt^OT)( '-^ cq sffBdsajx CO (N -I Tt< rt CO '^ CO -, ,-( t^ rt japuBis "^ rH ^ -' '" . notctonpag ,-. r-l CO -I (M cq CO '-' "-^ ^ cq rt SAiBq looqog CO Xjaqqoa T}( rt '-' -;: ;o!H aaogjO Supsisa-g CO cq -H (M C) CO co rt cq 3 a c o aclBH ^ 1 ca Z LJ s Ul Amf18J ^ to ^onpuoosij\[ jBio^o "^ '^ £ jaAt'jj 3ui;onj}sqo ^BAiqSiH oqqnj gui^onj^sqo aouBsmjsj CO Ttl ^ -H '^ a9j38Q puooag —japjnj^i cq (N >-< IN 'H (N iM O Tt< o cq cq CO 00 t^ aajSaQ ^sji j —japjni\[ *"* 1 J c, c o E < c X 5 >a "a < cc c « j: ^ > t4 c D ffl i ac c 3 CQ "a O 4 £ c« O a a O J £ o a o O c OS o d > c 1 a 3 a 1 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 33 05a'«^tOr^<NCO>OcD'-(I>i-lOtD<-l05COOOCOi-iiO>OOOOlcoCOCTil^^iCt^cD>0-*02CO O 00'*'-lOC<5-*C10t^iO'^c<J>ClcDO'OO>O'-iC0'-C'^C<5O00>OOCq'O03M00O>Oi-i 1-1 <N * -I lO M rH * CO T-l i-H T-H rt T-l (M i-H iH -I --H CD IM Ttl 1-1 OiOCOcOcO-^i-icOM .1 ra "-H i-H (MCOO0COCOCnTt(t^i-iCO(MO3"3t~ rH 1:^ CO (M CO CO CO "-H CO "^ I "-I -# N T)< to (N lO '~|'-ii-i00CO<N5OC)t-iO5 IM 1-^ -*i CO CJ rH CO O CO 3 3 S c3 o3 3 3 a O Q Q Q O P 01 ° is Ai ® m C B o S H Pq Ph -' a -1-3 CD JH c3 c3 *; o o o g o c3 a; 5^ ? "3 -^ ? -S -^^ o § § ^ £ Q C fl o3 o3 (?3 O 34 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 0? SB JB^OX CC ^ b-c<- oc IT oc t^ Tf t-- oc * •* c CC o OS IN co U5 1 snoauBnaosi j\r CO CO ssBdsajx -< <N -I ^ 1-1 (N i-H 50 M 1-1 Tf< CO '-' ^ (M japuTiig ^ '^ noponpag w rt -H "" -" ^ rM ^ ^ C< 1 Bj&'B'j looqog XiaqqoH (N N ^ (M CO ^ (N ^ 1-1 '-' ioiy jaogjO Snpstsay; ^ '-' cq (N lO CO ^ I sac co ad^^ ^ -' U 1 CO 1- z LJ lU Aanfjaj '-I '-' ^ * (N ^onpnoosij^ l^PIBO •* te j8Aiy; Snponjjsqo XBAVqStH oi|qnj Sni^onj^sqo sou'Bsmj^ N >0 (N '^ CD "* CO 1 99IS3Q pnooag —J9pinp\[ CO 00 « rt CD IM '^ -^ tH * CO 00 IM rt IN N 38j3aQ ?SJtJ —japan j\[ J a 1 1 1 1 1. Cc c J 1 c C a C 1 c 1 C c 5 c c 1 £ 1J £ X. c "c X c c ^ c £ c 1c S X. 61 c Pi 1 c 1c 1 c 1 Cc I B 1 "i I oc 1 d <Q BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 35 »-( t^ »-H c^ CO 00 CO i-tF-ieotoiMiOi-iootorocD'-i-* <N iCi i-H »0 CO 1 ItHi-H 1 1 1 i>0'-lTt( 1 e-1 I ; i i ; ; ; ; '-' ; ; ; lrH(N i-*rt 1 r^ ilM 1 c CO I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 .-< (M 1 1 00 Illi-HTjliiiiiirjii 2 ! 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' 1 ' 1 ! 1 lrHTj< 1 l^q IrHC^ 1 1 00 1 1 1 r i-H i-H 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 n I 1 1 1 1 1 ', -' 1 "^ '^ 1 1 CO liiiOiiiii.il ^ 111 1 (N 1 1 1 lO lIiiiirti-liiiMii, o CO 1 I1-101 iiN icaoqiN ico 1> (N * Transylvania Tyrrell Union Vance Wake --- Warren Wasiiington Watauga Wayne Wilkes.. Wilson Yadkin Yancey 3 O 36 BIENNIAL REPORT OP THE ATTORNEY GENERAL STATEMENT C The Following Statement Shows the Criminal Cases Disposed of During the Fall Term, 1927, and Spring Term, 1928. Counties (0 n O a a la a) B » o '> a oO 13 '3 < o a .2 "^ & s t. o 1 & o 5 o S .2 o o Alamance 54 23 76 1 47 4 26 77 Alexander 96 10 104 2 79 3 24 106 Alleghany 21 2 23 19 3 1 23 Anson 89 197 274 12 205 16 60 5 286 Ashe- 87 69 32 29 1 3 15 101 82 67 45 122 6 5 2 8 88 60 45 89 88 Avery 12 2 22 72 Beaufort 47 Bertie 19 130 Bladen 7 6 13 12 1 13 Brunswiclv 42 472 17 211 1 56 612 3 72 43 585 16 48 59 Buncombe* 49 3 685 Burke 94 18 111 1 103 3 6 112 Cabarrus 139 67 202 4 151 10 44 1 206 Caldwell 198 40 232 6 178 25 34 1 238 Camden 5 51 3 30 8 78 3 8 76 8 Carteret 4 1 81 Caswell-- - - 10 144 9 29 19 164 9 15 130 4 12 19 Catawba 30 1 173 Chatham 72 68 137 3 113 9 17 1 140 Cherokee 143 7 142 8 100 48 1 1 150 Chowan 5 5 9 1 9 1 10 Clay 43 66 5 36 46 96 2 6 37 57 11 18 48 Cleveland 24 3 102 Columbus 65 26 86 5 63 10 17 1 91 Craven 38 77 107 8 93 14 8 115 Cumberland- -- 84 52 121 15 75 16 45 t 136 3 14 186 1 1 45 4 15 220 11 4 11 178 4 4 32 15 Davidson 21 231 Davie 73 24 89 8 75 14 8 97 Duplin 162 233 360 35 273 38 80 4 395 Durham 216 291 467 40 361 57 84 5 507 Edgecombe 34 113 141 6 96 27 24 147 Forsyth 374 230 555 49 589 14 1 604 Franklin 65 25 78 2 58 11 10 1 80 Gaston 260 59 302 17 202 32 80 5 319 Gates 45 33 77 1 51 7 19 1 78 Graham 54 1 1 54 2 21 6 29 56 Granville 38 84 120 2 108 6 8 122 Greene 24 47 67 4 51 IS 2 71 Guilford 333 166 473 26 406 47 44 2 499 Halifax 149 184 326 7 238 44 50 1 333 Harnett 65 42 1 98 10 66 13 27 2 108 Haywood 199 21 195 25 91 40 87 2 220 Henderson 60 33 86 7 57 19 16 1 93 Hertford 35 63 96 2 62 18 18 98 Hoke 15 13 28 25 2 1 28 Hyde 5 27 30 2 31 1 32 Iredell 45 23 64 4 46 7 15 68 Jackson 55 2 56 1 29 8 20 57 *1 Corporation. BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 37 Counties STATEMENT C—Continued O P H U 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 79 22 68 136 48 163 134 9 251 427 62 70 33 84 75 29 38 100 42 20 24 11 92 68 93 319 101 145 79 57 52 141 73 20 121 190 158 74 3 22 86 424 20 3 102 17 380 116 79 69 38 22 92 125 17 5 3 20 33 388 34 12 72 123 78 45 78 57 17 34 22 58 113 29 67 83 86 27 30 7 143 35 15 25 15 6 16 3 36 46 376 36 15 3 49 28 144 111 44 152 225 63 165 132 29 267 718 59 100 45 157 175 102 80 171 99 37 54 31 146 173 112 363 178 274 104 83 58 262 107 31 143 198 173 57 128 758 53 18 100 64 371 226 82 76' 36 2 3 5 17 97 3 4 23 5 3 7 10 23 6 12 2 4 1 23 4 4 3 7 8 1 4 42 3 2 37 34 4 1 116 31 130 187 42 94 97 24 179 462 38 68 26 SO 131 61 67 138 58 29 34 18 118 154 74 263 130 168 78 70 48 208 77 27 128 156 127 67 3 42 94 469 36 14 83 66 238 120 83 39 12 13 36 14 14 12 4 29 77 5 6 7 22 67 17 16 16 21 6 9 4 12 20 19 18 15 32 13 4 10 56 14 6 9 22 23 10 18 120 12 4 4 27 36 3 17 1 17 37 9 60 27 1 73 261 19 30 12 57 29 24 15 2 14 11 21 7 29 100 37 85 15 . 13 21 20 27 31 23 3 6 20 215 142 103 117 44 160 261 65 168 137 29 284 815 62 104 45 159 198 107 83 178 99 37 58 33 151 181 122 386 184 286 103 87 59 285 111 35 146 205 181 90 6 58 132 803 56 18 105 66 408 260 86 77 Totals- 5,640 83 14,475 931 10,889 1,706 2,722 90 15,407 38 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Recapitulation of Statement C Total Ntjmber Criminal Actions Disposed of. _. -_ 15,407 Males .- - . - - - . - - - _ . 14,475 931 1 Total -- - _ _ . . - 15 , 407 White 9,683 5,640 83 1 Total - . -- - --- - 15,407 10,889 1,706 2,722 90 Total..- ... ... .. . _. ... . . 15,407 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 39 Q 00 OS "^ o « Q2 w s' nosjv UBq? jaq^o Suiujng aajSaQ puooag ro IM N AiaSSng "-' Ajaqug ^ j^uiBSig -H ^ ^ "-' * ApjB^SBg uosiO(j o; c)dui8)^Y Smj^aAiQ adi3}j 0^ " IM i-H " IN snodBaAi j^jptiaQ <N id Xaa:HBa pn^ ^inBesy O i«C<5>OiM(X)C<l<D-*'-i.-iTt< <N ^ IM t>. .-1 lO IN --^ CO lO U08JV ^ rt —1 !M XBjjgv C-l lO (M Ttl 00 i> —1 to ro CO iM CO to '^ uoi^ioqv oq uoponpqv (juauinopuB qy '^ (N ^ —1 00 IC •* rt rH U^ ^ ^ IN £ a 3oO a c £ C 4 > c 1 C •< -«3 > > <1 1 a) c0 S o | c 3 Eo C 0) ° o "a T c s cS 1 &a O £ 2» O 1 O •a 1 5 40 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL uosiy nsq} jaq^o Sniujng a -^ sajSaQ puooag —.'Cj'BjSina; CO 00 " '"' cq rt —Xj'BiSing AjaSSng Xjaqiig ^ ^ AuiBgig CO •o ^ Oi c^ -^ XpaB^SBg --* IM nosiog 0% :)dui8;^Y •a s 1 SuijiaAiQ o 1 a f- z acl-ey; oj (M CO ~ " CO CO (N C<l bJ i CO ai Tti C050iO'-HTS<Tf<lOCD Ttl to -S< .-1 ,-1 -< r-( * 00 IN to C-1 03 CO CO -H to 1 (N rt r Ais'i'iVQ puB ^inBSBV 1-1 i> iM-*00>-ii-i0Cqt~C^CDCD rt C-l rt ,-( rH to to »0 CI 1-t o 1-1 Tf r-< to nosay rt .I 04 ^ '-' ABjjgv lO Cq lO rH Cq "* {D (N * 00 •* i> ^ uoi^joqy -^ uoi^onpqv ^ ^ (N ^nauinopa'Bqy (M rt !-( C^ (N ^ CO rt i-H ^ lO CJ th rt CO to C5 CO i-i --I 1 .2 3O O "o O O (5 S3o : 3O n Q cc '> 03 Q a Q 3 Q B 3 Q o o H > o 1 1 OS o a 1 c 'E o c c: 1 o 03 X 1 -a c W c d O a BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 41 lllll,-,l<M^illlllliiii(Mi.iiiiiiiii-Hirtiii r-H ITJ< lrt(N 1 1 1 1 100 1 li-H 1 1 IN"-! Il-H 1 ' 1 irHC-l lO l l I llllllllil(Nrtiilrtrtlllllllliir,"...iiiil 1 1 1 1 1 "^ 1 1 1 1 1 '^ '^ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Irt r irH iMi-l 1 1-1 1 1 irH.H 1 I I I [ IrHCqCO i 1 iCO 1 i i tH i.lC^'iiiiri.i 11,-lir ,-( l(M \ .,-1 1 1 IIM rto 1 1 1 1 irH^ 1 1^ 1 1 Irt r i ICC 1 1^ |^,_irt tomoui immoiotoooio i>OTtHTtH(Ne<ir-<iO'-icooocoOTcoc)^0'-iocOi-<tot>-*'H rtilM .-1 ,-(>oi >-l.-li-l(M i-H .-HlMi-lTXrtMr-i CO Oa (MrHl .(MO) I rt rtl 1 1 Illlilli'Si-Hro! rtilllllllllliillll ii-H 1.-I.-I Ii-H ICO irtlO -H .^00 ICgC-J IIM 1 li-HOO r-l>-Hll.-l(N II lit rtrtllll] icq.-H i>o!N(N-* 1 iTtio-^T!! imroro i(M>-<cs i^i-HiNmocoi-H ico in^ 1 ' ell son iston.. s sir oln on ison tin Dowell klenburg 3hell itgomcry re h Hanover thampton ow ige ilico luotank der : luimans on dolph.z mond eson cingham an lerford pson and as -c c K S c c3 c5 o <r o3 O V2 mm 42 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL nosjv UBqi jaq^o Sninjng "" oc aajSaQ paooag m * M ^H 1-H CO Xj833ng; CO Xjaqug (N 00 jCuiBSig IN CO '-^ CO 00 iCpj^^sBg f-uosioj o; idui8C)C)v ujng o; c(dinacnv (N i-l (N IN l-H CD CD suodBa^ AipBSQ to n ^ ^ CO lO i-H rt <N i^ja^^'Bg pu-B ^piBssy O IM CD '-icoooeq>-it^co.QO(NT«(N 00 IN CO uosiy IN Atjjyv (N 1> CO ^ UD TO 00 rt CSl t>. 00 uopjoqv CO uoponpqv ^ '^ CO ^uauiuopu'Bqv N IN •^ ta CO Ttl rH IN § (N 1 a i "a t 1 'f a c > 1 c t. ^ 1 rc 'a IS s 1 1 c E- BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 43 BM.'B'J 3njQ puB poo^ guiBQ puB qsi^ <N " ^ esna^ajj ssj^^ •* t- N ^ CO M o) cq .-H CO •-I puoy onqn<i B8XBX 9d-BDsg; (M ^ rt -1 ^nauiaizzaqrag '-' IC i-H '- IM * CO B-viBq uoijoajg t> 1 1s Sutqjn^siQ IM CO t^ C<3 rt >C IN IM " 1 Q 1- Z UJ P9Sb3^J0J\[ SutsodsiQ T»H ^ 1-1 CO N (N (N --I IM -! Ill to asnojj A[j9pjosiQ r-t CO CO oi C-) t~ i-H (N ^ oq .-1 ^ cq C^l ^ -^ -' Smjiajia^unoQ XOBJidSUOQ (M JO q^Jig 3ut|Baouo3 Auopj SutpunoduiOQ SU0d'B9jVi p9]t!90U03 SUIAJJISQ ^ rt >c t^ t^ CO rt CO CO -H o cq CD O CO CO rH U; .2 a o c -1 a >• 5 > < Ic <3 < > c T3 S (P a O t) CI 3 m o "a O c a O "a 6 £ e: a -§ O C3 &O o 1 3 2 = "o O a o 44 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 3njQ puB pooj[ 1 auiBQ puB qsi^ " . lO -H 1 Tj< r 8Sa9;8J(J 8S|BJ "-* 00 1 "-H (N (N M CO TlH (N COiMt^(N'-l.-lCO^ (N rH jjjo^ o; Bjnjrej; - S3XT3X %s]'j o^ ajrifre^ CO " ad'Bosg ^ (N 1-1 (N ^uauiaizzaquig; '-' '-' Tt< * (N lO (N i-H 00 r- rH rH C- ^ BJA.'B'j uopoajg •s =1 _c c ao Suiqjn^stQ (N IM lO (M Th CD Tt< 1 oHZ bJ /C^J9dOI(J P9Sb3!(joj\[ SntsodsiQ " (M .-1 CO (N (N .-i^C<ICO(Ni-i(N(N " u 1- < (/5 9SnOJJ A|J9pjOSIQ ffi cq iM m o c^ o Tt< CI W rt rt s{"Buiray 01 Actpnjo <M CO •-< ^ Suiit9}j9;unoQ AOBJldSUOQ CM pnqo JO q^Jtg guij^aouoQ '^ Aaopj[ SuipunoduiOQ SU0dB9jV^ CO lMT-lTl<03(M,-l03«:>COi-ll^rHi-lO'-ll>CO'*<rHTt(.-lTtl g T c o o 0) P cc IS Q Q 3 Q 3 Q Sc aM H X O O o o: o a a o o 'B O -1^ 03 X Oo > 03 cc T £3 C o 1 ffl "a a 3 O o 03 1-5 BIENNIAL REPORT OP THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 45 INr-(C<l I ^ i(NO:>-l'-H lOlM ^ t* CO »—I •—< CO 1-1 --I 1-1 1-1 cq oq CO 1 T-l (M (N C^ iH CO i-i 1-1 1-1 CO 1-1 1-1 lo >o -^ CO 1-1 ^ (M IM 1-1 (N 1-1 O CO 1-1 1-1 O 00 00 1-1 lO 1-1 CO 00 lO o 00 ^Cqir500010lNlN(NO(M -J 3 - Q o " a> .15 > 3 M ;3 3 .1 g c c is g fi 6 ^ PhKWcocococoojco 46 BIENNIAL REPORT OP THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BMBq 3nja puB poo^ Cv *" CO ainBO puB Tjsi^ ^ " " ** asua^ajj; se\^^ 1-1 <N O t^ -H '-' pBO-jj oiiqnj 1 (M ssxux =^ adBosg; -* CO ^uauiajzzaquig <N CO (N IM CO (N cq s.ttB^ not^oa^g; "^ 00 sSnt'jaaj^ Satqjn^siQ CJ ,-1 lO IM CO o A^jadojj paSBS:(joxv SnisodsiQ " lO "-1 CO o asnog jtjjapjosiQ CO t> lO -^ C^ CO lO ^ C<1 siBuirav ^ -H C<1 Sui^iajja^nnoQ AOBITdsnOQ 00 CO pnqo JO q^iig Sur[BaouoQ CO SmpnnodraoQ euodBa^ pa^BaouoQ SuiXjjbq ^ (N iC CD lO ^ CD --I l> J a § ci 1 1 1 C C "S a.oC > -id Ca 03 C -S c i ^ cc 1 c IS >aoc oi 1 o Eh BIENNIAL REPORT OP THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 47 cq in SAiBq AlB^IItJ^ aa^qSn'BjsnBj^ IN ^ ,-H —1 00 c<i C-l t^ '-' -isng SnioQ 'asuaoiq " -jnoq^ijVV U0ISS8J0JJ pqti SniAiaoay^ O) CO (N >0 Tj( T-( CO TMOiNt^'Oiooqoo 1-1 oq rp Th CO C^)Tt<CMt^t^lNtOait>0 —I CM 1-1 1-1 CO BJOTibiq 3ui^Botxo^ni -liO OJ'i'lM (N .-HQ001003 TttCMOt^Oi^TfiOOOCO CM t^ ^ t> CO CM cq 0^ Ajnrnj CM " Ttl "1 ^eaouj '-' -* gnrajng asnojj SuiJCBajqasnojj IM lO 00 C-) CM 1-1 CM 00 CM IC —1 >0 t> CM 1-1 t~ Tt< B.vt.'B'j q^l'Bajj C) JO Sntiqui'Br) -^ CO •o CO 1:^ CM CO -' pnB noi^'Borajoj; oq IN TtH t^ CM * CO * CM CM -^ AjaSjoj; IN CV5 rt r-< rt CO C^) CO ^ th CO CO ssBdsaJx ^iqP-iOvi cq CO --I N •* -" -^ ^ CO 1 § tC £ < u T C < 1 < < < > a> < c c t a p: ca c 1 £ctc tr a "a c £ < t- "a £ a i: ic > t: ca 4 c £ > 48 BIENNIAL REPORT OP THE ATTORNEY GENERAL c<- SAi^T; XiB:>tiiM wjqSnBisuBpxf CO CO CO no * (M (N <N .-1 rH 00 lO lO --< (N 1 -isng SniOQ 'asuaoiq " ^^ " pqn SniAiaoay puB XuaoiBq; 00 tDO'-iOOr^CO«DOO CO'-iOOtJicO'-miO'-h OC000i0TjiU50itD«D(NT-l0J iHC0O3-*(Ni-HrHt-l (N saonbiT; iO"-HCT-#OOOOiO©00<NC<3Tj<CDC<5«000'<l<tDCDCD®WO-H rt rt lO rt rt '^ " ^saonj '^ '^ Suramg astiou SuirsfBajqaenoH (N --I t^ t^ Tt< cq on in O) M -H '^ "-1 r)H i-H CO O) <N 00 ^ cq in 1 sMBq q^l'B3H rt IM Ajai^oq JO Snt^quiBQ '^ cq t> o i> CO ^ t~ a> (N CO i^ja^Xnpv pUB UOpBOIUJOjf * Tt< ^ .-( .-1 CO CD (M Tt< cq eq IM (N -H Xja3joj[ CO -JilNTtHOrfCO'HrHiM ^ 00 (M lO .I t^ ^ cq CO 1 BSBdsaix aiqraao^ CO -H Tt< l~< CD CO rH l-( t^ rq cq CO 1 C C P P c 3 P £ d P 0) ac a bi > o O 1 o o c o c O "a X oo > W c o E 0) T3 o d o d > "a T t-do BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 49 II, lOliiii-Hlill II(M i-Hl i i 1 1 1 1 Ill 1 1 n 1 i^iM i>-H,-irHt^(Mc^)(M !-;)< i(Nco—' 1 I""! ii"* < 1 i"0(Mro>-i 1 t n n ^ •-! *OMOTtHlMOt^O(NOI>t»00cDCDa2CTi<NOt~O00t^t-'-l'O in lO C<1 "-I "-H rt 1-1 C0cO«T-l(N.-cmi-H 1 Irt Irtr-I 1 1 1—1 1 1 1 IC>) l(N li-H 1 1 1 1 11-Hr^ 1^ 1—1 1 1-^ ItMCO—1 "^ 1 1 1 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 1 1 1 i 1 ' (M 1 1 1 1 1 i i 1 1 1 (M ! ' 1 1 1 1 1 rt 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 rH 1 iio 1 1 iC<5<NO 1 iTOOlM 1—lie 100 iTfl^ i001>OO5Tfi05 ii-iTOi-iCDOO i ii-i.il Mil (Ml II 1 i-H 1^ 1 1 IIOCC 00 li-H 1 1C<>^ 1—Irt 1 1 1—1 lO irtr-H ICO CO i>-l<NTt<—IC<IT}H IIOO-H—1 1 iC-lOli-HlM I iin iiOTfC^JlO i(M 1 1 iTtiCO i'^ iTh 1^ 1^1-H IC^CO'-HCOO'-^ iC0-^»Ot-Hi-l-r^C-:)rHi-t i i—H^ iCOC5CO(N»O>OO0^HC<1'<^t-I 1 C^J 1 ^1 111 ^ 1.-HIMIO 1 1—1—H 1.-H iC^l 1—STjlt-H 1 1 1 1 lUOf^ if-HOl-^ li-HO 1 mston nes- __ noir.. — ncoln aeon adison artin cDowell ecklenburg tchell ontgomery oore ish w Hanover )rthampton._ slow ange mlico squotank nder rquimans rson__. tt Ik chmond ckingham wan therford mpson atland inly jkes rry ain 50 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL <N BJAVJ AjB^tllK Jta^q3n'B{suBp\[ ^ CI <N 1-1 '^ Tj( cq CO -isng 3utOQ 'asuaoiq; c^ CD '"' pqn SniAiaoa'jj O^C<5O00OTtHrt00(N'*<^O •a <B 9jonbiq O(MOTt<00iO00C0(MC3C» co I 0% Xjnruj (N CO CO CO z UJ ^gaouj '"' ] o i Suinjng asnojj i lO Sui5['Bajqasnoij rt Tfl to rH CO .-( lO (M CO lO * 1-1 C^ 00 CO savbt; q^l^ajj '^ CD JO guiiquiBO Cq CO r-1 pUB UOICCBOtUJOJ -* CO c^ CO Tl( CO C32 XJ93J0^ CO ^i 1-1 CD Tj( 1> 00 ss^dsajx siqp-io^ >0 i-H CTJ "-1 lO -co •1 (3 .0 'c *> c > c _c c > a. -a a 1 C> 3 1 c 1 >c i: 03 i o BIENNIAL REPORT OP THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 51 eai^nnoQ o; SB iBjox toocooooo—iaicooooooiN.-iio 00—ir^Tt<>c-HT<<ooi-H Cl CS rt —1 —1 rt rt snoauBjiaosijv; 00tDINlO<NC<lC0'-li-ltDO> rt .-< TO OSCOiOOCOTtiTjit^ 1 00 00 CO ssBdsgjj, 1 ^ ^ r^ ^ ; '^ 1 --H CO -H O I ^ japuBjg 1 '^ uoi^onpag (M (M , ^ ^ rt CO lO ^ 1 "" 1 '^ 1 IN SMB-j poqog i^jgqqoy^ C<1 , ^ IN lO IN N "" - loiH jsoijjO Snijsisay; ^ -H c^l lO CO CO -1 r-< i> ^ 1 ad^a '-' "^ Amrjsj IN '^ N }onpuoos!iM l^PSJO "^ "^ '-' j3Aiy Sniionj^sqo j^-B.siqSijj or[qnj Suiionjjsqo (N aowesm^ IM rt -H -* aaaSaQ puooag —aapjnpyr CO IM CO — (N 1 CO IN IN IN IN 1-1 IN * IN —japjnjM Counties C 03 e 03 a OS < >> c to 13 4) > o CI « s ic 3 i aooa3 PQ 3 3 03 e3 O 'S O cBS Q 1 O 1 oi i s O E ca "S O o O a cS o j3 o >1 03 o -0 03 > 3 e3 u c 4) > 52 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL to * "5 CO IN 05 •n 05 CO o oo o 00 CO 00 CD (N IN f~ CO CO CO 00 o o Ol CO 00 05 00 IN IN CO 00 CO sno8U'B|iaoetj\[ « O) 1 .-icOOOt^^cOOSOOOiNt^TfcDOO'O lO IN ^ * Tj< ssBdaajx -H rt I * rt IN lO (N 1 IN IN CO CD 1 IN i -' japn^is ^ ; -* \ IN '"' 1 uoi^onpag "^ rt ,-1 ,-( rt rt ,1 IN Ol --1 Tt< IN 1 IN .-1 sm^t; looqog ^ Ajaqqo'jj !^ '^ O !N CD IN 01 I> CD IN ?otH jaoBgo 3npsiS3a IM CO in CO lO ^ -H rH cq r-l * '"' ( '"' 1co ad^jj '^ C<1 a y- z UJ UJ i jCanriaj; •O <N CO rt ,-H ^onpnoosij^i l^ptgo jaAiy; Suponj^sqo ABAiqSjH oiiqnj Sui^onj^sqo aouBsmf,! CO '^ aajSsQ puooag —japjnj^ 00 (NrtiMcnoortCOTt< IN IN Tt* rt t^ * —japjnj^ § i 3 i 3 I c 3 1 5 C 3 3 _o 3 ! 