Biennial report of the Attorney-General of the State of North Carolina |
Previous | 36 of 36 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
|
This page
All
|
y Library OF THE University of NortK Carolina This book was presented by IMC. £VH-o\~ney Gcrve^i-3-l C3^o-HBla-l^ VS-XO iiiief 00033944466 FOR USE ONLY IN THE NORTH CAROLINA COLLECTION . BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA 1918-1920 JAMES S. MANNING ATTORNEY-GENERAL FRANK NASH ASSISTANT ATTORNEY-GENERAL RALEIGH Edwards & Broughton Printing Co. State Printers 1920 Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2011 with funding from Ensuring Democracy through Digital Access (NC-LSTA) http://www.archive.org/details/biennialrep1918attrny1920 LIST OF ATTORNEYS-GENERAL SINGE THE ADOPTION OF THE CONSTITUTION IN 1776 Term of Office Avery, Waightsill 1777-1779 Iredell, James 1779-1782 Moore, Alfred 1782-1790 Haywood, John 1791-1794 Baker, Blake 1794-1803 Seawell, Henry 1803-1808 Fitts, Oliver 1808-1810 Miller, William 1810-1810 Burton, Hutchins G 1810-1816 Drew, W'fUiam. 1816-1825 Taylor, James F 1825-1828 Jones, Robert H 1828-1828 Saunders, Romulus M 1828-1834 Daniel, John R. J 1834-1840 McQueen, Hugh 1840-1842 Whitaker, Spier 1842-1846 Stanly, Edward 1846-1848 Moore, Bartholomew F 1848-1851 Eaton, William 1851-1852 Ransom, Matt. W 1852-1855 Batchelor, Joseph B 1855-1856 Bailey, William H 1856-1856 Jenkins, William A ". 1856-1862 Rogers, Sion H. 1862-1868 Coleman, William M 1868-1869 Olds, Lewis P 1869-1870 Shipp, William M 1870-1872 Hargrove, Tazewell L 1872-1876 Kenan, Thomas S 1876-1884 Davidson, Theodore F 1884-1892 Osborne, Frank T 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- Go LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL State of North Carolina, Department of Attorney General, Raleigh, December 1, 1920. To His Excellency, T. W. Bickett, Governor, Raleigh, N". C. Dear Sir:—In compliance with sections 4409-4410, Revisal of 1905, I herewith submit the biennial report of this department for the years 1918-1919 and 1919-1920. Respectfully submitted, James S. Manning, Attorney General. EXHIBIT I List of Actions in the Nature of Quo Warranto Brought by Pri-vate Relators in the Name of the State Upon Leave Granted by the Attorney General. 1. S. B. Edwards, relator, against J. P. Arledge; to try title to office of the Clerk Superior Court of Polk County, JNT. C. ; leave granted Dec. 21, 1918. 2. W. P. Robertson, relator, against Frank Jackson; to try title to office of sheriff of Polk County, N. C; leave granted Dec. 20, 1918. 3. A. 0. Bradley, relator, against ; to try title to office of Register of Deeds of Clay County, N. C. ; leave granted Feb. 7th, 1919. 4. Lee Conley et als, relators, against Byron Conley et als ; action on guardian bond; leave granted April 28, 1919. 5. Ed. 0. Hall, relator, against L. A. Byrd ; forfeit office of High-way Commissioner of Wayne County, N. C. ; leave granted June 19, 1919. 6. J. jST. Buie, relator, against W. P. McAllister ; to try title to office of Supt. of Public Welfare of Robeson County, N. C. ; leave granted Nov. 3, 1919. 7. Julia M. Alexander, relator, against Edward W. Pharr; forfei-ture of office, member of the Legislature; leave granted Jan. 28, 1920 8. Julia M. Alexander, relator, against J. Lawrence Jones ; penalty for double office holding; leave granted Jan. 28, 1920. Civil Actions Disposed of Bickett v. Tax Commission, 177 N. C, 433. Board of Agriculture v. Drainage District, 177 N. C, 222. Motor Co. v. Flynt, 178 K C, 399. Brown v. Jackson, 179 N". C, 363. Jenkins v. Board of Elections, 180 N. C, . Civil Case Pending in the Supreme Court of United States. Motor Company v. Flynt, 178 N. C, 399.- EXHIBIT II List of Cases Argued ky the Attorney General and Assistant At-torney General, Before the Supreme Court, Fall Term, 1918, Spring Term, 1919, Fall Term, 1919, and Spring Term, 1920. AUGUST TERM, 1918 (176 K C. Report, pages 702 et sequitur) 1. State v. Fulcher; from Vance; seduction; verdict, guilty; defend-ant appealed; affirmed. 2. State v. Mclver; from Lee; statutory burglary; verdict, guilty; defendant appealed; affirmed. 2. State v. Harrington; from Lenoir; larceny; verdict, guilty; de-fendant appealed ; new trial. 3. State v. Tyndall; from Lenoir; guilty; dismissed under rule 17. 4. State v. Cook; from Franklin; seduction; verdict, guilty; defend-ant appealed; affirmed. 5. State v. Pace ; from Franklin ; guilty ; dismissed under rule 17. 6. State v. Johnson; from Cumberland; murder second ' degree ; guilty; defendant appealed; affirmed. 7. State v. Geneva Jones; from Durham; murder second degree; guilty; defendant appealed; affirmed. 8. State v. George W. Craig; from Rockingham; insanity; reversed. 9. State v. Spencer, from Forsyth; murder first degree; guilty; de-fendant appealed; affirmed. 10. State v. Carroll; from Rockingham; selling liquor; guilty; de-fendant appealed; affirmed. 11. State v. Atwood; from Forsyth; murder second degree; guilty; defendant appealed; affirmed. 12. State v. Rhodes; from Davidson; docketed and dismissed. 13. State v. Hege; from Davidson; docketed and dismissed. 14. State v. Fritz; from Davidson; docketed and dismissed. 15. State v. Wentz; from Union; murder second degree; guilty; de-fendant appealed; affirmed. 16. State v. Harrington; from Richmond; docketed and dismissed. 17. State v. Lineberger and Clippard; from Gaston; distilling; guilty ; defendant appealed ; affirmed. IS. State v. Oakley; from Wilkes; manslaughter; guilty; defend-ant appealed; reversed. BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL 9 19. State v. Keever; from Catawba; manslaughter; guilty; defend-ant appealed; affirmed. (177 N\ C, 114.) 20. State v. Wilson; from Yadkin; larceny; guilty; defendant ap-pealed; affirmed. 