5 C 3 : 5 C [i i : ' ; X 3 £ 3 ^ ^ 1 5 Pl 3 lO j i -i 3 I 5 C 3 1 ^ J 3 * 3 C i I s J 3 I 3 C 3 'i 3 5 i5 c 1 T : c 5 c 2 > > c 3 5 < i 3 3 i 3 1 a 1 -c i 3 3 3 1 a St IB C 3 4 IS c 1 a P ' 3 1it 1 i-a BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 53 »-i'^5DCOCOOC<5<NOO'-itDOTjii0050QOt-05C<5iOCO>COOiMOOOOOOOOO>OOOi-lcO'J<000 —I rtiM rHi-H C^OO i-l rti-Hrt i-H i-H »-l rH e«5 i-H (N (N >-l tH IN -H 05COCOCOCC0005'-l-^(NCOCOCO'^C<]COC^»000»OCDi-<'^COt^CCOOC<lC^COCOOO rH CO Tf 1-1 l-H I lO rt !N I <N I * (M —< T-H C^ .-H .-H ^ (N ^ C^ (N CO CO ^ •* CO i-H T)H -H cq * lo 00 —I —1 rt •5 =1 S S c O O T3 h i^ c o o © -S .t: o o C3 ^ GJ O "O ^H o3 c3 0) QJ C T3 *? C ^ (-. m xn m w 54 BIENNIAL REPORT OP THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OOCONO^OOiO^DOOOtOt^ OS iCCOOiOfHOcOOmOOt^ .-H 00 i-H Tt< (N 1 in 8nO9U'BJI80SIJ\[ >-( 1-H Tji IM C3 •-H O 1 (O M •* r- "5 (N 1 * 05 to IN ssBdsajx 1 C<1 >-< 1 '^ 1 >o S3 aapuBis '^ 1 (N to uoi^onpag ^ 1 '^ g SMBq; looqog '-' '-' 10 Ajaqqoy; rt CO i-H IN 00 CO i-H *0!H jaoigO Sni^stsajj rH '^ ^ <N in s adB^ iM ^ Tt< 3 Bs \(?antJ8(j '-' '^ ^ CO a ^onpuoosip\[ jBiogjo CO 10 j8Aiy; Snponj^sqo CO ^BAiqgijj otfqnj Sni^oni;sqo CO aouBstn^ ^ (N 05 IN aajSaQ puooag —japinjM * * CD M CO IN —J3pjnj\i in .2 ao '3 03 _> a 1 cc3 t3 ua > 03 C 1 CS M 03 Ml 3 03 Is s ^ ^ i .^ i cc 13 oj a 03 >< BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 55 STATEMENT E Number of criminal actions disposed of Males Females Corporations Total White Colored Indian Corporations Total. - Convictions, including submissions Acquitted Nolle pros Otherwise disposed of Total.. Murder—first degree Murder—second degree Manslaughter Rape Assault with intent to commit rape Arson Burglary—first degree Burglary—second degree Forgery Larceny Intoxicating liquors Other crimes and misdemeanors Total From July 1, 1926 to July 1, 1927 13,124 855 3 8,644 5,265 70 3 9,445 1,552 2,868 117 4 227 123 13 41 18 1 42 325 2,375 4,288 6,525 13,982 13,982 13,982 13,982 From July 1, 1927 to July 1, 1928 14,475 931 1 9,683 5,640 83 1 10,889 1,706 2,722 90 5 243 173 14 66 22 76 284 2,584 4,771 7,169 15,407 15,407 15,407 15,407 56 BIENNIAL REPORT OP THE ATTORNEY GENERAL STATEMENT F Alphabetical List of Crimes Name of Offense From July 1, 1926 to July 1, 1927 From July 1, 1927 to July 1, 1928 Abandonment Abduction Abortion Afifray Arson Assault and battery Assault with deadly weapons Assault with intent to rape Attempt to burn dwelling Attempt to poison Bastardy Bigamy . Bribery Buggery Burglary—first degree Burglary^second degree Burning other than arson Carrying concealed weapons Compounding felony ^ Concealing birth of child Conspiracy Counterfeiting Cruelty to animals Disorderly house Disposing mortgaged property Disturbing meetings Election laws Embezzlement Escape Failure to list taxes Failure to work public road False pretense Fish and game laws Food and drug laws Forcible trespass Forgery Fornication and adultery Gambling or lottery Health laws Housebreaking House burning Incest Injury to property Intoxicating liquors Larceny and receiving Libel : License, practicing profession without- License, doing business without Manslaughter Military laws Municipal ordinances Murder—first degree Murder—second degree Nuisance 158 35 9 121 18 642 1,168 41 1 50 6 2 1 42 25 497 35 213 137 84 3 149 70 22 9 150 14 2 138 325 209 276 7 727 18 18 88 4,288 2,375 1 3 123 11 4 227 40 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 57 STATEMENT F—Continued Name of Offense From July 1. 1926 to July 1, 1927 From July 1, 1927 to July 1, 1928 Obstructing public highway. Obstructing river Official misconduct Perjury Rape Resisting officer Riot 14 53 32 32 13 14 82 105 106 161 8 5 76 76 22 16 121 83 992 1,216 Robbery School laws Seduction Slander Trespass Miscellaneous. Totals 15,407 Addendum to Statement F As our forms for making criminal statistics were made years ago, and other crimes than those mentioned therein have either been defined since, or have greatly increased in number, we give the following addendum, making the report more specific. The particular crimes given below are included in the total of "Miscellaneous." Name of Offense From July 1. 1926 to July 1. 1927 From July 1,1927 to July 1, 1928 Non-support Reckless driving Cor speeding) Vagrancy Violating automobile laws Violating banking laws Worthless check Totals 36 386 58 146 18 199 630 843 58 BIENNIAL REPORT OP THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Fees Transmitted by Attorney General to State Treasurer from and Including August Term, 1926, Through February Term, 1928 State V. Barclay State V. Strickland State V. Lee, et al State V. Moore State V. Edwards State V. Edwards State V. Meyers Lacy V. Surety Companies Automotive Assn. v. Doughton__ Ragan v. Doughton State V. Tyndall Rich V. Doughton Barton v. Grist State V. Franklin State V. Thompson State V. Fowler State V. Adams State V. Fleming State V. Anderson State V. Williams State V. Hunt State V. Hartley State V. Tomplinson State V. Gibson, et al State V. Baldwin State V. Evans State V. Harris, et al State V. Helms State V. Brinkley State V. Ridings, et al State V. Carpenter State V. Colson State V. Briscoe State V. Boswell State V. McFarland State V. Pridgen State V. Eubanks State V. Mintz, et al Waddell v. Doughton Rotan v. State of North Carolina State V. Hege State V. Hill State V. Mickle State V. Leonard State V. Waldrop State V. Wade State V. Adkins State V. Angel State V. Crowder State V. Holt State V. Gardner State V. McLawhorn, et al State V. Jarman State V. Edwards State V. Holt State V. Saree Osborne State V. Gill- State V. Maslin State V. Dowell BIENNIAL REPORT OP THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 59 Fees Transmitted—Continued 13.30 10,00 State V. Coffer . . .. ... __ -_- - 10.00 12.20 State V. Whittle- - . _ _ _ - 12.20 20.00 14.30 Totals - -- --.:- $ 989.20 In addition to the above, the following fees have also been transmitted by the Attorney General to the State Treasurer since 1924-26: Spring Teem, 1923: Corporation Commission v. Proximity Mfg. Co Corporation Commission v. Cannon Mfg. Co $ 25.00 25.00 Spring Term, 1926: State V. Kyles __ .__ . ... . ... . ... 10.00 60.00 Totals. S 1,049 20 OPINIONS TO THE GOVERNOR Corrupt Practices Act—Report October 26, 1926. Memorandum in relation to reports 6y committees on the amount of money received by them for political campaigns. The Corrupt Practices Act. now C. S. Sections 4185, et seq., in sub-section 10 requires any chairman or secretary of any political party where tlieir territory embraces more tlian one county to report to the Secretary of State not more than fifteen or less than ten days before any general election, the amount of money received by such committee for campaign purposes, and again within twenty days after the election to make a similar report of money received, and from whom, and the purposes for which it was used. Such report is to be made under oath by the secretary or chairman of the committee who has full knowledge of all the details of the committee affairs. Similar reports are to be made to the clerk of the court where the executive commit-tee is a county executive committee. Upon investigation we find that a similar opinion was rendered by this office to the Secretary of State on October 28, 1920, and there has been no modification of the statute as contained in the Consolidated Statutes. Internal Improvements—Report October 26, 1926. Memorandum as to internal improvements in ichich the State has a pe-cuniary interest. Chapter 157, Public Laws of 1925, transferred all the duties theretofore exercised by the Board of Internal Improvements upon the Governor and Council of State. Section 4 of the act requires the Governor and Council of State biennially to report to the General Assembly : (1) The condition of all railroads, canals, or other works of internal improvement in which the State has an interest, and they shall at the same time suggest such improvement, enlarge-ment, or extension of such work as they shall deem proper, and such new works of similar nature as shall seem to them to be demanded by the growth of trade or the general prosperity of the State. (2) The amount, condition, and character of the State's inter-est in other railroads, roads, canals, or other works of internal improvement in which the State has taken stock, to which she has loaned money, or whose bonds she holds as security. (3) The condition of such roads or other corporate bodies, in detail, as are referred to in the previous section, giving their entire financial condition, the amount and market value of the stock, receipts, and disbursements for the previous year or since the last report ; the amount of real and personal property of such corporations, its estimated value, and such suggestions with re-gard to the State's interest in the same as may to them seem warranted by the status of the roads or corporations. BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 61 (4) The names of all persons failing or refusing to report as is required by law. The statute is so definite and clear that it needs no comment. Schools fok Blind and Deaf—Indigent Patients November 2, 1926. C. S. Section 5885 contains a provision which requires the State to pay fot the clothing and travelling expenses from and to the Institution, of pupils in the State Schools for the Blind and Deaf located in Raleigh, under conditions hereinafter set out. The Statute directs the Governor to draw upon the Auditor for an amount sufficient to cloth the scholar and pay the travelling expenses. Thereupon the Auditor shall issue his warrant upon the State Treasurer, who shall pay the same. The conditions, however, upon which the Governor draws this draft are as follows : (1) That the parents of any deaf mute or blind child sent to said school are unable to provide said children with the clothing and with the expenses. This fact is to be ascertained by the affi-davit of two respectable citizens. (2) Where the child has no living parents or any estate of its own. AVhen the State pays this amount under the conditions above stated, the Auditor is required to charge that amount to the County from which the child came and the county has to pay the same. The amount charged shall in no case exceed $45.00 per year for any pupil in addition to such amount as may be required to defray all necessary travelling expenses of the pupils. It appears that this section of the law was complied with in the case of the children of one , of Nash County, and the children are now in the school, supported in part by this fund. Mr. J. B. Boddie, Register of Deeds of Nash County, writes to the Governor in regard to these children, asserting that the two respectable citizens, —. and - , are mistaken in making the affidavit required by the Statute, under which the children are provided with this annual fund by the State. It has been discovered, accord-ing to Mr. Boddie. that F. S. Rackley, the parent of the children, is the owner in fee of 100 acres of land in Nash County. Mr. Boddie wishes to know what to do under the circumstances. His letter indicates that the county is now repaying to the State the funds advanced by the State for these children under the Statute. It is very clear, we tliink, that under the cir-cumstances of this sort, the county would have a cause of action against Rackley in which it might subject this 100 acres of land to the payment of the funds advanced by it to Rackleys children. The county is in much bet-ter position to attack the affidavits of Edwards and Batchelor than would be the State, under the circumstances. The Governor himself, of course, might enter upon an investigation as to the truth of the allegations contained in Mr. Boddie's letter and the falseness of those contained in the affidavits of Edwards and Batchelor and under proper conditions withdraw the State advance to the children, certainly with refer-ence to future advances. Nash County, however, should enforce its own rights in the premises with reference to past payments. The presumption of 62 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL law, of course, in the absence of any investigation by the Governor, is that the affidavits supplied him are correct. BXTEADITION—FUGITIVE FROM JUSTICE November 24, 1926. In the matter of the extradition of H. A. W. Smith. We think that the Governor would be justified in refusing to honor the requisition in this case for two reasons : (1) It appears from Smith's evidence and the evidence of his daughter, Mrs. Evans, that his wife, now resident in New Jersey, and whom he is al-leged to have abandoned, voluntarily separated herself from him previous to his leaving the State of New Jersey. This being true, there was not an abandonment, either in law or in fact. (2) The alleged abandonment occurred in September, 1917. A short time previous to this, as above said, Mrs. Smith separated herself from her hus-band and refused to live with him. He came to North Carolina soon after-wards and on charges of non-support he went back to New Jersey in 1919 and there undertook to pay his wife $7.00 a week, bu:t without in any way assum-ing his marital relations with her. she still refusing to live with him. There-upon he came back to his home in North Carolina and continued to send her these payments from time to time until some time in 1921. After returning to North Carolina, and residence in the State for a period of five years, he brought an action for divorce against his wife, Helen M. Smith. This action was commenced April 28. 1924. In the same year after service of process by publication, final judgment was obtained in the Superior Court of New Han-over County dissolving the bonds of matrimony which had heretofore existed between H. A. W. Smith and Helen M. Smith. The decree was entered at the May Term, 1924, of the above court. The effect of this decree so far as the State of North Carolina is concerned was to remove all obligations on the part of H. A. W. Smith to support his former wife. Under circumstances of this kind we think that in addition to the fact that Smith had committed no crime, he was not a fugitive from justice within the meaning of the Federal Constitution and Statute. We, therefore, advise as hereinbefore said that the requisition in this case be not honored, it being apparent that it is an attempt to enforce against Smith an alleged pecuniary obligation on the part of his wife when that obligation has not existed, cer-tainly since the decree of divorce obtained by him against her. Statutes—Interpketation March 3, 1927. House Bill 257, after passing the House, passed also the Senate and was ratified on February 11, 1927. The object of this bill was to exempt certain legacies of the Union Theological Seminary of Richmond, Va., from inher-itance tax. It did not accomplish that purpose on account of its wording, which was as follows : Or charitable corporations (not conducted for profit) domes-ticated in this State, and at least one-fourth of the property so BIENNIAL REPORT OP THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 63 passiug is for the benefit of the inhabitants of the State of North Carolina. Though a gift to the Union Theological Seminary for purposes incident to its organization would be a gift to a charitable purpose, yet that institution, though a corporation organized under the laws of Virginia, is in no sense a charitable corporation. House Bill 1178, Senate Bill 236, has been ratified as a public law today, March 3, 1927. That act rewrites the proviso in the third sub-section of Sec-tion 6 of the Revenue Act of 1925, as follows : Provided, that no tax be imposed or collected under this sec-tion on legacies or property, passing by will or otherwise, or by the laws of this State, to religious, educational or charitable corporations not conducted for profit, incorporated in this State, or to such foreign corporations receiving and disbursing funds donated in this State for religious, educational or charitable pur-poses. This provision shall apply to all such legacies or property passing by will or by the laws of this State since March twelve, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-five : Provided, that this shall not apply to cases where the tax has already been paid. It is entirely clear that the latter act controls the situation and in express terms meets the objection that the Union Theological Seminary is not a charitable corporation, for it applies not only to so-called charitable cor-porations but also to religious and educational corporations. So far, there-fore, as the Union Theological Seminary is concerned, or other corporations designated either as religious or educational corporations, the latter act not only controls, but is in no sense modified by the former act. It is true that laws enacted particularly at the same session of the Legislature upon the same subject are to be construed together, with the former act modified only so far as it is necessary to effectuate the purpose of the latter act. Whether or not as to distinctively charitable corporations the enactment of the act of February 11. 1927, has any effect upon the act of March 3rd is not material to the present discussion. It is clear, for the reasons hereinbe-fore stated, that the Union Theological Seminary, and all corporations of the same class of all the churches, are taken care of in the latter bill. State's Prison—Eminent Domain March 19, 1927. The question propounded by you to this office may be stated thus : Can the State Prison, if negotiations are unsuccessful in purchasing land under the recent act of the Legislature, exercise the power of eminent domain to ob-tain it? Under the Amendment of 1923, Chapter 205. Public Laws, it is clear that the State Prison may condemn land if it is found necessary to do so. Stated, so far as applicable to the instant case, the statute is as follows : The right of eminent domain may be exercised by any educa-tional, penal, hospital or other institution incorporated or char-tered by the State of North Carolina for the furtherance of any of its purposes if such institution shall be in need of adjacent land for necessary enlargement or extension, and shall so declare 64 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENEKAi^ through its board of directors, trustees or other governing boards by resolution inserted in the minutes at a regular meeting or spe-cial meeting called for that purpose ; such institution shall have all powers, rights and privileges of eminent domain given under Chapter 38 of the Consolidated Statutes of 1919 to condemn and procure such laud, and shall follow the procedure estab-lished in such chapter. Board of Health—Investigation April 30. 1927. On April 15th, I submitted report to you in response to your request of March 11th vpith regard to reported charges of graft against employees of the State Board of Health. That request from you was as follows : I respectfully request that you ascertain the particular nature and character of the charges of graft against certain employees of the Board, and if the evidence submitted to you in your opin-ion justifies it, that you proceed at once to make a thorough investigation. Your letter was accompanied by one from Dr. Charles O. H. Laughinghouse, Secretary of the State Board of Health, in which he stated : The Board will appreciate your requesting Dr. John B. Wright and Senator Rivers Johnson to submit to you such proof of charges of graft and inefficiency as they may possess or be able to procure. The Board requests that evidence relating to charges of graft, as indicated above, be submitted to the Attorney Greneral by your-self, with directions for a careful investigation. I proceeded with the inquiry in accordance with your request, based upon the letter of Dr. Laughinghouse. Upon request from me, Dr. Wright came to my office. He stated that he had made no charges of graft against the Board or any of its officers or employees, but had stated that Senator Rivers John-son of Duplin County, had made such charges on the floor of the Senate on Monday, March 7th. On March 23rd I addressed a letter to Senator Johnson, informing him of your request and asked him for any statement that he desired to make on the subject. On March 24th he replied that he would be here on the following day. He called at this office late in the afternoon of March 25th, when I was in conference with Governor Doughton at the Revenue Department Building. I was notified by my office that Senator Johnson had called, and found him a few minutes thereafter. I was expecting to leave town in a short while, but told him I would stay over the night for a conference with him. He stated that he had another engagement at that time and wanted to return home that evening, but would probably be back in Raleigh the following week. On March 29th I again wrote Senator Johnson, telling him that I would be out of the office Friday and Saturday of that week, but would be glad to have him submit any written statement that he might desire. He has not submitted such statement. Statements made in debates in the General Assembly are of a highly priv-ileged character. Our State Constitution does not contain a provision sim-ilar to that of the Federal Constitution, that "for any speech or debate in BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 65 either house they shall not questioned in any other place." But that lack (Joes not afiEect or lessen the vigor of the fundamental principles upon which our Government is based. It is not within your or my right or power to engage in any form of procedure which would call in question the acts of Senator Johnson or any other member of the General Assembly while en-gaged in the performance of their duties. In addition to the inquiry made of Dr. Wright and Senator Johnson, I had correspondence and interviews with probably fifteen other persons prior to April 15th. As stated to you in my report of April 15th, no charges of graft have been submitted to me, and I have been unable to elicit any information or evidence upon which an investigation could proceed under the limitations contained in the request of Dr. Laughinghouse to you and your letter to me. But another development has taken place from which I am of opinion yoa could well request an investigation of broader scope and less limited in its procedure. The press on March 21st, contained the news that the House of Delegates of the Medical Society of the State had on the preceding day in its session in Durham, adopted a resolution asking you to request me to proceed further with the investigation. On April 27th I addressed a letter to Dr. J. T. Burrus of High Point, newly elected President of the Society, asking him for a full transcript of the proceedings of the Society which have relation to this matter. I have not yet heard from Dr. Burrus in response to my letter of April 27th. On yesterday I received from another source, copy of the resolution referred to. The material part of that resolution is as follows : Be it resolved, that this House of Delegates do respectfully re-quest the Governor of North Carolina to repeat his request of the Attorney General and respectfully insist upon a thorough investi-gation by the summoning of such persons as have or may have knowledge of the taking of graft by certain officers of the State Board of Health and by requiring such persons to be placed under oath and to testify as to their knowledge of the aforesaid charges, in order that any person found guilty of such charges may be pun-ished and the fair reputation of the North Carolina State Board of Health placed above reproach. I am of opinion that the investigation should proceed in accordance with the request of the State Medical Society. Your request of March 11th to me was in line and in accordance with the letter of Dr. Laughinghouse to you. The resolution of the State Medical Society is entirely different. In accord-ance with the letter of Dr. Laughinghouse to you and yours to me, I have conducted the inquiry for information, evidence or charges of graft, but without result. If it meets with your approval I can, as requested by the Society, subpoena all persons whose names have in any way been connected with the matter, and have them testify before me under oath. I think also that the investigation should take a wider scope than as to simply whether there has been gx'aft in the State Board of Health in the en-forcement of the sanitary privy law. Suggestions reach me that the law has been enforced with undue hardship, oppression and arbitrariness. An inves-tigation to ascertain if there has been graft would not include this feature, but I think that I should be permitted to receive evidence of this nature as well, and that the investigation should take such scope as developments may warrant. 66 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL I should be glad to go into it in this way if authorized to do so by you. If an investigation along these lines is to be authorized, I would like to enter upon it during the week of May 9th, as I have no engagements for that week. Cl^IM—W. H. WOKTH May 6, 1927. The General Assembly of 1927 passed an act, Chapter 238, entitled, "An act to provide for the determination of certain claims by the Governor and Council of State." Under that act claim has been presented to the State Auditor by William H. Worth, former Treasurer of the State, asking for re-imbursement of the sum of $12,060.04 paid by him into the State Treasury on account of embezzlement of State funds by his clerk, one W. H. Martin. I am asked by you and the Council of State for an opinion as to your and its power under this act. Under the act the General Assembly has committed to the judgment and discretion of the Governor and Council of State the power and duty of de-termining from all the facts and circumstances whether in propriety, good conscience or morals the money should be paid to Mr. Worth. Assuming that the facts are as stated in the application filed by him, I am of opinion that the Governor and Council of State have the legal right to direct the State Auditor to issue his warrant to Mr. Worth for this money. I am further of the opinion that it is unnecessary to make an allocation out of the emergency appropriation for this purpose, as Chapter 238, Public Laws of 1927, directs the payment "out of any funds in the State Treasury not otherwise appropriated." Members of the General Assembly—Privilege May 7, 1927. This is not, and cannot be, an investigation of any thing said in debate in the General Assembly. Therefore, I am not issuing a subpoena to compel the attendance of Senator Johnson at the hearing on May 12. The United States Constitution, Article I, Section 8, provides in respect of members of Congress : "And for any speech or debate in either House they shall not be questioned in any other place." A provision of like import is in every American state constitution except those of North Carolina, South Carolina, Mississippi, Texas, California and Nevada. Gushing in his work on Law and Practice of Legislative Assemblies, Section 602, says that these provisions are unnecessary and that the privilege thus conferred is equally complete without them. However that may be, the principle is in full vigor here. It is contained in a legislative enactment, II C. S. 6093, which in part is as follows : The members shall have freedom of speech and debate in the General Assembly, and shall not be liable to impeachment or question, in any court or place out of the General Assembly, for words therein spoken. This enactment goes back to Chapter 277, Laws of 1787, and has been brought forward in every general compilation of the statutes since that time. BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 67 The privilege thus granted comes down from the long and bitter struggle of our English ancestors for civil liberty. In that contest human rights found their best defender in the House of Commons, the popular branch of the English Parliament. From the earliest times the leaders of the people insisted upon freedom of speech in the Parliament itself. They realized that vpithout such freedom all other rights would be insecure or unattainable. Such freedom is essential to the independence of a legislative body and to the untrammeled and un-coerced discharge of their duties by its members. The right was constantly asserted and continually violated in the early days. Its most outrageous violation precipitated the civil war between Charles I and the Parliament. In his "History of the English Parliament," Barnett Smith says : On January 4, 1642. there was enacted the most memorable scene ever witnessed in the House of Commons. On that day Charles, at the head of several hundred soldiers, marched to the Parliament Building with the avowed purpose of arresting five of the Parliamentary leaders, Hampden, Pym, Holies, Haselrigg and Strode, on the charge of treason, based largely upon resolutions and debates of the House in which they had participated. He failed of his purpose only because they had absented themselves on learning of his approach. As he retired in baffled rage, the cry of "Privilege!" arose from the members around him. Six days later he left London to begin the civil war which ended with his death. The battle was not completely won for this freedom of debate until another English king had been dethi'oned. In 1689 by the Bill of Rights it was finally declared : That the freedom of speech, and debates and proceedings in Parliament, ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament. The principle thus declared is as deeply embedded within the structure of our civil institutions, as the right of trial by jury for felony. Another principle becomes apposite here. North Carolina Constitution, Article I, Section 8, says : The Legislative, executive and supreme judicial powers of the government ought to be forever separate and distinct from each other. Under our Constitution, the Legislative Department is the residuum of all power not otherwise conferred or retained. The members of the General Assembly are the direct representatives of the people. The Executive De-partment is without power or right to inquire into or investigate the actions, debates or proceedings in either House. There is not a Supreme Court in America which would hold that such an investigation might be prosecuted. This privilege is conferred, not for the personal benefit of the legislator. It was fought for and won, and remains as part of our law, so that legisla-tors may perform their duties without fear of consequences. It is more than a privilege of the senator or representative : it is a prohibition upon others — upon me. 68 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL To use any compulsory process to secure the attendance of Senator Johnson before me in this investigation would be a violation of this freedom so hardly won and so long existent. I have heretofore asked Senator Johnson to fur-nish me with any statement he desired to make on the subject. I am today notifying him that I will enter upon the investigation May 12, and that he may attend and testify if he so wishes. If he appears, it must be freely and voluntarily, and without any attempted compulsion on the part of any mem-ber of the Executive Department. Throughout my handling of this matter I have proceeded upon the idea that these principles were so well established and so well known that they did not need restatement. Apparently, I was mistaken. Quite probably this is so because no need for the application has arisen within recent years. But it is necessary that we recall them, and their history, and that I act upon them. I shall do so. Governor McLean does not ask or expect me to do otherwise. Constitutional Law—Public Services September 3, 1927. In re Grant to Joseph P. Enapp The law which deals with the grant to Joseph P. Knapp is Chapter 229 of the Public Local Laws of 1927. Section 1 thereof is plainly mandatory. The words of the first clause thereof being as follows: That the Secretary of State be and is hereby authorized and directed to issue, etc., etc. These words we think are equivalent to shall. There is nothing in Section 29 of Article 2 of the Constitution to prohibit this legislation. While it is a special privilege within the meaning of the Constitution, yet the General Assembly directs the grant in consequence of recited public services by Mr. Knapp. Consequently we think the act is valid and that there is no avoiding executing the grant in obedience thereto. Extradition—Civil Contempt September 10, 1927. The letter of Mrs. Annie M. Price to you presents a pitiful story and I wish that some way could be found by which her former husband could be made to support his children. It seems that in proceedings brought in the Court of Lawrenceville, Bruns-wick County, Virginia, for non-support, W. B. Price, the husband of your correspondent and the father of the children, was ordered to pay $75.00 per month for the support of the children until 1929. He paid this amount for only three months, then left the state of Virginia and since has resided in Kings Mountain, North Carolina. There are two difficulties in the way of any action against Price by the state, either of Virginia or North Carolina. First, the failure to pay this was in all probability what is known as a civil contempt as distinguished from a criminal contempt and extradition does not lie for such offenses and, second, BIENNIAL REI'ORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 69 even if we should assume that his failure to continue these payments was a crime, he probably committed the crime in North Carolina and consequently could not be a fugitive from justice. Mrs. Price, however, if he is solvent, could bring a civil action against him in North Carolina based on this judg-ment of the Virginia Court and compel him to pay the defaulting installments. To do this, she would be compelled to employ counsel in Cleveland County. University of North Carolina—Appropriation September 15, 1927. In re Permanent Improvement Appropriation 1927—University of North Carolina I am in receipt of your letter of September 13 on this subject. By Chapter 147 of 1927 the General Assembly appropriated for permanent improvements at the University $1,220,000.00. The specific objects for which appropriations were made included Peabody Hall Wing, New Dormitory and Improvement of Grounds. The appropriation does not itself name the amounts to be used for each object, but the amoiuits for these three as calculated by the approp-riation Committee were as follows : Peabody Hall Wing $95,000.00 New Dormitory .