21. State v. Charlie Jones; from Buncombe; docketed and dis-missed. 22. State v. Lunsford; from Cherokee; larceny; defendant appealed; affirmed. (177 K 0., 117.) 23. State v. Fain; from Cherokee; barn burning; guilty; defendant appealed; affirmed. (177 K 0., 120.) SPRING TERM, 1919 (177 !N". C. Report, page 551 et sequitur) 24. State v. Bush; from Pasquotank; liquor; guilty; defendant ap-pealed; affirmed. 25. State v. Dunning, from Bertie; assault; defendant appealed; re-versed. 26. State v. Lewis, from Wayne; rape; defendant appealed; affirmed. 27. State v. Wallace ; from Craven ; docketed and dismissed. 28. State v. Finch; from Wake; manslaughter; defendant appealed; new trial. 30. State v. Harris; from Wake; docketed and dismissed. 31. State v. Pitts, from Forsyth; liquor; defendant appealed; af-firmed. 32. State v. Simmerson ; from Forsyth; liquor; defendant appealed; affirmed. 33. State v. Davis, from Forsyth; murder in the first degree; de-fendant appealed; affirmed. 34. State v. Hardeu & Beale ; from Forsyth ; highway robbery ; de-fendants appealed; affirmed. 35. State v. Butler; from Guilford; liquor; defendant appealed; affirmed. 36. State v. Brady; from Guilford; attempted abortion; defendant appealed; affirmed. 37. State v. Coble; from Guilford; murder second degree; defendant appealed; affirmed. 38. State v. Canup; from Mecklenburg; motion to docket and dis-miss. 39. State v. Wilson and Matthews; from Buncombe; liquor; af-firmed. 40. State v. Gash ; from Buncombe ; manslaughter ; defendant ap-pealed; affirmed. 10 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL 41. State v. Ditmore ; from Graham; refusal to assist sheriff; spe-cial verdict ; appealed by the State ; reversed. •42. State v. Evans; from Cumberland; murder second degree; de-fendant appealed; affirmed. FALL TERM, 1919 (178 'N. C. Report, page 671 et sequitur) 43. State v. Windley; from Beaufort; embezzlement; guilty; defend-ant appealed; new trial. 44. State v. Lamm ; from Nash ; docketed and dismissed. 45. State v. Exuni; from Nash; docketed and dismissed. 46. State v. Marks & Farmer; from Halifax; abduction; defendants appealed ; affirmed. 47. State v. Southerland ; from Wayne ; murder second degree ; de-fendant appealed ; affirmed. 48. State v. Godley; from Johnston; docketed and dismissed. 49. State v. Stancil; from Pitt; larceny; defendant appealed; af-firmed. 50. State v. Simonds; from Pitt; liquor; defendant appealed; af-firmed. 51. State v. Mincher; from Lenoir; larceny; defendant appealed;: affirmed. 52. State v. Joe Baldwin; from Wake; liquor; defendant appealed;- affirmed. 53. State v. Hayes Baldwin; from Wake; liquor; defendant ap-pealed; affirmed. 54. State v. Medlin; from Franklin; docketed and dismissed. 55. State v. O'Higgins; from Cumberland; abduction; appeal by the-defendant ; affirmed. 56. State v. Bryan; from Brunswick; murder second degree; defend-ant appealed; affirmed. 57. State v. Dupree; from Hoke; docketed and dismissed. 58. State v. Latta; from Durham; liquor; defendant appealed; af-firmed. 59. State v. Phillips & Key; from Surry; F. & A.; defendants ap-pealed; affirmed. 60. State v. Cain et als; from Surry; murder first degree; defend-ants appealed; affirmed. BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL 11 61. State v. Medley & Robertson; from Forsyth; robbery; defend-ants appealed; affirmed. 62. State v. Rumple et als; from Forsyth.; riot; defendants appealed; affirmed. 63*. State v. Prevo ; from Davidson ; town ordinance ; defendant ap-pealed; reversed. 64. State v. Moon ; from Guilford ; bigamy ; defendant appealed ; af-firmed. 65. State v. Daniel; from Davidson; F. & A.; defendant appealed; affirmed. 6Q. State v. Herret; from Davidson; docketed and dismissed. 67. State v. Little; from Anson; murder first degree; defendant ap-pealed ; new trial. 68. State v. Reid; from Anson; arson; defendant appealed; new trial. 69. State v. Bridges; from Gaston; secret assault; defendant ap-pealed ; affirmed. 70. State v. Wiseman ; from Cleveland ; murder first degree ; defend-ant appealed; affirmed. 71. State v. Mull; from Burke; liquor; defendant appealed; af-firmed. 72. State v. Killian; from Caldwell; liquor; defendant appealed; new trial. 73. State v. Coleman; from Burke; liquor; defendant appealed; af-firmed. 74. State v. Nixon & Johnson ; from Randolph ; liquor ; affirmed. 75. State v. Lovelace; from Rutherford; murder first degree; defend-ant appealed; affirmed. 76. State v. Lowe; from Buncombe; lottery; State appealed; re-versed. 77. State v. Yearwood & Tabor; from Graham; arson; defendants appealed ; affirmed. 78. State v. Palmer; from Haywood; arson; defendant appealed; affirmed. 79. State v. Kirkland; from Swain; larceny; defendant appealed; new trial. 80. State v. Caylor; from Swain; larceny; defendant appealed; af-firmed. 81. State v. Dalton; from Macon; murder first degree; defendant appealed ; new trial. 12 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL SPRING TERM, 1920 (179 K C. Report, page 700 et sequitur) 82. State v. Sessoms; from Tyrrell; liquor; defendant appealed; af-firmed. 83. State v. Burnett; from Bertie; murder first degree; State ap-pealed ; affirmed. 84. State v. Bailey et als; from Johnston; murder second degree; defendants appealed; affirmed. 85. State v. Perry & Horton; from Chatham; liquor; defendants ap-pealed; affirmed. 86. State v. McLawkorn ; from Pitt; liquor; defendant appealed; affirmed. 87. State v. Publishing Co.; from Pitt; libel; defendants appealed; new trial. 88. State v. Walker; from Lenoir; keeping bawdy house; defendant appealed ; affirmed. 89. State v. Walker; from Lenoir; docketed and dismissed. 90. State v. Hicks; from Sampson; selling wine; defendant ap-pealed; affirmed. 