- -.- $80,000.00 Improvement of Grounds '. $15,000.00 The University officials budgeted this appropriation under Chapter 230 of 1925. In doing so it made no allocation at all for the Peabody Hall Wing and the New Dormitory and allocated $112,000.00 for Improvement of Grounds. There are other changes in the alloca^tion from that as calculated by the Appropriation Committee, but these are of less consequence than the three mentioned. Upon this you ask my opinion as to whether you should as Director of the Budget, approve the allocations so made and budgeted. Under Chapter 230 of 1925 it is required that each institution in preparing its budget shall follow "as nearly as may be" the itemized requests submitted by the institution for appropriations "and upon which the appropriation was calculated and made." Further "it shall be the duty of the Director of the Budget to see that all money appropriated for either permanent improvements or maintenance shall be expended in strict accordance with the budget of each institution and the appropriations made by the General Assembly for such purpose." The Act contains other language of similar import which can readily be seen from a reading of it. I am. therefore, of opinion that the Budget if so made out is not in accord-ance with the Act on the subject and, therefore, that you would be disre-garding Chapter 230 of 1925 in approving it. In saying this I do not mean to hold that there could not be necessary and reasonable variations between the amount originally calculated and finally budgeted and spent for a partic-ular object. Section 2 of Chapter 230 takes care of that in the requirement that the Budget allocations shall he "as nearly as may be" the calculation upon which the appropriation was made. These necessary and reasonable variations are, of course, in the first instance for determination by the Trus-tees of the University and finally for yourself in giving approval to its Bud- 70 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL get within tlie scope of your duties as director of tlie Budget. However, such variations do not justify leaving out of the Budget the two items for which no allocation has therein been made. I am also of opinion that the same reasoning applies to an increase in the item of Improvement of Grounds from $15,000.00 to $112,000.00. Claims Against United States September 16, 1927. I have examined carefully the papers enclosed in the letter of Mr. Samuel Spencer Jackson to you under date of September 6, 1927. The contract made by Governor Caldwell and D. A. Jenkins, Treasurer, with J. J. Jackson more than fifty-three years ago is, cf course, not operative now. It is a kind of contract which involved personal skill to a certain extent and so was not assignable. Governor Aycock's letter of February 14, 1903, renewed the con-tract so far as Mr. S. S. Jackson was concerned, by substituting him for his father, J. J. Jackson, in the matter so far as the moral aspect of the ques-tion is concerned. You will observe, however, that Governor Aycock ex-pressly disclaims authority to make a new contract. As nothing has been done, however, under this promise of Governor Aycock, we think the matter is again at large and that you have authority, vmder Section 3 of Chapter 207, Public Laws of 1925, to make any contract for the collection of this claim with Mr. Jackson, himself, or any other attorney. So far as we have been able to discover there are only two contracts out-standing at the present time made by the State looking to the collection of claims against the federal government. As you know, soon after the Civil War, the federal government levied a direct tax upon certain classes of property, including cotton, and that this tax was held unconstitutional as not complying with the federal Constitution in relation to direct taxes. On March 9, 1921, Governor Morrison made a contract with Winston and Win-ston (R. W. Winston, of Raleigh) to look after the interests of the citizens of North Carolina in the refund of this direct tax upon cotton. On July 10, 1914, Governor Craig made a contract vnth. Robert H. McNeill and Adrian Sizer, of Washington, D. C, in relation to the collection of claims against the United States growing out of expenses incurred by the State of North Carolina in raising troops and equipping them for the War of 1812-15 and similar claims arising out of the Spanish American War of 1898. These are all the contracts between the State and attorneys in relation to these matters that we have been able to discover. You will, therefore, ob-serve that the particular matter in which Mr. Jackson is interested is not included in either of the other contracts. Insane—Federal Prison September 19, 1927. In re Bessie Gregory We do not know that we can add anything further which would be helpful to you than what we have said heretofore, opinion to be found at page 95 of the Biennial Report of this office, 1924-26. BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 71 Mr. Finney, Assistant Secretary of the Interior, in his letter of August 15, 1927, again refers to IS Statutes 251. This was enacted on June 23, 1874 and deals with an entirely different situation from that presented in Bessie Gregory's case. She was convicted in the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of North Carolina. She was sentenced to the State's Prison at Lansing, Kansas. She was not insane at the time of the sentence, else she would not have been convicted of the crime charged against her. She became insane then while a United States prisoner in a State's prison. She was transferred from that State's Prison to Saint Elizabeth's Hospital in the District of Columbia as a Federal insane prisoner. This transfer was made under page 251 referred to above, an Act approved June 23, 1874. The United States government in doing this chose one of the alternatives pre-sented in this Act. The other alternative w^as that the Attorney General of the United States, if there was no room in Saint Elizabeth's Hospital, might contract with any State insane or lunatic asylum for the care of this insane convict and under such circumstances the insane convict might be transferred to the State institution selected. If this was done, then the United States was required to pay such amounts as the Attorney General of the United States might deem just and reasonable for the cost of the care of the insane convict. This authority to pay the costs, however, could not extend beyond the term of the imprisonment of the insane convict. This latter alternative, as hereinbefore said, was not adopted by the Federal government, but the woman was transferred to the hospital in the District of Columbia. We think, therefore, that Bessie Gregory, under the statute quoted in the former opinion, she still being insane, is a proper charge for the Federal government and cannot, for that reason, be transferred to any hos-pital in North Carolina, she having become insane while a convict in the custody of the United States government. In the former opinion, as you will see upon referring to it. we dealt with the contention that the purpose stated in the appropriation Act of March 3, 1925, could in any way increase the liability of the State of North Carolina for the care of this insane con-vict. We, however, suggested that the authorities in Washington could take the opinion of the Attorney General of the United States on this point and if that opinion was adverse to the position therein taken by us, then Bessie Gregory might be transferred at the expense of the United States from the Saint Elizabeth's Hospital to the hospital at Goldsboro, she being a colored woman. See Compiled Statutes of 1918, Section 9319 to Section 9323 in-clusive. Special Agents—Authority of Governor September 21, 1927. Tou submit to me report of Mr. E. B. Bridges, Pardon Commissioner, who at your request investigated the actions of the mob in Louisburg, September 12 and 14. There has also come to your attention flogging of individuals by bands of men in Wake and possibly other counties. Because of these condi-tions you submit to me certain inquiries which may be summarized as follows : (1) What power does the Governor have to employ special agents to investigate such conditions, ferret out and apprehend 72 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL the offenders, and what authority does he have to offer rewards for such purposes? (2) If the power to do this exists, in what cases of offenses should it be exercised? It is well to go back to constitutional principles. The Governor is vested with "the supreme executive power of the State." Constitution, Article 3, section 1. He "shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Constitution, Article 3. section 7. "The Governor shall be Commander-in-chief, and shall have the power to call out the militia to execute the law, suppress riots or insurrections, and to repel invasions." Constitution, Article 12. section 3. In these provisions there is more of the spirit controlling the exercise of executive authority than direction as to how that power shall be used. The actualities growing out of its development should be kept in mind in construing the statutes giving specific authority to the Governor. He may not interfere in the ordinary administration of justice. The courts must pass upon the guilt or innocence of persons accused of crime and generally upon indictment by a grand jury. Ours is a government of separated powers and "the legislative, executive and supreme judicial powers of tlie govei'n-ment ought to be forever separate and distinct from each other." Consti-tution, Article 1, section 8. Primarily, it is for local officials to ferret out crime and for the solicitors to prosecute. i\.nd yet. there are cases in which the State in its corporate capacity should take part. Under C. S. 7636 the Governor is authorized "to supervise the official conduct of all executive and ministerial officers." Under C. S. 4554 the Governor may employ special agents and offer rewards in certain cases. That section is as follows : Governor may employ agents, and offer rewards. The governor, on information made to him of any person, whether the name of such person be known or unknown, having committed a felony or other infamous crime within the state, and of having fled out of the jurisdiction thereof, or who conceals himself within the state to avoid arrest, or who, having been convicted, has escaped and cannot otherwise be apprehended, may either employ a spe-cial agent, with a sufficient escort, to pursue and apprehend such fugitive, or issue his proclamation, and therein offer a reward, not exceeding four hundred dollars, according to the nature of the case, as in his opinion may be sufficient for the purpose, to be paid to him who shall apprehend and deliver the fugitive to such person and at such place as in the proclamation shall be directed." The practice with respect to the offer of rewards by executive authority is well established and needs no comment here other than to say that the offer of a reward by the State is not dependent upon similar action by any-one else or any sub-division of the State. Tlie construction of the act with respect to the employment of special agents is of more difficulty. Reading the section with respect to this, it Is as follows : The governor, on information made to him of any person, whether the name of such person be known or unknown, having committed a felony or other infamous crime within the state BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 73 * * * who conceals himself within the state to avoid arrest * * * may * * * employ a special agent * * * to pursue and apprehend such fugitive. It will be noted that the action of the Governor in employing a special agent or offering a reward is limited to those cases where a felony or other infamous crime has been committed. It is clear also that this is to be done only where the offender conceals himself, cannot be found or arrested, and there are difficulties in the effort to apprehend him. Report of Attorney General, 1909-10, page 125. For your convenience copy of this opinion is herewith sent. By C. S. 4376 conspiracy to enter a jail for the purpose of killing or other-wise injuring prisoners confiued therein is made a felony, punished by a maximum imprisonment of fifteen yeai's in the State's Prison. Upon the report made to you by Mr. Bridges in the Franklin County matter, I ad-vise that you have authority under C. S. 4.554 to employ a special agent to investigate the affair with a view to ferreting out and apprehending the offender. May you employ special counsel to prosecute in such a case? Section 3, Chapter 207, Public Laws of 1925, gives you authority to employ special counsel "in any case, civil or criminal, in any court in the State * * * ^j. in any other matter, thing, or controversy, of whatever nature or kind, in which the State of North Carolina is interested." I, therefore, advise you that you do have power to employ special counsel to prosecute in any criminal case arising in the courts of the State. In what felonies or other infamous crimes you will employ special agents or offer rewards under C. S. 4554, or in what criminal cases you will employ special counsel to prosecute under the act of 1925 is largely for your judg-ment. That judgment should be controlled by the attendant circumstances and conditions. You will observe that offering rewards and employing spe-cial agents is limited to felonies or other infamous crimes. The employ-ment of special counsel is not so limited. Certainly, it is not intended that you should offer rewards, employ special agents or special counsel as a usual thing. It is only upon extraordinary occasions or in cases of special significance that you should thus act. The Franklin County affair is one not of the usual kind although no murder or other capital offense was committed. Always, where action depends upon the exercise of judgment, there will be cases in which it is clear that action should, or should not, be taken, and others along the border-line about which there will be difference of opinion. The Franklin County affair is one which in my opinion, there can be no doubt about your authority to offer a reward or to employ a special agent and special counsel. The taking of a prisoner from the custody of the law and lynching him, or the attempt to do so, by armed bodies of men is an offense against the majesty and dignity of the State. It is an assault upon government itself; it is an attack upon the authority of all law. If per-mitted, it will break down the social order and destroy the power of the State to perform its first duty to its citizenship. In a peculiar sense, there-fore, it becomes the duty of the State to punish those who commit this kind of offense. The general administration of the law must be left in the hands of local oflScials with whom it is placed. It is a physical impossibility for the Gov- 74 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ernor to intervene in all of the cases in which his power to do so may exist. The English speaking peoples have a passion for local self-government and local control of their affairs. Quite frequently the Governor has offered re-wards for the apprehension of fugitives from justice. It is only in extreme cases that the executive authority has gone further than this. The authority to employ special agents has existed for many years but has seldom been used by preceding Governors. The act of 1925 broadens the power of the Governor to employ special counsel. Always, there will be difficulty in deciding in what cases special agents or special counsel will be employed. Giving significance to our constitutional provisions, the inherent principles of our governmental structure, and the past and approved practice of the Executive Department. I am of opinion that the power should be exercised in caution and with moderation. There can be no doubt that there is full justification for such action by the Governor in those cases where a lynching occurs, or where an attempt is made to take a prisoner from the custody of officers. State Fair—Act of 1927 October 6, 1927. Section 1 of Chapter 209, Public Laws of 1927, is as follows : That for the purpose of the holding annually of a State Fair and exposition which will properly represent the agricultural, manufacturing, industrial and other interests of the State of North Carolina, there is hereby dedicated and set apart two hun-dred acres of land owned by the State or any department thereof within five miles of the State Capitol, the particular acreage to be selected, set apart, and approved by the Governor and Coun-cil of State of North Cai'olina. The remaining sections of said act deal with the appointment of directors for the State Fair, the conditions upon which "the dedication and setting apart" of the two hundred acres of land above referred to is predicated, and avithorization to the City of Raleigh and the North Carolina Agricul-tural Society to set over and deliver certain property to the State in furth-erance of the objects of the act. You ask my opinion as to whether "the Governor and Council of State are bound to (a) set aside at least two hundred acres, and (b) set aside lands owned by the State at the time of the enactment of the law, or if they can, if they determine it is for the best interest of the State, provide for the pur-chase of a tract of land not then owned by the State. I am of opinion that the Legislature has by the act fixed the size of the tract to be so set aside by the Governor and Council of State at two hun-dred acres. I am further of opinion that the Governor and Council of State are not authorized by the act to select for the site of the State Fair any land other than that owned by the State or some department thereof at time of the passage of the act and situated within five miles of the State Capitol. By section 1 of the act the General Assembly itself "dedicated and set apart two hundred acres of land owned by the State or any department thereof within five miles of the State Capitol" for this purpose. The actual selec-tion of the land is left to the Governor and Council of State. Whatever BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 75 may have been the thought of some members of the General Assembly at the time the act was passed, it clearly has reference to land then owned by the State, and it would do violence to the language used to give it any other construction. This construction is further supported by the fact that neither this nor any other act of the 1927 General Assembly gives authority to the Governor and Council of State to purchase any land for the State Fair. Nor is there any appropriation made for such purchase. Surely, if the General Assembly had intended a purchase by the State for this pui-pose, it would have given authorization for that purchase to the Governor and Council of State, and provided the necessary funds. It has done neither. Authority to purchase cannot be found in the act, where the authority is limited to select, set apart and approve an acreage out of lands owned by the State or any department thereof. Lynching—Liability of County January 7, 1928. In reply to your letter of January 5th, enclosing letter from Honorable Leon M. Bazile, Assistant Attorney General of Virginia, which latter letter is returned herewith. Since March 6, 1893, which was the effective date of Chapter 461 of the laws of that year, the following section of the law has been in force In North Carolina and is brought forward in the Consolidated Statutes of 1919 as Section 3945: When the sheriff of any county has good reason to believe that the jail of his county is in danger of being broken or entered for the purpose of killing or injuring a prisoner placed by the law in his custody it shall be his duty at once to call on the commission-ers of the county or some one of them for a sufficient guard for the jail, and in such case, if the commissioner or commission-ers fail to authorize the employment of necessary guards to pro-tect the jail, and by reason of such failure the jail is entered and a prisoner killed, the county wherein whose jail the prisoner is confined shall be responsible in damages to be recovered by the personal representatives of the prisoner thus killed, by action be-gun and prosecuted before the Superior Court of any county in this State. State Automobile—Indemnity Insurance January 25, 1928. I have examined carefully the policy issued to you and the State of North Carolina by the United States Casualty Company. That policy is issued by the Company as a protection to the State and you in the operation of the automobile assigned to you by the State. The automobile is State property and the chauffeur is a State employee. In consequence of this, the policy is made, by a rider attached thereto, not an indemnity to the State but an outright insurance for the benefit of all persons and property, up to the limit fixed in the policy, for injuries or damage. Your own individual liability arising from the negligent operation of this automobile is confined strictly to instances in which you have been personally negligent. The policy in the instant case, then, is, I think, an indemnity to you. In other words, so far 76 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL as you personally are concerned, the liability of the Company is secondary to your liability. I think that therefore, to this extent, you are protected by the policy as well as the State. The rider attached, which changes the form of the insurance, relates only to the State. Consequently, the policy remains still an indemnity policy for you personally. United States—Contra-Accounts January 26, 1928. You inquire what State officer or Department has authority to bind the State in relation to the settlement of contra-accounts between the State and the United States Government. The latter owns certain bonds of the State, which bonds come within the class, the payment of which was commuted under the Act of 1879, the prin-cipal thereof amounting to $58,000, and the unpaid coupons to $88,140, and the State of North Carolina has two claims against the United States Gov-ernment, (a) for advances during the War of 812 and (b) for the proceeds of cotton seized by the United States, whose value at the time of the seizure was $42,532.54. This amount is to bear interest at the same rate as the said bonds now held by the United States Government. In the settlement it is said that the State of North Carolina will be entitled to a substantial balance. In section 27 of Chapter 270, Laws of 1869, in defining the powers and duties of the Governor, among other things it is said, "He is the sole official organ between the Government of this State and other States, or the Gov-ernment of the United States." That Statute in this particular has been brought forward in the Consoli-dated Statutes as sub-section 4 of Section 7636. It is remarkable in the fact that he is made the sole official organ. Webster defines organ as "an instru-ment or medium by which some important action is performed, or important end accomplished ; legislatures, courts, armies, tax gatherers, etc., are organs of government." We are not aware of any instance in which this authority of the Governor has been directly invoked in the history of the State, certainly since the administration of Governor Holden. It seems to us that the conditions surrounding the proposed settlement peculiarly permit the invoking of this authority so conferred upon the (Governor, to a full and complete settlement of the matter, through and by him, acting as the sole official organ of the State in thus negotiating between two, in this regard, independent sover-eignties. There can be no claim that the authority so exercised with the permission of the Legislature would be unconstitutional, for section 1 of Article III of the Constitution declares (among other things), "The Executive Depart-ment shall consist of a Governor, in whom shall be vested the supreme executive power of the State." The Governor's functions in making this settlement are clearly executive and not at all legislative or judicial. Leg-islation declares what shall be the rule of action for the future ; the execu-tive power deals with present facts. So we conclude, without further dis-cussion, that you have authority under the Statute to make the settlement and execute receipt to the United States Government in the settlement, which would be binding upon the State. biennial report op the attorney general 77 Boundary Between North and South Carolina January 28, 1928. In re boundary between North and South Carolina. In 1735, Commissioners under the appointment of two provinces, Nortli and South Carolina, did run the line between these provinces. It began at the sea thirty miles southwest of the mouth of the Cape Fear River. Its course from that point was directly northwest to the thirty-fifth parallel of north latitude ; thence due west to the South Sea. If, before reaching the thirty-fifth parallel, it came within five miles of the Pee Dee River, it should then run parallel with the Pee Dee River until it did reach the thirty-fifth degree. The line that was run in this way, of course, went far beyond any dispute in the existing Brunswick County, indeed, through Brunswick, Columbus, and Robeson Counties this line was and is necessarily a northwest-south-east line. You will find a map of this survey in 11 Colonial Records, page 80. In 1915, Chapter 188 of the Public Laws, the Governor of this State was authorized to appoint a commissioner and a sufticient number of chain bearers to act with commissioner and chain bearers appointed by the State of South Carolina and re-run and re-mark the boundary line between the State of North Carolina and the State of South Carolina from the Atlantic Ocean to the Waccamaw River, a distance of about eight miles. Chapter 166. Public Laws of 1919, amended the Act of 1915 by requiring the commissioners, when appointed, to extend the line beyond the "Waccamaw River to Lumber River, a point on the State Line, a corner of the dividing line between Columbus and Robeson Counties. The report of the commis-sioners and their tracing of the line was required to be filed in the office of the Secretary of State, and certified copies of the tracing must be certi-fied to the Registers of Deeds for record in Brunswick and Columbus Counties. The matter was brought to the attention of Governor Bickett in February, 1920, and we had supposed that he had acted under these laws and that the line had been properly delimitated. It seems that the beginning point on the Atlantic Ocean, where the original commissioners placed a supposedly permanent monument could, if that monu-ment has disappeared, be easily determined by a reverse survey, as the line through these counties was a true northwest-southeast line. Of course if neither Governor Bickett nor Governor Morrison has acted in the matter, you yourself have plenary authority to act now. Bank Receiverships—Authority of Gove^inor February 11, 1928. In the matter of State Banks in the liands of receivers. I have again considered the authority of any Department or officer of the State Government to intervene in receivership proceedings against insolvent State Banks before the Act of 1927 became effective. As I told you orally, I think it is a necessary corollary from the authority given the Corporation Commission in Section 17 of Chapter 4 of the Public 78 BIENNIAL REPORT OF. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Laws of 1921 that that body may and indeed should see that receiverships instituted by it are properly conducted to a just and fair conclusion. It is, under that Section, a party plaintiff to the action, and being such, it has authority to see that a receivership is in all particulars conducted according to law, not of its own authority, but from its right as a party to the action to apply to the Court to make necessary orders in the control of the receiver and his conduct in relation to the fund. Where, however, a receiver is appointed in an action initiated by the de-positors or stockholders of a bank, I think the better view is that only the parties to the action have any right to suggest to the Court any necessary order relating to the management of the funds of the bank by the receiver. The reasons for this conclusion I suggested in my letter of January 28th on this subject. I know of no principle of law or equity which would enable the State to intervene in a private action because of some general policy when the Leg-islature itself had not acted upon this conception of public policy and author-ized such intervention in the case of State banks. I think it entirely proper for you, as Governor of the State, to suggest to the Judges holding civil courts in the State the wisdom of exercising more effective supervision and control over these receiverships. One method which the Judges can adopt, if they choose, without additional legislation, is to require of Clerks of the Superior Courts a calendar of receivership cases then pending upon the civil docket of such court to be presented to the Judge at the opening of each civil term in the county. He might, in doing this, require a short history of the case so that he can readily perceive whether any action should be taken by him. This, of course, is a mere suggestion to be considered by you in determining whether you shall take any action in the matter. In cases where the Corporation Commission, before the Act of 1927, under Section 17 of the Act of 1921, applied to the Court for the appointment of a receiver of an insolvent State Bank and said Commission has not funds to pay the cost of taking an active part in seeing that such receiverships are properly conducted and properly closed, then your authority under the emergency appropriation bill could be invoked to pay the expenses of such investigation. Public Officers—Double