91. State v. Hines; from Lenoir; murder second degree; defendant appealed; affirmed. 92. State v. Taylor; from Lenoir; docketed and dismissed. 93. State v. Taylor and Taylor; from Lenoir; docketed and dis-missed. 94. State v. Shoaf ; from Forsyth; selling on Sunday; defendant ap-pealed; reversed. 95. State v. Cline; from Forsyth; rape; defendant appealed; new trial. 96. State v. Hobson; from Guilford; docketed and dismissed. 97. State v. Crowder and Liles; from Anson; liquor; defendants ap-pealed; affirmed. 98. State v. Simonds; from Anson; certiorari; denied. 99. State v. Kirkpatrick ; from Mecklenburg; milk ordinance; de-fendant appealed; affirmed. 100. State v. Gheen ; from Lincoln ; liquor ; defendant appealed ; af-firmed. 101. State v. Connor; from Iredell; murder first degree; defendant appealed; affirmed. 102. State v. Fink; from Cabarrus; town ordinance; defendant ap-pealed; reversed. BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL 13 103. State v. Alexander; from Iredell; murder first degree; defend-ant appealed; affirmed. 104. State v. Beam; from Iredell; liquor; defendant appealed; new trial. 105. State v. Razook ; from Henderson ; town ordinance ; defendant appealed ; affirmed. 106. State v. Hutchins; from Yadkin; docketed and dismissed. 107. State v. Yoder; from Buncombe; docketed and dismissed. SUMMARY OF CASES Affirmed 65 jSTew trial or reversed on defendant's appeal 17 Reversed on State's appeal 2 Appeal dismissed 22 Motion certiorari, denied 1 Total 107 CRIMINAL STATISTICS STATEMENT A The Following Statement Shows the Criminal Cases Disposed of During the Fall Term, 1918, and Spring Term, 1919 County Alamance Alexander*--- Alleghany — Anson Ashe Avery Beaufort Bertie Bladen Brunswick... Buncombe... Burke Cabarrus Caldwell Camden Carteret Caswell Catawba Chatham Cherokee Chowan. Clay Cleveland Columbus Craven Cumberland. Currituck Dare Davidson Davie Duplin Durham Edgecombe.. Forsyth Franklin Gaston Gates Graham Granville*. _- Greene Guilford Halifax Harnett Haywood Henderson.. Hertford Hoke Hyde 78 14 10 28 62 21 32 18 1 22 247 69 60 39 59 12 32 11 132 11 17 86 33 58 15 3 6 30 25 42 110 21 146 19 115 5 79' 20 7 78 25 29 76 51 7 3 2 40 55 15 13 164 24 22 12 4 24 23 4 27 13 9 2 56 21 121 22 81 143 66 124 25 77 13 73 11 56 52 16 2 24 40 45 1 152 16 11 100 64 19 67 68 14 33 346 87 77 46 4 82 30 36 38 125 20 16 139 50 172 37 4 6 51 32 111 242 82 252 44 182 14 73 84 18 121 71 36 72 73 44 45 3 20 120 17 8 62 44 11 47 47 16 32 287 74 61 47 42 31 28 26 89 10 5 87 36 107 25 3 5 45 23 50 107 68 234 33 145 10 45 67 14 102 77 32 42 56 37 37 3 u O V Q, OQ 8 49 9 109 16 12 18 1 1 1 30 4 20 10 13 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL STATEMENT A—Continued 15 County "J: T3 o "o O a -3 s 3 B "> ao O a '3 < o £ "o z "3 '£ 05 C O J3 XL oS Iredell Jackson - 71 46 17 12 18 93 9 36 48, 38' 38 112 37 12 15 38 23 14 3 43 5 14 14 22 23 74 50 64 21 119 38' 18 48 7 26 52 92 35 28' 6 13 16 140 3 8 . 16 42 83 67 47 32 35 1 9 19 14 166 7 2 4 98 49 26 31 32 219 16 33 41 107 69 286 37 18 25 93 56 42 11 94 8 38 46 36 26 68 74 78 145 67 175 73 25 94 31 33 53 96 34 34 10 39 37 259 15 31 16 69 75 1S4 50 32 8 2 . 40 5 7 3 42 1 4 10 1 1 6 4 8 3 7 13 2 10 2 8 8 2 3 4 5 4 4 4 4 27 1 2 9 14 19 3 1 83 43 26 10 27 155 12 22 36 107 49 219 20 15 15 60 66 39 13 74 8 28 35 23 26 36 38 72 104 49 137 47 24 67 IS 33 30 89 •:0 6 8 30 27 214 16 14 11 45 52 149 45 31 5 7 IS 1 18 Jones. ... ... 1 5 32 4 3 8 9 11 71 1 Macon... 13 4 69 34 216 McDowell.. . Mecklenburg Mitchell 7 52 4 1 12 16 55 17 2 7 10 59 43 29 9 57 3 28 40 17 19 52 13 30 91 29 64 43 7 47 25 15 1 8 1 10 8 30 25 146 13 25 19 1 2 3 Moore . Nash... . ... .. 9 24 1 4 11 14 1 11 10 11 3 4 5 5 Pitt 20 9 8 21 11 22 22 1 29 9 2 7 9 9 21 5 7 6 45 18 40 1 Polk 30 9 24 12 7 14 2 2 11 1 6 8 28 Tyrrell Wake* 16 1 11 13 19 6 2 955 3 4 22 24 35 2 36 6 136 6 1 Wilkes Totals 4,014 3,481 29 6,943 581 5,227 1,255 90 *One corporation tit each sign. In computing totals, add corporations to race and sex. 16 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL Recapitulation of Statement A 7,527 6,943 581 3 Total... 4,014 3,481 29 3 7,527 White Total 5,227 955 1,255 90 7,527 Convictions, including submissions Total 7,527 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL 17 £ i nosjy uBtix i <M i I N i ^H ! 99J§9Q puooag—^jBjSjng 1 Tj< CO . w i aa-iSaQ ^laSSng ; - ^jaqug AraisSig j. j <M : ^ <N -1 ! ^ 1 rt rt XpiB^SBg nosiog 3uT|(aAiQ umg ' 0} ^draa^y ad^H o^ ina^uj " CO ; ; —< i CM " ' tI0d'B8jV\ ^[pBaQ ^ lO i-H 00 lO i—I 00 C5 C75 tO !>• Wti O "5 * o CO h Tti n oo pura ^pXBBBy (M rt "tfl ! rH IQ rH »o !>• >o DO tD CO CO N h io lO QO « uosjy rt ! ! iJBjgy 10 »o *h t>- o co »o CO Tfl W H co wa ^ ^ uOT^joqy <N ~* ! ! ^ uoi^onpqy 1-1 ^uauiuopuBqy *H | r_l »o CO * r-H M rt .H County <u o as E 03 — CI 03 Xc >> a eS < Bo c < Ashe . . Avery.. Beaufort . o 03 H ?. G ^ ! a i O oj s -^ 3 3 a a — S3 o > - a s 03 o o3 to 03 03 £ cS — 03 o at 6 d 03 O O 3 c > 3 3 .C 2 _= O n 0J> S3 o IS BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL uosjy nraqj, aomO '3uuung <M <M 89.I39Q paooag—^.nqSjng o <M CO 33JS3Q AiagSng Aaaqug 1-1 ^ Aui-e3ig rt »o *!,-(! " T-1 ; ApiT^SBg UOSIOJ SuijpAiQ ujng ' o^ :jduia^y q^iM. ^qn'Bssy TjH q^TA\ ^jn-essv " XMNWt)*NOO »rs ^ co i n o> n ' CXI CXI Ajaweg pire ^pressy <Mt-h<MCS-*COCO^^-^'-h~h^ O <D t- ifM^i-^ IcO-^H^H uosjy 1 rt Acagy (N CM CO (N n « h n i< CO Cq ^ i LO CD uoi^ioqy '-l TH uoi;onpqy ,-( H l-l ! r~l ; ; ^uaiuuopui3qy 1-1 N r-, ** CO co lO m rt 1 rf rt i N rt County C 1 a £ - | cc cp - E C £ a • £ E-X I E c -t-c "a C a = c3 > hC E c3 c-o e a a f-c ]~E c cl t S3 E ^-. ;- c3 c; O V c3 a. F-C '— a-a c .2 ^ >> a; EC J* a Cc c ,c o Bc BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL 19 illll!l!!ll!l!"