Office Holding February IS, 1928. A trustee of the North Carolina State College of Agriculture and Engi-neering is a public officer, as has been determined by the Supreme Court of North Carolina in Clark v. Stanley, 66 N. C, at page 65. Membership on the State Board of Agriculture is also plainly a public of-fice. If, therefore, you appoint a trustee of the State College a member of the Board of Agriculture, and he qualifies as such member, then his office as trustee of the State College is forfeited thereby. Statute—Great Smoky Mountain Park Act March 8, 1928. On yesterday, you submitted to me a memorandum containing a number of questions in relation to the recent act of the General Assembly providing for BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 79 the acquisition of parks in the Great Smoky Mountains. This morning in the meeting of the Governor and Council of State called to consider this matter, I undertook to give general answers to some of the questions which were troubling you. I now re-state the conclusions I have reached and as given to you and the Council of State this morning. I undertake to summarize the questions submitted and give my answers to them seriatim. (1) What is the duty of the Governor and Council of State under sections 26 and 26 1^ of the Smoky Mountain National Park Act with respect to an independent investigation before the facts are found as therein provided? The Governor and Council of State constitute an official body created by the Constitution. This body has great and broad powers. Many and im-portant duties are committed to its membership. There are no specific rules either in the Constitution, the statutes or the decisions of the Court gov-erning the manner in which the business of this body shall be conducted. It has a freedom of action commensurate with the unusually important duties committed to the care and decision of its members. In many respects its functions are quasi judicial. They are so here under sections 26 and 26 1^ of chapter 48, Public Laws of 1927. It is their duty under these sections to consider the making of certain findings of fact. It is for them to determine what kind of an investigation they will conduct in reaching their conclusions. They will, of course, in doing so exercise that degree of diligence and that wise judgment which men would ordinarily use in the conduct of usual business operations of an equal magnitude. In addi-tion to that they will consider that they are public officials and acting for the whole citizenship of the State. (2) What is the meaning of the term "adequate financial provision" as used in sections 26 and 26^^? "Adequate" means "equal to some requirement ; fully sufficient." When standing alone financial provision does not always mean money actually in hand. It is apparent from the context that it does not mean money actually in hand here. You recall that the same General Assembly passed the act with reference to holding a State Fair. It conditioned setting aside certain land for that purpose upon the donation of no less than $200,000.00 by certain organiza-tions and citizens. In that case, the language used showed that the actual donation and tuiming over of money was intended. Such is not the case here. The whole act shows that it was not intended that all of the money needed toward the purchase of the land within the park area should be actually obtained and deposited with some agency. On the contrary, it is apparent that the intent is different, certainly with respect to the bond issue authorized for the State. My opinion, then, is that "ade-quate financial provision" as here used means such financial commitments to-ward the cost of acquiring the necessary property within the park area deemed by the Governor and Council of State to be valid and enforceable as will probably result in the consummation of the project. Whether these commitments are of the necessary nature and character is a question of fact for the determination of the Governor and Council of State. (3) If the facts have been found in accordance with sections 26 and 26%, can the Governor and Council of State refuse to issue the bonds and 80 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ,pay over the money if it should later appear that some insurmountable obstacle to the project has intervened? The statute would have been clearer on the subject if it had been spe-cifically set out that the bonds authorized were not to be issued until it had been established that title to the requisite acreage could be acquired by purchase or condemnation proceedings and the Secretary of the Interior has signified his readiness to accept the property for park purposes upon delivery of deed for the land. However, the statute must be construed as a whole and from all of its parts the duties of the Governor and Council of State ascertained. Its general purpose is the acquisition of a sufficient acreage within the area acceptable to the Secretary of the Interior and which will be received by him for the United States Government and maintained as a permanent park. This idea runs through he whole of the statute. By section 17 the fund drived from the bond issue is to be used wholly in the acquisition, that is, purchase, of lands within the boundary lying within the State. The Cost of the proceedings must be borne from other sources. By section 25 it is made the duty of the Park Commission to institute a condemnation proceeding against all persons owning or claiming lands within the area. This condemnation proceeding is to be one in which all of these persons are joined as parties defendant and not against them singly. The term of two years is allowed the State in which to pay the award made. The State may elect not to acquire the land and would be liable for only the cost and a reasonable attorney's fee. My opinion is that these costs must come from some source other than rne bond issue. I am of opinion that it was the purpose and intent of the General As-sembly that the proceeds of the bond issue authorized should be used for the consummation of the park project described in the act. It was not in-tended that the money received from this bond issue should be used in the purchase or acquisition of parcels of land detached or otherwise of such insufficient quantity as would not be acceptable to the Secretary of Interior for the purpose of creating the park as intended. The findings of fact under sections 26 and 261/2 of the act would not preclude the Governor and Council of State and the Treasurer from declining to issue the bonds should it appear that the bond issue, with the other funds available, would not result in the consummation of the park project and its acceptance by the United States Government. It is my opinion that the proper construction of the act is as herein stated. What would be the result should others take a different view? The North Carolina Commission, if it should be so advised, might undertake to require the issuance of the bonds by an action of mandamus against the Governor and Council of State and the State Treasurer. If such action should be taken, it will then be for the Supreme Court to pass upon the matter. If it should hold, otherwise, than in accordance with the opinion, I have here given, it would be but declaring what is the will, purpose and intent of the
Object Description
Description
Title | Biennial report of the Attorney-General of the State of North Carolina |
Other Title | Biennial report and opinions of the Attorney General, State of North Carolina |
Contributor | North Carolina. Department of Justice. |
Date | 1926; 1927; 1928 |
Subjects |
Agriculture Attorneys general's opinions--North Carolina Automobiles--Transportation--Law and legislation Corporations--North Carolina Criminal law Education Election law Game laws Judicial statistics--North Carolina Insurance Local government Natural resources Public health Public officers--North Carolina Public welfare Schools Taxation--Law and legislation |
Place | North Carolina, United States |
Time Period | (1900-1929) North Carolina's industrial revolution and World War One |
Description | Title varies slightly.; Report period irregular.; On July 1, 1939 the Attorney General became head of the newly created Dept. of Justice. |
Publisher | Raleigh :N.C. Dept. of Justice,1899-[1970](Guy V. Barnes, printer to Governor's Council) |
Agency-Current | North Carolina Department of Justice |
Rights | State Document see http://digital.ncdcr.gov/u?/p249901coll22,63754 |
Physical Characteristics | 37 v. ;23 cm. |
Collection | Health Sciences Library. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill |
Type | text |
Language | English |
Format | Reports |
Digital Characteristics-A | 22162 KB; 322 p. |
Digital Collection |
Ensuring Democracy through Digital Access, a North Carolina LSTA-funded grant project North Carolina Digital State Documents Collection |
Digital Format | application/pdf |
Title Replaced By | North Carolina..Department of Justice..North Carolina Attorney General reports**0364-362X |
Title Replaces | North Carolina.Department of Justice..Attorney General's report |
Audience | All |
Pres File Name-M | pubs_edp_biennialreportattorneygeneral19261928.pdf |
Pres Local File Path-M | \Preservation_content\StatePubs\pubs_edp\images_master\ |
Full Text |
Ottl)t
®mbers;itpof igortf) Carolina
2ri)i£{ booU toasi presienteb
C54.0
KSTsb
UNIVERSITY OF N.C. AT CHAPEL HILL
! 00033944554
FOR USE ONLY IN
THE NORTH CAROLINA COLLECTION
BIENNIAL REPORT
OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF THE
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
1926-1928
DENNIS G. BRUMMITT
ATTORNEY GENERAL
FRANK NASH
CHARLES ROSS
JOHN H. HARWOOD*
WALTER D. SILER
ASSISTANT ATTORNEYS GENERAL
•Succeeded by Walter D. Siler, October 8, 1927
LIST OF ATTORNEYS GENERAL SINCE THE ADOPTION OF
THE CONSTITUTION IN 1776
to
Term of Office
Avery, Waightstill 1777-1779
Iredell, James _ 1779-1782
Moore, Alfred- 1782-1790
Haywood, J. Jolui .-- -- 1791-1794
Baker, Blake - 1794-1803
Seawell, Henry 1803-1808
Fitts. Oliver 1808-1810
Miller, William 1810-1810
Burton, Hutchins G 1810-1816
Drew, William 1816-1825
Taylor, James F- '. 1825-1828
Jones, Robert 1*^. .'. 1828-1828
Saimders, Romulus M 1828-1834
Daniel, John R. J 1834-1840
McQueen, Hugh 1840-1842
Wihitaker, 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 I 1892-1896
Walser, Zeb V 1896-1900
Douglas, Robert D 1900-1901
Gilmer, Robert D 1901-1908
Bickett, T. W 1909-1916
Manning, James S 1917-1925
Brummitt, Dennis G 1925-
Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2011 with funding from
Ensuring Democracy through Digital Access (NC-LSTA)
http://www.archive.org/details/biennialrep1926attrny1928
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
State of North Carolina,
Department of Attorney General,
Raleigh, Novembei- 10, 1928.
To His Excellency, Angus W. McLean, Governor,
Raleigh, N. C.
Dear Sir.-—In compliance with sections 609S-6099, Consolidated Statutes,
1919, I herewith submit the biennial report of this department for the years
1926-1927 and 1927-1928.
Fi'om this report you will see something; of the enormous proportions to
which the work of this Department has grown within recent years. In 1925,
all the legal work of the State was placed in charge of this otHce.
North Carolina has grown to be a great public corporation. In the fiscal
year ending June 30, 192S, the Department of Revenue collected for all pur-poses
the sum of $32,878.4(»5.60. When called upon to do so, this Depart-ment
advises and represents all the agencies and officers of the State who
deal with the collection and expenditure oi this revenue.
An opinion of this Department is only official when it is given to some
officer, department or agency of the State government with respect to official
business. However, we endeavor to aid county and town officials in the con-struction
of statutes with respect to their duties. This latter type of work
has increased tremendously during the present administration. Only the
more important of the opinions of the Department are included in this report.
One of the most notable cases recently handled by the Department was
that of the proposed suit of the State of Connecticut against the State of
North Carolina, involving the validity of bonds issued by the reconstruc-tion
legislature. Upon presentation of the State's contentions to the authori-ties
of Connecticut, that State voluntarily withdrew its petition filed in the
Supreme Court of the I'nited States for leave to bring suit against the State
of North Carolina. With the assistance of Mr. A. R. Newsome of the His-torical
Commission, Mr. Xash made a thorough investigation of all the
facts with respect to these old instruments, and the information thus devel-oped
will be serviceable should another suit of this nature be attempted.
Under the Constitution the Attorney General is the legal advisor of the
Council of State and a member of the State Board of Education. Under
various statutes he is a member of the Board of Public Buildings and Grounds,
State Board of Pensions, Printing Commission. State Board of Assessment,
and Chairman of the Mvuiieipal Board of Control.
The Department consis.s of the Attorney General, three Assistant Attor-ney
Generals, a stenographer-secretary, and stenographer-reporter. I rec-ommend
that it be given another Assistant Attorney General, to be assigned
to the Department of Education.
I shall be glad to go fully into the work of the Department in conference
with you. Governor-elect Gardner, or any committee of the 1929 General
Assembly.
Yours very truly,
Dennis G.'Brummitt,
Attorney General.
EXHIBIT I
Civil Actions Disposed of or Pending in the Courts op North
Carolina and the Federal Courts.
Disposed of in the Superior Courts of North Carolina. '
State's Prison v. Cliife Wliitelieacl, et al.
Railways v. City of Goldsboro.
Caswell Training School v. Deitrick.
Chapman-Hunt Company v. N. C. Sanatorium.
Haines, Jones & Caclbiiry Company v. School for Blind and Deaf.
hacj, Treasurer, v. Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance Company,
et al.
State V. Western Union Telegraph Company.
State V. Postal Telegraph Company (withdrawn).
State V. Sessoms.
Pending in the Superior Courts of North Carolina.
Anderson Motor Company v. Doughton.
B. R. Lacy, State Treasurer, v. Mecklenburg Highway Com-mission.
General Motors Company v. Doughton (four cases).
Grinnan v. Caswell Training School.
State Board of Charities and Public Welfare v. Highhmd Hos-pital,
et al.
State on relation of Attorney General v. Ice Companies.
Laurel Parks Estates v. Commissioner of Revenue, et al.
Pickett and Johnson v. State Board of Education.
Hans Rees Sons, Inc., v. Commissioner of Revenue.
Haines, Jones & Cadbury Company v. State College.
State of North Carolina, ex rel., Attorney General v. Snow Hill
Railway Company, et al.
Durham Public Service Company v. Gaskill Construction Com-pany,
et al.
Metcalf V. Board of Education.
Atlantic Beach, Inc. v. Ocean Beach Co., et al.
Disposed of in the Supreme Court of North Carolina.
State's Prison v. Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance Co., et al,,
192 N. C, 391.
BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 7
Ragaii V. Doughton, 192 N. C, 500.
Tate V. Board of Education, 192 N. C, 516.
Johnston, et al. v. Highway Commission, 192 N. C, 561.
Rich, et al. v. Doughton, 192 N. C, 604.
McKinney v. Highway Commission, 192 N. C, 670.
Carlyle v. Highway Commission, 193 ]S". C, 36.
Barton v. Grist, Commissioner, 193 N. C, 144.
Lac3% Treasurer v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., et al.,
193 N. C, 179.
In Re: Revocation of License of Dr. Robert S. Carroll, 194 N.
C, 37.
Frazler v. Commissioners, 194 N. C, 49.
Newton v. Highway Commission, 194 N. C, 159.
Yadkin College v. Highway Commission, 194 N. C, 180.
Newton v. Highway Commission, 194 N. C, 303.
Smith V. Highway Commission, 194 N. C, 333.
Oliver v. Highway Commission, 194 N. C, 380.
D. C. Waddell, Jr. v. Doughton, 194 N. C, 537.
Palmer v. Highway Commission, 195 N. C, 1.
Commissioners of Wake v. Highway Commission, 195 N. C, 26.
Caldwell County v. Doughton, 195 N. C, 62.
C. W. Lacy v. State, 195 N. C, 284.
Rotan v. State, 195 N. C, 291.