!llli" , .!l!!!l!l!!l!lllll " Hiir N" iirr J!" urn r N-iiri 6* 1 1 ! ,_, ! ! CO ! 1 1 C? 1 i-H »-H H t-H 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 ! ! ! jl|||||iilllllli.!!ll"||!|fjii|!|!i|!|| i i i i : i 1 i. i : i i i ! i i ! i i i i \ i i i i i i i i i i i ! i i 1 i ! 1 ,-4 i I i i-H .1 1 1 hjl I i hH 1 1 I i-l t 1 I 1 iH I 1 i-l 1 !^h!!oo! h rt io ^ io n ioococococd h n n ios-^ n^^^MOiooooN n o oo » i 1 co t~-T—tf—i r- o co »o c^ h u; ^ n n to i c<i r- i *—t-^ooi—i co co cd -h --ic^^h • io co -h r— i co *-( 03 rH N i l-H 1 -h I i oa -^ 03 03 i it—i ii—i co i i i i csi ica iiooi>- i iq tjhosio-h i i i !'!!!!! rt !!!! 1 !! i ! i 1 i i i ', ! i i 1 ', i ', 1 ', 1 ', ', ', ', i ', " ; ; M ; ~ "" : ! " : ~ i ; ; : : : ! ; ! ~ : I""* 9 MM":!;" noir _ ................ nooln _ _._ .. icon.. _ ._ .. adison ._ . .. artin .. cDowell _. _ 3Cklenburg- _. ._ tchell _. ontgomery oore. ash .... 3w Hanover ... _ orthampton ... .. . lslow. _ ange. imlico .. _ __ _ squotank. nder. _ rquimans .. rson . tt._ . Ik mdolph.. ". chuiond >beson .. ickingham >wan ... itherford _ mpson... otland.. _ _ anly.. . ... okes ... ._ . 'ain. . . ansylvania 'rrell... _ lion. nee _. J J S g s s SSlJlS^pjSpjSSpjiEaoQmEiB^'tJ^ 20 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL uosjy UBtli i9t{10 'Suni.ing -* 99.l8aQ pnooag—^.iB[gjng iO 33.133Q XiaSSng — <M X.i3qug ~- CO AwbSxq CM -1 ** 00 Ap.re^seg uosiog (M 3uij|8A\Q ujng " 3di3g o} ;ua;uj —< CO .-< "3< ™ oc n o oo w h n CO 00 X.i3WBg pus un^ssy CO ^H C! IQ CO N CO CI CO uosiy ~H -H <* Ai3.iHy J^ r-l <M -H CO uoi^joqy J^ uoT^onpqy rt CM CM - ^uauiuopuBqy CO rt rt 00 rt 00 a 3oO 03 3 03 CC "S = '^= a- S w3 03 03 > 03 dc 1 up 03 o BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL 21 SAVB^ SniQ puBjpOOjJ aniBQ pura qsijj asna^ajj; asj^j -1 ~H CO H M rt -1 rt S9X13X CO *£> r~ lO O CM CD ad'eosg; rt <M CO cq ^naraaizzgqrag M *H *" ,' rt -1 rt SAiBq noi^ogjg 8 r~ Sniqiri^siQ ^ ,_, ^ cq C<i ^H <M ~* ~H " .^radoij paS^S -^JOJ\[ JO StlTSOdStQ ^H ^* e* " " cq asnojj AjjapiosiQ C-5 cq rH o; A;pf\JO ^H ^H (N O l-H CO ^H Sui^Tajja^unoQ XOBJldSUOQ N O 10 PINO J° -1 ^U0{9J SuTpunodraoQ snodBa^\ paj^ao «nH'*«J!OMQnHO>'ftO^ 1—i so rji * C-4 <M ^ CM >> O a c £ < c - a SI < c : 3 < > >- 5 "3 pq in c r c 3 pq a = a S pq -- pq ; ? r 5 c T -t-t-a O 03 03 O a c t-r >- 3 P r > s = E E > 03 E ~ OJ X E 3 - P 22 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL SAi'B'J 3niQ purc pooj; 8SU8J8IJ SSpSJ i-t H io M Ifl rt " <N *-' <* CO -1 rt >H * spraoy; oijqnj 1 °° Ol CO esxvx "' 00 I ad'eosg; rt -H rt cuiauiapzzaqtug rt ; N N m <N rH SAVBq uoijoajg Suiqjn^STQ ' ^ " CO " <M *H •ityiadojj paScS -q^.ioj\[ jo SuisodsiQ *-i co <n " " * asnoH ^fjapjosiQ i t^ r-i " " " sp3iumy oij Ajpn.iQ i iO cq " cq W CO 04 SuprajjajunoQ Ao^iidsnoQ CO oq q^iig SinpsaouoQ Auojajf SuTpunodmoQ snod'B8i\Y papsao -UOQ SUI^JJBQ CO lOtDQOHHSiflNMHioio •tf CI TJH CO 00 I~- n N a O >> 3 oo cc > c-c P P -- a E s C g l a. c C a e C a a C c C * - t c E pc T cc f XI a a pp c PC a c-a > J. cc 1- cc ->- c c 1- a cc 1- a 'c c J £ i BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL 23 i CO i i ' 1 !<M<rqcq!.-icoi !<m< If^.^t^l^Hil^H^Hi i^Iwi-ioaool^H cqi !!!'i!r-Hi!ii!i-Hi-i!!co •!•'• '^-ifo'THi-Hi i ! i i i i i ^ i i i i i i i i i i - i i i i i i i i i i > i i i i i i i i i lit,—liii -i — lii iiiiiiieO'i—ii'i-Hiiiiii'iii—iC^iUSii ! '! ! I ! 1 ! ; 1 ; ; ; ; j ; ; ; j ; ; ; 1 ! j ! 1 ! ; 1 ; 1 ! 1 j l H ! ! 1 i-l 1 l<^<-*—ICOt-H III—1 1 ri—1 1 ii—(CSl i 1 i-H ! i i-i i t i-H i T|4 1 1 ' C4 1 li-lli-Hi-llNlirHC^i 1 tH 1 CO < ^H ' i i—t i -p—1 i I -tf tH 1 i CM i 1 (M 1 1 *Q 1 1 1 i-H i i N 1 t—1 i i —1 i—1 i « i i i * -^ ' ICO CM i i ,—( rj« i i i i i i i i i i O i ! i j i i i i j i i i .i ! i i i i_ i i i i. i i i i i i ; i i i. j j i i * i i cxi p i i r-i I ^h i i i CM son -. - --- in .. _ -. owell __._.. -. _ .lenburg --. - - iell_ tgomery e -- - - -- --- - Hanover. _ -._ - — hampton. -- - lieo -_- -. _ - uotank - -- uimans _ lolph." mond - >son - . ingham ._ _ - an_ erford pson._. . _-_ _ and - — n -. -_ . sylvania-. - . — .- ell n . .. - _ . e - _.- e_ _ ._ __ . en . __ _ .__ _. lington . '•3 t, Q « ti o M 5 -C c3 O 2 o S S3 O O O D h H t> > & & £ 24 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL 3ruQ pue poo^ auiBQ puB qsy; CO asnajs-ij asps^ - CO CO C5 sp^oy; oijqnj 03 S8XBX (M Th adBosg; v s ^TOUiajzzaquig CO SMraq; uoi^oajg CO Suiqjn^stQ " <* A^iadoij paS^S -}JOJ\[ jo SuisodsiQ CO asnojj AjiapjosiQ CN! * >-l 00 spsuiiny Csl -- -* 3ut^T8JJ8^UnOQ rt TH AOBIldSUOQ 00 PINO J° qjJig; SmpsgouOQ CO SuipunodraoQ siiod-ea^ pspsao -noQ SujAjibq CO CO O ^H ^ CO >> c a oO t 1 ! - 1 £ [ c 1 , < 3 a < > J/ +c E- BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL 25 saotreuipio SAi^'J ^jb;i(ij^ ja^qSn-eisuej^ ^noq^ijW ssauisng 3uioq 'asuaoiq; ^noqiijW uoissajoij pqn 3uiAiaoay; pnB Auaoj^ C4HtOHHIOO>C4tDN an HnQOOIonMlO^NM<C0N sjonbtq; *3< -**< »0 CM O 10 i^»H) A^iadoij ^saoaj Suiu.mg asnojj Sui^j'Ba.iqasnojj smb'i q^ieajj A\iac|40q 10 SuqquiBQ N N <M (D Aia^jnpy pnB noi^Boiuaoj; Aja3jo,j ss^dsajj, ajqwioj ^h cq co co * S S3 d ^ (3 rf c3 a C3 _y & c3 J3J£^^ O J2 rf C S « n S 3 a « «tqflP3000000000000000Q 26 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL saon'BUTpjo SAVBq Xj-b^ijij^; jgjqSnBjsu-Bj^ rt iC i-l ~- CM « CO -1 < "*< rH ~ q.noq^i^\ ssauTsng "1 tH ^noij^i^ uoissajojj 3uiopoi3Jc[ 'asuaoiq 1—1 pqn SniAiaoay; para AuaoxB'j O^WOh^UJIOiCNOCONQ sionbiq OC « N © iO tO ' "^H CO i—1 CO i <M ©HN^OiH^kONW o -h n ^ n oo n i -o o^ Aanfuj — O) CO I iO " CM —c co ^saonj ^ 1 00 Smujng asnojj Ml SniJj'eajqgsnoH ^ n rt o n ~H CO ~- * tH °"" rt CM CM t- < r- C/3 SM/eq; u^i'eaji io Suijqui-BQ s »o 00 00 rrq cq t^ oa 00 pura noi^BoiuJOj n n n i »o cm r^ CO CO " CM <M * jOaSiOjj .