Brinson, Trustee, v. Lacy, Treasurer, 195 N. C, 394.
Atlantic Life Insurance Co. v. Stacey W. Wade, Insurance Com-missioner,
195 N. C, 424.
Hass, et al. v. Hass, et al., 195 N. C, 734.
Parker v. Highway Commission, 195 X. C, 783.
Little, et al. v. Board of Adjustment, 195 N. C, 793.
Highway Commission v. Rand, 195 N. C, 799.
Hagood V. Doughton, 195 N. C, 811.
Pending in the Supreme Court op North Carolina :
Town of Greenville v. State Highway Commission.
Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, et al. v. Doughton.
O'Neal V. Wake County, et al.
Mavis Bottling Company v. Doughton, Commissioner.
Garysburg Manufacturing Company v. Board of Commissioners.
Transportation Committee, etc. v. Bus Operators, etc.
State ex rel. Corporation Commission v. Railroads.
Disposed of in LTxited States Supreme Court :
Wachovia Bank & Trust Company v. Doughton, 272 U. S. 567.
8 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
State of Connecticut v. State of North Carolina original. (May
28, 1928, State of Connecticut allowed to withdraw its petition
after intervention of Attorney General).
Disposed op in United States District Court :
Executors of Angler B. Duke v. Doughton, (Ended by Com-promise
)
.
Pending in United States District Court :
Southern Railway Company v. State Highway Commission.
State's Prison v. Catawba Construction Company.
Pending in Circuit Court op Appeals :
State V. Southern Railway and Receiver of A. & Y. Railway
Company.
Suncrest Lumber Co. v. North Carolina Park Commission.
EXHIBIT II
List of Cases Argued by the Attorney General and Assistant
Attorney General Before the Supreme Court, Fall Term,
1926 ; Spring Term, 1927 ; Fall Term, 1927 ; Spring Term, 1928.
AUGUST TERM, 1926.
1. State V. Adams, habeas corpus ; certiorari ; affirmed.
2. State V. Barkley, from Cabarrus ; game law ; special verdict
appeal by State ; reversed.
3. State V. Boswell, from Wilson ; murder, second degree ; ver-dict,
guilty ; appeal by defendant ; new trial.
4. State V. Burgess, from Burke; assault with deadly weapon;
verdict, guilty ; appeal by defendant ; remanded.
5. State V. Church, from Catawba ; breaking-entering, larceny
;
verdict, guilty ; appeal by defendant ; affirmed.
6. State V. Crowder, from Vance; embezzlement; verdict, guilty;
appeal by defendant; new trial.
7. State V. Edwards, habeas corpus ; certiorari ; affirmed.
8. State V. Franklin, from Burke ; manslaughter ; verdict, guilty
appeal by defendant ; affirmed.
9. State V. Gray, from Stanley; murder, first degree; verdict,
guilty ; appeal by defendant ; affirmed.
10. State V. Hardy, from Durham ; murder, second degree ; ver-dict,
guilty ; appeal by defendant ; affirmed.
11. State V. Holt, from Forsyth; highway robbery; verdict,
guilty ; appeal hj defendant ; new trial.
12. State V. Hooks, from Wayne ; liquor ; verdict, guilty ; appeal
by defendant; affirmed.
13. State V. Jeffreys, from Wake ; rape ; verdict, guilty ; appeal
by defendant; affirmed.
14. State V. Jeffreys, from Johnston ; bigamy ; verdict, guilty
;
appeal by defendant ; new trial.
15. State V. Lee, et al., from Harnett ; assault with deadly
weapon; verdict, guilty; appeal by defendants, affirmed.
16. State V. Maness, from Moore; seduction; verdict, guilty;
appeal by defendant ; new trial.
17. State V. Meyers, from Sampson; liquor; verdict, guilty;
appeal by defendant; affirmed.
18. State V. Moore, from Halifax; liquor; verdict, guilty; ap-peal
by defendant; affirmed.
10 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
19. State V. Pace, from Cherokee; assisting prisoner to escape;
verdict, guilty; appeal by defendant; reversed.
20. State v. Pierce, from Wayne ; liquor ; verdict, guilty ; appeal
by defendant; affirmed.
21. State V. Revis, from Buncombe; assault; special verdict;
appeal by defendant ; reversed.
22. State v. Ross, from Warren; murder, first degree; verdict,
guilty; appeal by defendant; new trial.
2.3. State v. Simmons, et al., from Surry ; manslaughter ; verdict,
guilty ; appeal by defendants ; affirmed.
24. State v. Strickland, from Halifax ; assault with deadly
weapon; verdict, guilty; appeal by defendant; affirmed.
25. State v. Thompson, from Randolph; house burning; ver-dict,
guilty; appeal by defendant; affirmed.
26. State v. Tyndall, from Lenoir ; forcible trespass ; verdict,
guilty ; appeal by defendant ; affirmed.
27. State v. Waldroop, from Cherokee; manslaughter; verdict,
guilty; appeal by defendant; new trial.
Docketed and Dismissed.
28. State v. Devers, from Forsyth.
29. State v. Matthews, from Harnett.
30. State v. Fulcher, from Carteret.
31. State V. Mrs. L. B. Freeman, from Forsyth.
32. State v. Maynor and Oxendine, from Robeson.
33. State v. S. Martin, from Forsyth.
34. State v. J. Bitting, from Forsyth.
35. State v. W. Williamson, from Guilford.
36. State v. Henry Diggs, et al., from Anson.
37. State v. H. Spencer, from Anson.
38. State v. Ray Hunt, from Lee.
39. State v. Lamplin, et al., from Robeson,
40. State v. Edwards, from Greene.
FEBRUARY TERM, 1927.
41. State V. Adams, from Surry; assault with intent to rape;
verdict, guilty; appeal by defendant; new trial.
42. State v. Anderson, from Hyde; house burning; verdict,
guilty ; appeal by defendant ; affirmed,
43. State v. Aswell, et al, from Greene; prostitution; verdict,
guilty; appeal by defendants; reversed.
44. State v. Baldwin, from Durham; liquor; verdict, guilty;
appeal by defendant ; affirmed.
BIENNIAL REPORT OP THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 11
45. State v. Bazemore, from Greene; murder, first degree; ver-dict,
guilty ; appeal by defendant ; new trial.
46. State v. Blackwell, from Craven; manslaughter; verdict,
guilty; appeal by defendant; new trial.
47. State v. Branch, from Granville ; murder, second degree
;
verdict, guilty ; appeal by defendant ; affirmed.
48. State v. Brinkley, from Cabarrus ; prostitution ; verdict,
guilty ; appeal by defendant ; affirmed.
49. State v. Carnegie, from Pitt; appearance bond; reversed.
50. State v. Carpenter, from Gaston ; liquor ; verdict, guilty
;
appeal by defendant; alrtrmed.
51. State V. Colson, from Perquimans; liquor; verdict, guilty;
appeal by defendant ; new trial.
52. State v. Evans, from Pitt; involuntary manslaughter; ver-dict,
guilty ; appeal by defendant ; affirmed.
53. State v. Fleming, from Beaufort ; forcible trespass ; verdict,
guilty ; aj)peal by defendant ; affirmed.
54. State v. Fowler, from Polk; liquor: verdict, guilty; appeal
by defendant; affirmed.
55. State v. Gibson, et al., from Hoke ; secret assault ; verdict,
guiltj^ ; appeal by defendants ; affirmed.
56. State v. Green, from Wilson ; murder, first degree ; verdict,
guilty ; appeal hj defendant : new trial.
57. State v. Harris, et al., from Anson ; liquor ; verdict, guilty
appeal by defendants ; affirmed.
58. State v. Hartley, from Johnston ; habeas corpus ; certiorari
;
disallowed.
59. State v. Helms, from Union ; seduction ; verdict, guilty ; ap-peal
by defendant ; affirmed.
60. State v. Holland, from Catawba; murder, second degree;
verdict, guilty ; appeal by defendant ; new trial.
61. State V. Hunt, from Lee; liquor; verdict, guilty; appeal by
defendant ; affirmed.
62. State v. Johnson, from Mecklenburg ; murder, first degree
verdict, guilty; appeal by defendant; affirmed.
63. State v. Lee, from Harnett; murder, second degree; verdict,
guilty ; appeal by defendant ; new trial.
64. State v. Maney, from Buncombe ; simple assault ; verdict,
guilty; appeal by defendant; new trial.
65. State v. Mehafifey, et al, from Haywood ; manslaughter
verdict, guilty; appeal by defendant; new trial.
12 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
66. State v. Mitchell, from Chatham; murder, first degree; ver-dict,
guilty; appeal hj defendant; affirmed.
67. State v. Maragousis, from Edgecombe; embezzlement; ver-dict,
guilty; appeal by defendant; new trial.
68. State v. McWhirter, from Forsyth; assault on female; ver-dict,
guilty ; appeal by defendant ; affirmed.
69. State v. Ridings, et al., from Polk ; prostitution, etc. ; ver-dict,
guilty; appeal by defendants; affirmed.
70. State v. Sullivan, from Lenoir; kidnapping; verdict, guilty;
appeal by defendant ; new trial.
71. State V. Tomlinson, from Franklin ; seduction ; verdict,
guilty ; appeal by defendant ; affirmed.
72. State v. Walker, from Durham ; murder, first degree ; ver-dict,
guilty; appeal by defendant; affirmed.
Docketed and Dismissed.
73. State v. Williams, from Halifax.
74. State v. H. Howington, from Halifax.
75. State v. Will Mclver, from Lee.
76. State v. Wesley Baker, from Pitt.
77. State v. Wilkerson, from Pitt.
78. State v. D. T. Williams, Sr., from Lenoir.
AUGUST TERM, 1927.
79. State v. Adkins, from Yancey; manslaughter; verdict,
guilty; appeal by defendant; affirmed.
80. State v. Anderson, from Halifax ; worthless check ; verdict,
guilty; appeal by defendant; new trial.
81. State V. Earnhardt, from Cabarrus; liquor; verdict, guilty;
appeal by defendant; error; remanded.
82. State v. Blakeney, from Cabarrus ; house burning ; verdict,
guilty ; appeal by defendant ; new trial.
83. State v. Boswell, from Wilson; murder, second degree; ver-dict,
guilty; appeal by defendant; affirmed.
84. State v. Briscoe, from Gates ; liquor ; verdict, guilty ; appeal
by defendant ; affirmed.
85. State v. Colsou, from Pasquotank; assault with deadly
weapon; verdict, guilty; appeal by defendant; affirmed.
86. State v. Eubanks, from Lenoir; embezzlement; verdict,
guilty; appeal by defendant; affirmed.
87. State v. Eunice, from O'nslow; larceny; verdict, guilty; ap-peal
by defendant; new trial.
88. State v. Everett, from Cumberland ; manslaughter ; ver-dict,
guilty; appeal by defendant; reversed.
BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 13
89. State v. Gooding, from Jones ; liquor ; verdict, guilty ; appeal
by defendant, reversed.
90. State v. Graham, from Hoke; murder, first degree; verdict,
guilty; appeal by defendant; aflSrmed.
91. State V. Guthrie, from Carteret; liquor; verdict, guilty; ap-peal
by defendant ; reversed.
92. State v. Hege, from Forsyth ; liquor ; verdict, guilty ; appeal
by defendant; affirmed.
93. State v. Hundley, et al., from Mecklenburg; municipal ordi-nance
; verdict, guilty ; appeal by defendants ; affirmed.
94. State v. Johnson, from.Hoke; abandonment; verdict, guilty;
appeal by defendant; new trial.
95. State v. Lambert, from Swain ; larceny ; verdict, guilty
;
appeal by defendant ; new trial.
96. State v. Leonard, from Cabarrus; manslaughter; verdict,
guilty; appeal by defendant; affirmed.
97. State v. Lewis, from Cabarrus ; school law ; verdict, guilty
appeal by defendant; reversed.
98. State v. Melvin, from Sampson ; murder, first degree ; verdict,
guilty ; appeal by defendant ; new trial.
99. State v. Mickle, et al., from Forsyth ; violation of automobile
law; verdict, guilty; appeal by defendants; affirmed.
100. State V. Mintz, et al., from Onslow ; larceny ; verdict, guilty
;
appeal by defendants; affirmed.
101. State V. Montague, from Buncombe ; murder, second degree
verdict, guilty; appeal by defendant; reversed.
102. State v. McFarland, from Lee; assault; verdict, guilty; ap-peal
by defendant; affirmed.
103. State v. Nance, from Forsyth; seduction; appeal by de-fendant;
new trial.
104. State v. Perry, from Lenoir; liquor; appeal withdrawn.
105. State v. Pridgen, from Greene; liquor; verdict, guilty; ap-peal
by defendant; affirmed.
106. State v. Rouse, from Lenoir ; larceny ; verdict, guilty ; ap-peal
by defendant ; new trial.
107. State v. Schlicter, from Halifax ; violating banking laws
certiorari ; reversed.
108. State v. Shew, from Wilkes ; larceny ; verdict, guilty ; ap-peal
by defendant ; new trial.
109. State v. Wadford, from Lenoir; embezzlement; verdict,
guilty ; a]3peal by defendant ; new trial.
14 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
110. State V. Waldroop, from Cherokee ; murder, second degree
;
verdict, guilty; appeal by defendant; affirmed.
111. State V. Winston, from Halifax; liquor; special verdict;
appeal by State; reversed.
112. State V. Yarboro, from Halifax; worthless check; arrested
judgment ; appeal by State ; reversed.
Docketed and Dismissed.
113. State V. Taylor, from Pitt.
114. State V. Brooks, from Pitt.
115. State V. Massengill, from Wake.
116. State V. Charlie Imbler, from Davidson.
117. State V. Eoy Davis, from Mecklenburg.
118. State v. Sam Angel, from Yancey.
119. State V. W. A. Smith, from Cherokee.
120. State v. Will Taylor, from Gaston.
121. State V. Sherman Haney, from Haywood.
122. State v. R. and A. Jackson, from Haj^wood.
FEBRUARY TERM, 1928.
123. State v. Boswell, et al., from Guilford; robbery; verdict,
guilty; appeal by defendants; affirmed.
124. State v. Charles, from Forsyth; larceny and receiving; ver-dict,
guilty ; appeal by defendant ; affirmed.
125. State v. Crowder, from Vance; embezzlement; verdict,
guilty ; appeal by defendant ; appeal dismissed.
126. State v. Deadmon, from Davie; house burning; verdict,
guilty ; appeal by defendant ; new trial.
127. State v. Dowell, from Forsyth; liquor; verdict, guilty; ap-peal
by defendant ; affirmed.
128. State v. Edwards, from Lenoir; liquor; verdict, guilty;
appeal by defendant; affirmed.
129. State v. Garland, from Yancey; manslaughter; verdict,
guilty ; appeal by defendant ; affirmed.
130. State v. Gerukus, from Mecklenburg; criminal abortion;
verdict, guilty ; appeal by defendant ; affirmed.
131. State V. Gill, from Wake; municipal ordinance; verdict,
guilty; appeal by defendant; affirmed.
132. State v. Harris, from Greene ; larceny ; verdict, guilty ; ap-peal
by defendant; reversed.
133. State v. Holt, from Johnston; liquor; verdict, guilty; ap-peal
by defendant; affirmed.
BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 15
134. State v. Idol, from Guilford; liquor; verdict, guilty; ap-peal
by defendant ; new trial.
135. State v. Jarman, from Lenoir; liquor; verdict, guilty; ap-peal
by defendant; affirmed.
136. State v. Jenkins, from Graham ; assault with deadly
weapon ; verdict, guilty ; appeal by defendant ; new trial.