-H * 5 1 rt CM -1 <N N h M CM ss'BdssJx siqio-ioj cm cm ^H CO CS Cv) ^ " " CO OS >> a oQ a -- - a. 1 Ia — c d P=H C c -*- ! C E [ c > c a e c > c a t1 C i ft T C | ! S or | a a C U > 1 1 < cC c >- C C c c 1- cc a "c ca 1- i BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL n '(Mill iiii io-^i i 1-1 1-1 i iiHiiHiteqcqNcqcqiii-ii ico^hco^hi i i ' ' i ' • i-H t CO i I t 1 CO t i—l I 1 1 I 1 1 ifliOO^WMCCHOOW^N iOC^=DCCOC3<MQO^OCOC<J<—1 IO O O "^ <-D *0 CO i -*< -^ O O UO r-( i-H TJH i—i t-h 1 »-H 1-T i-l i-< <N i-H <M iHii—1 M CS -—1 i—l 1 H H « C-qc^ >-, ,-h i—i « i i CO CM <M CO *H r-l i-H i CN < i i w i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i ; i i i ^ i i i ^ ^ i i i i i i i i 1 " : i ! ! : i i : ! : : : : ; : : N ! i i : : ; ; : ; : : : : i : i t-h t-h <7sl 1 i i io t-h th ico .»o 1 T-H I i th cO IO <"M O ^F i I iO 1 H ' th i (N iO ' i ; ~* III!!!!!!! i 1 '~l ! *H ! i I I "H I I I I ! i o ' » h i !!!!co!!!l!!!!M!cq>o!!!!!<M!!!!!cKi!! [ [ [ • ' ' 1 tH J Cq 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 C-l M M H i i(M IC^ i i i i icqi i -H* i -tJ< th tH rH tH i i 1 i ^ tH tH i i i O i C-} i <M i T-H t rH ("M i i ii-HC<) l i t-H ilO l l 1 t—1 tH iCOt-HC^COCOttHCO i i ,^-(CO < C<1 i O I I so « ro t-j i , , , | , I N I ! | ! j j _ ! ! M « I „j _ ! 1 I _ 1 ! ^ 1 1 eo h ] adison _ ... ... .. _ artin _ 3Dowe!l . --. .. . 3oklenburg_. . ... tchell .... . . ... ontgomery . . . ' .. . oore .. . ... ish ._ _. 3W Hanover ... .. arthampton _ _ _ ._ islow __ _. ange.. 1 . mlico . _ _ squotank ... _ . nder ... . _. _. rquimans ._ . rson ... ._ . .. tt Ik mdolph . . chmond. . _ )beson_ _ __ _ ._ )ckingham . ........ wan _ itherford.. . mpson . ... otland .. .. ... inly okes.. . . _. rry ain . ansylvania rrell _. . _ lion... nee... ... . ... ike. ... . . _ irren. _. ... ishington . -.'oob3£g.g°3;:£>>rtc3rte3 s-. c3 c3 qj o 28 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL CO ! SAi'BI Axeiijij^ | j Ja^qSriB[sn'Bj\[ <M ~H CO ^noq^iM ssamsng 3uioq 'asueojq s inoqji^Y noissajojj " m iaqn ^ SuiAiaoay; pura Auaoa^q; CO W M H « N 00 CO sxpnbi'j »h i> o oa ic cq 1 ./fyiado.ij CO ^saonj -' o- Suraing ssnojj co Snisj-BaiqasnoH * « SAM3T; l|H138JJ CO iO jo SnijqraBQ lO 1 - Ai9;jnpv puB uoi^boiuio^ (M CO (M W ri CO AisSioji 00 ™ ssBdsaax siqp-ioj ! co ^h t-i B >> c 3o O ifl r s = -. - 3 ! > I - c 1 i 3 f 3 c H > 3 c E- BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL 29 snoatTBij90Sij\[ cr 1 CV - o IT> o ; m t w CN c t> CN c-ssradsajj, t-~ rt CT * —i i CM japurajg *H i-H i-l -H i-H rt CO *-H uorionpag SMBr [ jooqog AVraqqo-jj N W5 ^oih jaoigo Snrjsisa-jj CM CM CO CM ad'ey; CM CM a ^jnfjaj CM ~H rt i CM aE coo ^onpnoog]x\; [biotjjo en f- z UJ UJ < 1- JOAiy; Surroruasqo A'BMrjSlH or[qtij Suypruisqo " aouBsmj^; CO 11 * ~H CM I CM pnoosg—japanj^ CM -H CM ~H ^ ~H rt ,_| ^h —1 r-l CM CM CD i-H •* ^ i aaagaQ ^sji^—japanj\; _ >> oO a C K £ < t- CD "0 sS !« C >3 cS ,P bI < p : c <! a < > OJ O a t a> - p— s 5 | c 3 o uc 3 pq a = Cabarrus... ... Caldwell Camden _ ... a a | CC o C! £ +^ 03 -= o a o a— p o3 5o — > o >c 3 E~ "3 O 3 > oi U a — E 3 o o 0) 03 .30 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL snoauBijaostj^ -* c5 © 00 'h N ec ' i io m eo <m ca o o oj »o c- r-- c co en ssBdsgjx rt I rf 1 'H *" " N n rt M H ; « « rt -. japu^jg I CO i ** uoi^onpgg rt rH w « - i C$ SAi^q; jooqog Ajgqqoy; MHS 1 rt rt <o ! rt ' CO ; "' 10TH cc jaogfo Sui^sisoy; N H 1H t^ IN *<* '— ' ! ^f ad'B'jj " ' " r " -o Ajntjej 3 co o 1 ^OnpuODSTJ^ p3TOIJJO CO 1- z tij E LU 1- < t-jaAiy §ni^oni;sqo oijqrij Sui^onjjsqo <M " aouBsmjvj CM aaa38Q puooag—japjnj\; co co co o cq <M CM i—i i n h n * CM 98Jg3Q " " "1 >> c s o O dc '> 03 CD '> 03 P P £ 03 Au-R — aoo CD —hi ,d >, o fa d -2 a o3 fa d o o3 o 0> o S c3 - 'I d c3 O CD <D o c '3 O ca "c3 W R 03 w -a oo 03 W d o p-i a 0) — O ai o —oj >> — d O -1 o ri 1-5 do — o 1-5 OJ -o 1-5 'o S a3 d oo 03 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL 31 '•«H©waiM»0©HN^HOO i—i O) M CD OO iCOC^I i-^i-^ i IO I N >Q H H CD i-H CO r-l i-H ^H CO <T3 ^H 03 03 O 03 -Th O O - c3 .0) •« o M s 3 * '3 £ o TO ^ j a g d o c S f5 P3 (5 CB 02 » HHP ty — H f*h C -* fH ffl nji rf C^ OJ >£££ 32 BIENNIAL EEPOKT OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL snoau'eijaosijii <M 00 O yo ~* tj< ssradsajx OS aapnrcjg i i *"" noi^onpag 1 rt — -nii CM saibi jooqog ill rH Ajaqqcjj l ^H l NI 1 l 00 ^oi-jj ! !• ! ' N jaaujQ Supstsa^j ^ ! I oo i i rh ! i i adra^j Oil CO i i <M AjntJSj i CO .-H i i i ~ ^onpnoosij\r jbioujo I8AVJJ 3ni;onj;sqo NT X'BAi.qSTJJ oijqnj 3nponnsqo 00 aourasmj^; i | n - ' i CO : i 1 88JS8Q puoaag—.iap.mj^ t~ i y- 1 H ^ i aajSaQ ^SJi^—Japinj\r i ' ! >> c oO Watauga Wayne . Wilkes... Wilson _ Yadkin _ Yancey Totals BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL 33 STATEMENT C Fall Term, 1919—Spring Term, 1920 County 03 "o O c C3 o £1 5 fa "> o O '3 a <j o fa a o 11 2 a So 50 8 39 73 45 63 12 27 16 15 337 66 80 72 46 22 11 52 119 8 24 76 113 47 29 7 3 95 27 38 60 26 183 54 187 19 12 45 21 174 19 42 36 95 6 10 5 72 105 5 13 9 95 36 4 4 128 2 4 29 92 36 20 188 18 31 11 30 22 1 72 10 16 80 11 40 192 44 60 38 114 50 33 458 81 102 73 75 44 11 116 119 21 22 111 190 167 73 8 3 116 43 88 160 91 399 141 246 39 13 96 47 284 91 63 36 134 48 67 13 123 116 20 41 35 208 6 1 3 9 3 7 5 2 2 67 3 9 10 1 1 8 10 3 2 4 19 12 2 9 5 12 13 41 1 12 1 4 29 4 5 1 5 3 8 3 6 1 5 39 72 12 34 148 45 43 24 94 51 32 360 84 91 71 59 36 12 104 97 10 17 85 134 138 57 6 3 84 36 64 158 93 387 134 147 26 11 71 42 179 57 36 23 104 32 66 8 97 85 21 33 25 143 10 4 3 16 2 3 17 10 6 33 4 20 1 14 1 1 3 44 120 1 11 12 8 8 9 Caldwell -- 9 17 29 7 2 9 20 6 16 2 1 3 7 5 21 51 35 2 2 Clav 39 96 132 46 1 4 1 Davidson. — Davie.. - - Duplin -- . _ 30 16 55 112 78 257 88 71 20 1 52 30 139 76 26 1 44 45 65 11 57 10 16 28 31 152 1 15 3 8 8 8 22 2 23 10 2 13 7 42 37 18 12 16 10 6 8 11 10 26 4 19 6 3 31 6 88 3 2 Granville. ... -. . .. Greene -. . . Guilford 13 2 92 1 14 2 19 9 3 Halifax . _ _ Harnett.. .. . . Hoke Hyde 21 21 Johnston 8 55 8 7 Lenoir . . . . 49 34 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL STATEMENT C—Continued County 53 Lincoln Macon Madison._ Martin McDowell Mecklenburgt- 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 78 132 65 22 91 189 40 35 31 41 20 30 6 42 1 37 16 6 2 13 23 182 2 25 24 60 40 40 9 55 11 45 89 135 63 34 110 337 39 59 54 94 50 68 14 95 11 91 216 28 50 26 66 60 55 16 80 11 54 4 103 10 Totals. 22 11 41 103 61 54 8 91 29 27 51 5 34 50 84 96 32 4 23 40 188 4 7 7 23 71 62 55 41 22 15 58 45 18 63 20 33 30 13 70 35 2 9 15 1 8 6 19 62 247 24 32 40 15 107 10 1 39 25 92 134 73 114 39 119 52 36 113 42 36 57 95 100 40 9 38 95 400 28 33 7 58 79 156 29 25 66 73 62 87 33 117 33 29 79 24 36 47 94 83 36 315 22 24 7 43 52 135 57 32 5,097 6,835 1,056 *One corporation each. fFive corporations. In computing totals, add corporation to race and sex. BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL 35 Recapitulation op Statement C Total number criminal actions disposed of Males Females Corporations Total White Colored Indian Corporations Total Convicted Acquitted Nolle Pros Otherwise disposed of Total ,636 641 5 097 4 152 28 8 6 835 1 056 1 362 32 9,285 9,285 36 BIENNIAL EEPOKT OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL uosiy neqx paooag—^jBjSjrig 3-Siij—.<C.itqS.ing Xja3Srig Aigqug XpjB^SBg uosiog X H nod38j\\ XjpBSQ X^iONN^^O CO CO 00 00 CO ^H ^H ^H ^h cm ^h oi r~ *o CM ^h ^ co H >-l l-l s W « u = H & 5 W •«! H (X( is ^J8»ug ptira q.pre'ssy ^ CM ~h O CO O CO OO O CM i r-- o -* Atuyy to CM -C* CM lO Cs CO uoi^joqy uot^onpqy ^narauopn^qy o; cm rt ^h 4 £ £ 03 £ £ 3 2 BIENNIAL KEPORT OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL 37 CO O i* 00 -# Tfl CO o o o ONCO^Ci^H^QOOOOO <—i !> o co o o C3 t-h i co i< ^ o n iioo i i—i o ^ <M CM t-h N O N O N ifl i-H i-H CO O i—I i-H i-l C3 ^H O K > > a cd <3 o3 3 PQQQ ,s-5 >i-^ O J2 ^ 1* Q 13 ° s o O CD "£ O O 38 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL uosiy U13HJ, aaq^O 'Smuing 89.I38Q pnooag—^iBjSjng C<1 CO 00 Csl asjgaQ XjaSSng rf A-iaquQ jftu^Sig CM — 00 " ~ ~ N <N Apj^seg UOSIOJ o% ^draa^y 05 ' 04 ^duia^y . <M " <M nod'ea^ ^jpB9Q miM ;jni3ssy 00 n n 10 h t)i co QOt^O^COCOCOCO^CMOOCOi-IIOi-I^H't*^ CO £raWBg pura ^jriBssy * i>- © H N © N CO M CO N t~ CQ -^i y-I WO CO H H NOO uosjy jtBjgy CM lO O CO -^h <m t-n *o cm t^ s C^t CO ^ CO uoi^joqy noi^onpqy " -1 rt ~* q.uamuopu'Bqy - cq c<i ^ ~ •* i-H CO CO -1 •H ^ .-. CO 3 O < c . c r s ! 5 ; 2 1 1 > c < j ; c i I 1 1 C c ; - : E < c > p 1 j I - t ) a - ~ 1 c i < p. ] P h < pH P P - ) P 1 i P < ; c i p £ 1 c c ' p ) c c c P > r-cc c ! 1 I. .2 c C. a -t-t/ : > t s S a ca 1 s £ E-c BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL 39 00 <rq " ^ N CO ** 1—1 " ^ O 1—I i—1 t—1 »C id O OO lO lO i—t i—I CO i-H CO O lO CO -^ -^ CO CD CO OS w CO ^ IQ CO o 00 * IS C<J ** * " 1-H ^H OS OS a 5 ' rc +. 6 IE s : = c ll a -. — i c : i _ £ « c c E- 40 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL SruQ puB pooj asuaq.aij; asps ^ sp^oy; oiiqnjj jjjo^ oq. OjhjI'B^ S8XBJ, ^eiq o^ 8jnjp3jj juauiapzzaquig; s.MBq; uot^03[3 Smqih^siQ CO « * »-i -* Ajjadoij pa3i33 -^IOJ\[ jo SttlSOClSIQ asnojj A[jgpjosiQ sp3uiiny o^ A^aruQ Sin^iajia^unoQ jtOBItdSUOQ PIRO J° Aaoja^j SnipunodraoQ snodBa^Y pajisao CO^C^OCO^HOr^-COO CO ^ »o 2^3 d =? .S E 3 3 8 § *"« S-l ££ II 0} _Q C3 C OUOOOOO'OOOOOOOOQ BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL 41 M Tj< H « r-4 tH CO CO i-H ^H CSi ^h ^H ^h i-H .CM * l> CO CO M ?1 N Tf h M N h M Tfl lO^NMOOrtO'ONNWiO't h - ^ c3 c3 fl -+J "ID rJ- fl 3 ^ E >» fe J: . . T3 ^ ^ _S g a c3 cj UCJ-ThOOc3QJO 42 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL SM.VJ SlUQ pUB pOO^jJ ara^Q pUB qstj; CO asua^aij asp^ -* cm N ^ rt ~ N i •& CO CO sp-eo^j onc ln cI ^io^ o; aahp;^ 1 •* saxBj, * ad-eosg •-' luaraapzzaqrag CO N <N CO s.viB'j uoi^aajg ~ Suiqjn^siQ " •i -* M « o o ! * -lioyi jo SuisodsiQ " CM ~* ~H ^H | '"" asnojj ApapjosiQ 1—1 " ^ siBintnv 0^ AH8TUQ iH CM CO " 3ni^iajja;unoQ ^OBlldSUOQ « 00 cm CO PIHO J° ~ ,' rt Auojaj 3ntpnnoduiOQ snodB3A\ papaao C^l O >-< <N1 C<]IOt-<C<IOOOC<IIO'—i C<J CO i—i o * n n ~h o co cm -=h a 3 oO c r C J a P-n E c-a pr | c F-C - J •4- s c p- PC I 1 e 1P £ g t c ft ) c c P — c j p p CC C £ 1 - 1 p z s a i c 5 a 'E r > g Ft 1 ! £ c > a 1 o SO a 1 cj BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL 43 00 CD " ICI G© CS -1 -H rt OO OS ** ^ CO OS o " » " C3 3 cni t, m O CO f O « O f CO t ( i ) „ 1 I c ' 3 r; t I ; : 5 | .f 5 U ; - H C 5 1 1 c •a i E-i 44 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL I'BdiOTunj^ <M SAVB1 ^IBq.TIJJ\[ ja^qSnrajsu'ejf ""' »o O iO CN. - rt OT ^not^i^ ss8nt,sng Suioq 'asu'aorj — rt CO pqn 3UIAI3081J pUB AU90J'B rI ifl (N « * ^H CO co rt c-- ot CO^HlCCOOrHQiHNCNN ' t—1 CM CO CM i siontnq; 3ni^B0jxoq.n] O *OOOsaOOCOCOCOt^>lOO CO H rt t- (M ^H *-t CO i—liOT^CN»-HOiCOT^O -tf T-H .-I CO ^H 01. Amfuj " o " ^S80UJ -1 Saining asnojj OT Sanj'ea.iqasnojj rt CO rt os CO co rt OS ^f smv'j u^psaH ^18^07 jo SuiiquiBQ CO OT rtl Co rt CO CO rt. ia OO t— Aia^pipy puis noi^Boiuaoj[ (N N CO CO cq t-^ # ^< CNI « (O * CD CO AiaSjoj ^H CO co rt< »c CM " rt ^ i-i CO ssi3ds8JX aiqpJioj C3 CO o ot co co co OS "S o o c £ < > g 1 < s c ] c e < < > a> < -t- C • t c c ta i PC 4< c c c PC rt £c p E c sc 1 T c -g £ c 1 i CI c 1 t c rt c "S £ a 1 rt c a c a - g c c S 1 C J r € rt c :e E i | d Q BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL 45 1 i-H T* Illl 1—1 1 I 1—1 1 I i i i i i i i i i i i i M i i i, i i i i 1 i i ** i ** i i i i i i i i i i i i 1 1 ! .!