137. State v. Johnson, from Davidson; false pretense; verdict,
guilty ; appeal by defendant ; new trial.
138. State v. Johnson, from Kutherford ; liquor ; verdict, guilty
;
appeal by defendant; new trial.
139. State v. King, from Lincoln ; larceny and receiving ; verdict,
guilty; appeal by defendant; affirmed.
140. State v. Maslin, from Forsyth; embezzlement; verdict,
guilty ; appeal by defendant ; affirmed.
141. State V. McCall, from Buncombe ; larceny ; verdict, guilty
;
appeal by defendant; new trial.
142. State v. McLawhorn, et al., from Pitt; liquor; verdict,
guilty; appeal by defendants; affirmed.
143. State v. Newsome, from Wayne; murder, first degree; ver-dict,
guilty ; appeal by defendant ; new trial.
144. State v. Ray, et al., from Yancey; murder, second degree;
verdict, guilty; appeal by defendants; new trial.
145. State v. Ray, from Yancey; non-support; verdict, guilty;
appeal by defendant ; new trial.
146. State v. Toler, from Caswell; manslaughter; verdict,
guilty; appeal by defendant; new trial.
147. State v. "Whittle from Catawba; liquor; verdict, guilty;
appeal by defendant; affirmed.
Docketed and Dismissed.
148. State v. Alston, from Chatham.
149. State v. Gardner, from Pitt.
150. State v. Thaxton, from Lenoir.
151. State V. F. McLamb, from Johnston.
152. State v. J. H. Holt, from Johnston.
153. State v. Osborne, from Lenoir.
154. State v. Garfield Jones, from Craven.
155 .State v. Powell, from Wake.
156. State v. Wellington, from Lenoir.
157. State v. Newkirk, from Columbus.
158. State v. Thomas, from Forsyth.
159. State v. W. O. Hicks, from Davidson.
160. State v. Coffer, from Stokes.
16 BIENNIAL REPORT OP THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
161. State V. Clyburn, from Mecklenburg.
162. State v. French, et al., from Henderson.
163. State v. Gasperson, from Buncombe.
164. State v. Jim Bell, from Cherokee.
165. State v. Sibbold Smith, from Swain.
SUMMAKY OF CASES.
Affirmed on Defendant's Appeal 57
New trial or reversed on Defendant's Appeal 48
Reversed on State's Appeal 3
Remanded on Defendant's Appeal 1
Appeal by Bondsman — 1
Appeal withdrawn -. 1
Remanded for judgment - 2
Certiorari 4
Appeal dismissed 48
Total 165
BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 17
CRIMINAL STATISTICS
STATEMENT A
The Following Statement Shows the Criminal Cases Disposed of During the
Fall Term, 1926, and Spring Term, 1927.
Counties «
2^
-a
"o O
a
S
'•V
a
E
oO
'3
co
<
oM
P,
"o
.2 "^
u o
o
3l o o
H O
Alamance 42 25 65 2 34 7 23 3 67
34
18
5 37
18
2 39
15
39
Alleghany
Anson
3 18
117 268 369 16 251 26 106 2 385
54
103
52
98
2
9
49
69
5
9
54
Avery 4 28 1 107
Beaufort 27 23 48 2 36 7 7 50
Bertie 23 100 114 9 68 27 25 3 123
Bladen 14
22
403
11
15
167
24
36
521
1
1
49
25
26
327
25
11
59
37
Buncombe 183 1 570
Burke 159 26 175 10 113 9 59 4 185
Cabarrus 78 47 115 10 68 15 42 125
Caldwell 173 29 194 8 106 19 74 3 202
4
50
9
2
38
5
6
85
14
3
4
88
10
2 6
88
Caswell 3 1 14
Catawba 93 25 114 4 90 10 18 118
Chatham 94 84 173 5 148 8 22 178
Cherokee 44 3 43 4 28 15 2 2 47
Chowan 22 17 39 31 3 4 1 39
Clay
Cleveland
77 73 4 50 8 18 1 77
102 30 116 16 57 14 56 5 132
Columbus 121 64 181 4 125 29 25 6 185
Craven 42 44 85 1 61 13 12 86
Cumberland 54 54 1 97 12 70 18 21 109
Currituck 2
3
134
7
3
51
8
4
173
1
2
12
9
1
157
9
8
5
16 4
6
Davidson 185
Davie 37 9 44 2 32 12 2 46
Duplin 111 102 4 195 22 149 29 36 3 217
Durham 185 217 363 39 265 48 86 3 402
Edgecombe 41 92 127 6 98 17 17 1 133
Forsyth 360 185 502 43 462 60 22 1 545
Franklin 55 31 84 2 58 24 4 86
Gaston 274 97 352 19 241 32 96 2 371
Gates 30 27 55 2 41 10 6 57
Graham 40 1 39 2 27 5 9 41
Granville* 61 77 134 4 111 8 20 139
Greene 17 39 56 45 5 6 56
Guilford 272 189 439 22 377 41 41 2 461
Halifax 104 205 297 12 218 34 57 309
Harnett 116 37 148 5 103 11 36 3 153
Haywood 91 7 93 5 43 13 41 1 98
Henderson 71 32 98 5 73 6 22 2 103
Hertford 41 70 103 8 70 21 20 111
Hoke-. 16
3
19
12
34
15
1 13
11
7
• 4
12 3 35
Hyde 15
*1 Corporation
18 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
STATEMENT A—Continued
Counties
01
73
"o
O
a
3a
a
T3
a)
'>
a
IB
<
0.
"o
iz;
t,
o5
aj .-^
3I
H
Iredell 35 13 44 4 32 15 1 48
Jackson 35 4 38 1 27 4 8 39
Johnston _ 74
43
32
40
95
81
11
2
89
60
17
1
106
Jones 21 1 83
87
117
72
90
157
187
2
20
118
153
9
26
30
28
2 159
Lenoir 207
Lincoln.. 104 17 117 4 77 17 27 121
Macon 145 10 151 4 96 20 39 155
Madison 90 7 93 4 73 8 16 97
Martin 15 21 34 2 34 2 36
McDowell 171 14 164 21 121 10 51 3 185
Mecklenburg*.
Mitchell... ..
416
59
78
38
387 720
57
109
61
83
2
4
502
37
39
28
65
8
12
11
232
14
61
22
5
1
804
59
Montgomery..
Moore
35
23
113
61
Nash-- 62
77
83
97
134
156
11
18
90
137
13
26
42
9 2
145
New Hanover. 174
Northampton _
Onslow
47
74
82
39
125
110
4
3
78
76
18
25
33
6 6
129
113
Orange*
Pamlico
116
46
101
29
201
71
16
4
146
47
25
6
43
22
4 218
75
Pasquotank
Pender
20
33
16
45
35
75
1
3
23
54
6
16
6
8
1 36
78
Perquimans 42 55 94 3 60 14 20 3 97
Person 101 61 159 3 132 8 22 162
Pitt 84
124
63
47
145
162
2
9
109
115
31
27
7
26 3
147
Polk 171
Randolph
Richmond
216
89
33
60
236
141
13
8
100
105
3
9
144
29
2
6
249
149
Robeson 87 52 46 176 9 125 18 42 185
Rockingham ._
Rowan
22
30
22
30
43
59
1
I
42
54 3
2
3
44
60
34
122
27
16
120
30
"""2'
2
47
233
57
3
11
2
43
181
36
7
53
12
50
Sampson
Scotland
10
11
244
59
Stanly
Stokes
18
41
10
26
25
65
3
2
23
62
1
2
3
3
1 28
67
Surry
Swain
144
84
11
7 14
147
101
8
4
114
81
13
23
25
1
3 155
105
Transylvania-
_
Tyrrell
Union
66
6
28
9
2
18
70
8
42
5
4
74
3
37
1
5
1
3
3
1
1
75
8
46
Vance 93 51 133 11 85 34 25 144
Wake 397 378 735 40 520 124 125 6 775
Warren 33 37 69 1 40 13 16 1 70
Washington
Watauga
Wayne
Wilkes
8
89
47
261
8
4
68
18
1
13
89
115
249
3
4
1
30
8
47
111
137
8
9
1
23
16
37
3
117
1
2
93
116
279
Wilson
Yadkin
182
71
170
5
296
76
56 184
59
44
1
120
16
4 352
76
Yancey 73 2 69 6 29 7 39 75
Totals 8,644 5,265 70 13,124 855 9,445 1,552 2,868 117 13,982
*1 Corporation.
BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 19
Recapitulation of Statement A
Total Number Criminal Actions Disposed of 13,982
Males- 13,124
855
3
Total 13,982
White . 8,644
5,265
70
3
Total - 13 , 982
Convictions, including 9,445
1,552
2,868
117
Acquitted. _ _
Nolle pros . _ _ _
Otherwise disposed of
Total - 13,982
20 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
111 ^ ,r,
H H
nosiy 1
"* o) ^ ^ ^ TO
93jSaQ pnooag
" (N
XiaSSng
'^
^jaqug
(M
XniBSig
^ (N oq
XpjB^SBg
nostOfj 0^ ^duia^^v
ujng 0% ^dtuajjv
8dl3JJ 0^
'"' "" "* *"* '"'
CD t^ ^ rt lO 05
CO —1 —1 (M
00 TO (N TO
lO rt r-( TO
to l> TO 0'-lTt( 1 e-1 I ; i i ; ; ; ; '-' ; ; ; lrH(N i-*rt 1 r^ ilM 1 c CO I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 .-< (M 1 1 00 Illi-HTjliiiiiirjii 2 ! 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' 1 ' 1 ! 1 lrHTj< 1 l^q IrHC^ 1 1 00 1 1 1 r i-H i-H 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 n I 1 1 1 1 1 ', -' 1 "^ '^ 1 1 CO liiiOiiiii.il ^ 111 1 (N 1 1 1 lO lIiiiirti-liiiMii, o CO 1 I1-101 iiN icaoqiN ico 1> (N * Transylvania Tyrrell Union Vance Wake --- Warren Wasiiington Watauga Wayne Wilkes.. Wilson Yadkin Yancey 3 O 36 BIENNIAL REPORT OP THE ATTORNEY GENERAL STATEMENT C The Following Statement Shows the Criminal Cases Disposed of During the Fall Term, 1927, and Spring Term, 1928. Counties (0 n O a a la a) B » o '> a oO 13 '3 < o a .2 "^ & s t. o 1 & o 5 o S .2 o o Alamance 54 23 76 1 47 4 26 77 Alexander 96 10 104 2 79 3 24 106 Alleghany 21 2 23 19 3 1 23 Anson 89 197 274 12 205 16 60 5 286 Ashe- 87 69 32 29 1 3 15 101 82 67 45 122 6 5 2 8 88 60 45 89 88 Avery 12 2 22 72 Beaufort 47 Bertie 19 130 Bladen 7 6 13 12 1 13 Brunswiclv 42 472 17 211 1 56 612 3 72 43 585 16 48 59 Buncombe* 49 3 685 Burke 94 18 111 1 103 3 6 112 Cabarrus 139 67 202 4 151 10 44 1 206 Caldwell 198 40 232 6 178 25 34 1 238 Camden 5 51 3 30 8 78 3 8 76 8 Carteret 4 1 81 Caswell-- - - 10 144 9 29 19 164 9 15 130 4 12 19 Catawba 30 1 173 Chatham 72 68 137 3 113 9 17 1 140 Cherokee 143 7 142 8 100 48 1 1 150 Chowan 5 5 9 1 9 1 10 Clay 43 66 5 36 46 96 2 6 37 57 11 18 48 Cleveland 24 3 102 Columbus 65 26 86 5 63 10 17 1 91 Craven 38 77 107 8 93 14 8 115 Cumberland- -- 84 52 121 15 75 16 45 t 136 3 14 186 1 1 45 4 15 220 11 4 11 178 4 4 32 15 Davidson 21 231 Davie 73 24 89 8 75 14 8 97 Duplin 162 233 360 35 273 38 80 4 395 Durham 216 291 467 40 361 57 84 5 507 Edgecombe 34 113 141 6 96 27 24 147 Forsyth 374 230 555 49 589 14 1 604 Franklin 65 25 78 2 58 11 10 1 80 Gaston 260 59 302 17 202 32 80 5 319 Gates 45 33 77 1 51 7 19 1 78 Graham 54 1 1 54 2 21 6 29 56 Granville 38 84 120 2 108 6 8 122 Greene 24 47 67 4 51 IS 2 71 Guilford 333 166 473 26 406 47 44 2 499 Halifax 149 184 326 7 238 44 50 1 333 Harnett 65 42 1 98 10 66 13 27 2 108 Haywood 199 21 195 25 91 40 87 2 220 Henderson 60 33 86 7 57 19 16 1 93 Hertford 35 63 96 2 62 18 18 98 Hoke 15 13 28 25 2 1 28 Hyde 5 27 30 2 31 1 32 Iredell 45 23 64 4 46 7 15 68 Jackson 55 2 56 1 29 8 20 57 *1 Corporation. BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 37 Counties STATEMENT C—Continued O P H U 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 79 22 68 136 48 163 134 9 251 427 62 70 33 84 75 29 38 100 42 20 24 11 92 68 93 319 101 145 79 57 52 141 73 20 121 190 158 74 3 22 86 424 20 3 102 17 380 116 79 69 38 22 92 125 17 5 3 20 33 388 34 12 72 123 78 45 78 57 17 34 22 58 113 29 67 83 86 27 30 7 143 35 15 25 15 6 16 3 36 46 376 36 15 3 49 28 144 111 44 152 225 63 165 132 29 267 718 59 100 45 157 175 102 80 171 99 37 54 31 146 173 112 363 178 274 104 83 58 262 107 31 143 198 173 57 128 758 53 18 100 64 371 226 82 76' 36 2 3 5 17 97 3 4 23 5 3 7 10 23 6 12 2 4 1 23 4 4 3 7 8 1 4 42 3 2 37 34 4 1 116 31 130 187 42 94 97 24 179 462 38 68 26 SO 131 61 67 138 58 29 34 18 118 154 74 263 130 168 78 70 48 208 77 27 128 156 127 67 3 42 94 469 36 14 83 66 238 120 83 39 12 13 36 14 14 12 4 29 77 5 6 7 22 67 17 16 16 21 6 9 4 12 20 19 18 15 32 13 4 10 56 14 6 9 22 23 10 18 120 12 4 4 27 36 3 17 1 17 37 9 60 27 1 73 261 19 30 12 57 29 24 15 2 14 11 21 7 29 100 37 85 15 . 13 21 20 27 31 23 3 6 20 215 142 103 117 44 160 261 65 168 137 29 284 815 62 104 45 159 198 107 83 178 99 37 58 33 151 181 122 386 184 286 103 87 59 285 111 35 146 205 181 90 6 58 132 803 56 18 105 66 408 260 86 77 Totals- 5,640 83 14,475 931 10,889 1,706 2,722 90 15,407 38 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Recapitulation of Statement C Total Ntjmber Criminal Actions Disposed of. _. -_ 15,407 Males .- - . - - - . - - - _ . 14,475 931 1 Total -- - _ _ . . - 15 , 407 White 9,683 5,640 83 1 Total - . -- - --- - 15,407 10,889 1,706 2,722 90 Total..- ... ... .. . _. ... . . 15,407 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 39 Q 00 OS "^ o « Q2 w s' nosjv UBq? jaq^o Suiujng aajSaQ puooag ro IM N AiaSSng "-' Ajaqug ^ j^uiBSig -H ^ ^ "-' * ApjB^SBg uosiO(j o; c)dui8)^Y Smj^aAiQ adi3}j 0^ " IM i-H " IN snodBaAi j^jptiaQ |
OCLC Number-Original | 5792362 |