**!!i !'!!! J!! ! ! i .' .' ! ! ! 1 ! ! ! ! ! 1 ! ' ! i ! ! ] ! ! ', ', ', 1 ', 1 1 1 ! ! ! 1 *" ! ! I ! 1 I ! 1 ! 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 ', ', ', ', ! 1 ', 1 ! l^.GOCOOCOCOxfmCS iCOOOlcoiOCOOCSOCOOOi^i—I :0 uo CO CO i—( i i—iOiOI>>IOC5C<It-IOH ^H 1-1 »0 CO O) ~H CO I ^H —« 1^ ^H rH i—1 i—1 CO 1—i 1 1—1 C5 « rH W OiOt--HCOOCOI>- I i c> i-< i£) O CO i CO 1—I t~ iCliOOI^r^r^-H^iOCNl^-iticO^-HcNl ICO CM CO *C* CM ' i OO H i CM 1 CM -H CO CM CM t-4 cSl 1-H rH i 1 i-h icO i i ii i i 1 H i i i i < i i i M H i i ^H ^H I'rf ' i « it^ i w i i i ! ~* ! ! ! ! 1 ! 1 1 ! ! ! ! 1 ! ! ! 1 1 1 .' ! ! 1 ! I 1 ! 1 ! ! ! ! 1 ', ! ', i ' i « m n n i i ii—i CM i i—i i ico i i i n i i i i—< io i i i in io i i ci ^ c— i . i i i-H r~ iii i ii iii iii iiii ii i 1 I i i-H r-4 1 iiii I cq 1 1 1 1 1 I 00 I l l IIO00C2 i ID I Ol F~ llli i ~* CO O CO irJl^H i I lUOlOCDi* i !>• CM I i i—I I I I U0 • l i—Ii l^Hrt 1 C3 1 1 1 1H ^H i^H ll III 00 i « IO H i N in i i —H t^ ^t< uo ico i i i iiiO^H i i i* « tJI CO i^JHt^ iCNl i^tl iCO i I i ^H CO *- ^H ^H CM i i Q 1 i-H 'i-i ii—I I i-t 1 TH i 1-1 ^ CM CM i ^ ^h CO i CM 1 IN rt i i—i ico i^H»OCi i ' 1 iH N i ' ' ' F~ 'i-l i CO CM i I 1 i-l CN CO i n i ii—1 i^h i i ividson .- - — . — - - iplin gecombe _..__ --- .inville - lilf ord ilifax.. ... . .. .. - irnett... -. - - - lywood-- - - nderson. rtford- -- - --- - - 5ke_-_ - .- -- ^de._. .- -- — - - - - dell ckson .,.- - - hnston -- nes. -.- - -- e. - - -- noir. -- - ncoln -- - -- -- icon. _ _ _ _ _- _ idison.. - _ irtin -_ — - DowelL- cklenburg.- .__ _ __ - tchell )ntgomery_- - >ore -_ - - -- --- isll ------- _ - w Hanover .-- >rthampton _ 46 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL fedioranj^ c savbi Aj-biiitj^ J3}t[3ni3[SU'BJ\[ -1 rt ^ ** ^H CO 1-H \ Suioq 'asuaoyj Cq "* Cfnoq^TjW notssajojj 3npjq.'o'BJcj 'asuaoiq; i«»qn 3uiAwoa^j CO ^H ,H iONiooo«t^onnion ^H CN H M CqCSJ rtW cq o oo cq OO <M ^- CO rf CO oo SJonbTq CO rt 00 (NNOHHCONlOOOSNHMiO^NMWH^COOO i-h O Cq i-H ^H ^hy-. ^h<M i-HCO A^jadoad _ " cq CM "" " •a CD 3 %S30UJ CO co U Saining asnojj a z Supji38.iq8srioij CO CO cq (M oo r- ^"" cq CO CO 1-H »0 cq 5 ui i-sm. v'J q^Bgjj A\ia^oq; 00 r^ Ci CO CO l— iH A\ia^npv pwB UOrp30IUJOj]; "* " " CO t)I (M W IN •* CI <N CO •H «# A^aSjoj; CO cq cq cq ^ CO Cq -rf CO ssBdsaJX aiqpjo^ ^ CQ " -* <H cq CO >> -p c 3 OO is c c C 1 c c is £a P-c s 1 E c p. J. a - — c a - £ s-a P- 4- - a 1 P- —z - c <s p: 1 p: j c - Sa IS &c ft i « c p: C i = -z Cc c s a 1 - « 1 -f > ca a ' a c +. i <- f c r > U E- E-c 'I s> * c is d o ma3 cj BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL 47 i r— ,-. — -h co ; 1 * o ! * CO "" H M ^* O DO rt CO « -H « CN 1 * rl CD O O CM 1 CO 1 § "| 5 o CO <N . fM "tf ,-h rs. CO <* ^ tjh ca * " lO < o CO CM C5 I i 1 g 1 a K i B> is 4 dc i a >> s o \» 48 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL snoaui3i|3osij\r ^i — w t- ? e£ »r C\ CV it •j: CN a »r ssb(Js8jx ># rt T-H i-< i-. CO i cm 1-1 ~* ^ iO >o japn^jg rt , M rt tH CO - noponpag rt CM <M " <M rt " -1 -1 ~ saibt; jooqog Xiaqqoy; rt 1 »0 ^H ^H CO co co -. : %°m CM : jaoijjO §upsisay; cq - 1 ^" CM ^h ~< CO " actey " Amfjaj CM i lO " ^onpnoosij\r p3Torgo jaAiy; Sutioni^sqo ^BMqSijj oi[qnj Sni'jon.nsqo " ' aou'Bsmjvj; " " CM # CM " 89.I39Q pnoogg—japjn j\[ <CO CO h-H ^H ,-H rt CO t- J- ^ H PI IO 83.I§8Q " County a c £ < a = > < > —6a < c c c -3 > o. > < s pq '-+3 0. pq Te 5 4i = 1 pq pq 4* - pq K O £— C a E 03 O a o 03 C 1 c ci S "S C £ 03 — O aM ou 03 o 03 &O >- c ci *0 >a 3 O p OJ > T E = 4» sO 03 2 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL 49 eo<M<Moocooo-'*<oOT-iioccocor~coi-~t--r~ icoio*-Hior~oDtfsMcocNi—-oiT-HC<iioiao ' rH t^ C\l t-H r-H T-H lO 11—1 CM t— t-H t-H CO t-H 1—II CO l i M (N ICO i « l ^H CI O H I 1 I I I I t-H I 1 t-H i n O -HH CO l ! cm i I*-!, i i i i ! ! t-h --< cm t-h ! t-H 1 1 t-H CO 1 CO Cq 1 i t-h i irHi-H^HT-i^fiVHeCli-ili-Heqi-Ht-HlTHi !!!!!! j !-!'! i'!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!! '~l ! !!!!!!! ! i M M W lO H 1 « H DO 1 CNl t-H CS i i i I i i i i»—1 > I i i iO i i t-h CM t-h 1 i i c~ ! IT^itCslCONi-tlli-ili-tlCqili-HI 1 t-H 03 1 1 i-H 1 i CM i i' i i CO ! t-H ! ! CM ' ! t-H ! ! CM i t-H ! iCOi 1 t-H O* 1 ! CO t-H ! ! <M ' i CM i i CM ! t-h i i iH t-h t 1^1 < CM I ! I | t-H . 1 1 Tfl l Cq 1 1 ^—1 » 1 1 IT-JHi 1,-hI l 1 I -HH t-H O i"* i CM t-* t-H t-H i CM CO t-I t-H t-H t t-H CM ' CM CO CO CM t-H CM © H « « « M l CO l ' CM ! i t-H ! ividson ._ _- * uplin . _ _ - urham . - -. igecombe >rsyth-._ _ .. _ — . .- anklin^ _._ _ . .. . iston. ... ites . - ... ... aham . •anville - - . eene. - lilford ... -. . -- — - alifax. _ _ .. — .. _ arnett ay wood .. .. .. . . enderson.. .... _ __ ertford . .. oke ... ... sdell ckson.. ... . hnston ... . nes... noir... -. ----- ncoln ___ _- _ _ aeon __ _- _ --_--.. idison _ _ _ ... __ _ artin ..... . _ _ _ cDowell . . . scklenburg .. itchelL. ontgomery . oore ash. . ____ ew Hanover __.__ _ ... ..._ orthampton-- _ _ _ O Q Q Q 4 OOOOOOWaSWBKtilio3hohOhJ» r<U JjSSSSSgSS^^^ 50 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL snoauBiposij^ -3 Tt a T- c l> y c •r c CN cc c^ CM SST3dS8JX rt "-1 W lO CT CM tfi CO rt rt japn^jg -1 " : N uoi^onpag rH rt rt m " CO CO ^* CM - CM CM — CM SMT3T; poTJog -1 Xiaqqoy; CM CM CM W *°TH laoijjo Sut^sisay; CM ^ CO * adey; ' CO> ' ^jnCiaj " "" " ^onpnoasij^ psptgo jaAiy; Sni^onj;sqo " jCBMqSijj oijqnj SnijoTU^sqo aottBsmjvj CM aaiSsQ ptiooag—japjnj^ ~H ~H ^H t^ ~H ~H CO *3< ~H CO Tin CM CO CO n « io (N « aaiSaQ ^sii^—japanj\[ a =3 OO c 'o c C a SI - f c £ c o3 c d —0) c-s = a: - « a - c c = cc c I ISco c cc P5 t: hc t a Cc c s t: e _£ C a > > = .1 ea s OS '= e 3 > I 0. c > si o M g 03 5= BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAE 51 tO -f OJ M N 1 N oo CO OS : N 1 ^ 3 ! rt <N ! rt •^ ! ^ T-H rt !>• rH CO « oo OS ^ ' 5 .« CO <M ^ " CO ^ M « IN !N o ^ C5 M 03 C > 03 5s Jj 5 cc 1 d — o si 7 52 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL STATEMENT E From July 1, 1918, to July 1, 1919 From July 1, 1919, to •* July 1, 1920 Number of criminal actions disposed of. Males Females Corporations Totals- White Colored Indians Corporations Totals.. _ Convictions, including submissions. Acquitted Nolle pros Otherwise disposed of Totals. Murder—first degree Murder—second degree Manslaughter Rape Assault with intent to rape Arson Burglary—first degree Burglary—second degree Forgery Larceny Intoxicating liquors Other crimes and misdemeanors. Totals 6,943 581 3 4,014 3,481 29 3 5,227 955 1,255 90 13 134 73 28 34 4 51 113 1,328 1,011 4,738 7,527 7,527 8,636 641 5,097 4,152 28 7,527 7,527 6,835 1,056 1,362 32 9 170 74 31 34 5 1 44 160 1,426 1,263 6,068 9,285 9,285 9,285 9,285 9,285 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL 53 STATEMENT F Alphabetical List of Chimes Committed from July 1, 1918, to July 1, 1920 Name of Offense From July 1, 1918, to July 1,1919 From July 1, 1919, to July 1,1920 Abandonment Abduction Abortion Affray Arson Assault and battery Assault with deadly weapon 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 Disorderlyhouse Disposing of mortgaged property Disturbing meetings Election laws Embezzlement * Escape Failure to list taxes Failure to work public roads 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 Obstructing public highway 81 11 7 246 4 532 748 34 1 2 51 14 581 44 34 37 12 242 9 94 3 18 13 134 24 99 24 7 342 5 719 1,016 34 3 2 47 61 31 109 1 85 5 116 18 129 160 224 433 4 242 3 9 41 1,263 1,426 1 3 10 74 ^7 170 29 54 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL STATEMENT F—Continued Name of Offense Obstructing river Official misconduct- Perjury Rape Resisting officer Riot Robbery School laws Seduction Slander Trespass Miscellane ous Totals. From July 1, 1918, to July 1,1919 7,527 From "* July 1,1919, to July 1,1920 17 38 28 31 48 67 2 9 58 100 1 3 42 72 23 34 91 141 621 842 BIEXXIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORXEY-GEXERAL 55 Fees Transmitted by Attorney-General to State Treasurer from August Term, 1918, through February Term, 1920 Fall Term, 1918 89 Fuleher 90 Molver 241 Cooke 273 Johnson 347 Carroll.- 348 Atwood 433 Lineburger and Clifford 498 Keever 577 Lunsford 578 Fain 1... 12.55 14.25 15.10 13.40 13.00 15.95 27.00 19.00 14.00 15.00 Si'RiNG Term, 1919 1 Bush 209 Ogleston & Perry... 345 Pitts 346 Simmerson 377 Butler 378 Brady 379 Coble 529 Wilson & Matthews 530 Gash 577 Ditmore 13.40 24.70 12.50 15.00 12.50 13.75 15.10 10.00 15.10 18.55 Fall Term, 1919 90 Sutherland 161 Stancill 162 Simons 209 Mincher 241 Joe Baldwin 242 Hayes Baldwin 273 O'Higgins 274 Bryant 313 Latta 345 Phillips & Key 346 Cain et al 347 Medley 34S Rumple et al 378 Moon 379 Daniel 433 Bridges 89 Marks & Farmer.... 466 Mull 468 Coleman. 469 Nixon & Johnson.. 497 Lovelace 529 Lowe 577 Yearwood & Tabor 578 Palmer 580 Caylor 13.75 15.10 15.00 15.00 17.50 17.50 15.00 18. 75 12.50 23.75 37.50 13.75 78.75 16.25 13.75 20.00 30.00 13.75 15.00 25.00 22.50 16.25 32.50 15.00 13.75 56 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL Fees Transmitted by Attorney-General to State Treasurer from August Term, 1918, through February Term, 1920— - Continued Spring Term, 1920 1 Sessoms 90 Bailey et al (execution for balance, 828.50). 161 McLawhorn 211 Hicks— 212 Hines 468 Alexander 497 Razook— 498 Hutchins 529 Yoder S 15.00 24.00 13.75 13.00 17.50 15.00 10.00 10.00 Civil Cases Board of Agriculture v. Drainage District Motors Corporation v. Flynt, Sheriff..---- Brown v. Jackson Total 3.75 15.00 25.00 S999.45 OPINIONS TO THE GOVERNOR Judges Special Tekm—Compensation. May 23, 1919. His Excellency, Governor Bickett, Raleigh, N. C. Dear Governor:—Replying to your inquiry for my opinion upon the mat-ter in a letter from Judge Webb to you, I beg to say that after consideration of the several statutes of the State relating to the salary and expenses of the Superior Court Judges, I have reached the conclusion that a Superior Court Judge, under the Act of 1913, Chapter 63, which is brought forward in the Consolidated Statutes, contemplates a rotation system of twenty weeks per term for each district of forty weeks per year for each judge, and it provides that where a judge is in a district to which has been assigned less than twenty weeks of court under this system of rotation, that he may be directed by you to hold extra weeks without compensation until he has held his full twenty weeks for the term. It seems to me that this is made a part of the rotation system of the State and that the expenses of the judge in holding these extra weeks are incident to rotation, and that he would be en-titled to charge in his expenses the expense of such extra weeks, and this should be paid by the State Auditor upon his certificate, not exceeding, of course, the total sum of $1,500 per year under the Act of 1919. At one time, if you recall, the act of the Legislature provided that the judges should be paid actual expenses by the county for holding extra terms. That was changed later and he was paid $100 per week by the county in which the extra term was held, which was thought by the Legislature to be sufficient to cover his actual expenses. Then came the Act of 1913 above referred to, which was a legislative expression of what it considered to be the rotation system of the State, to-wit: by dividing the State into twenty districts and by assigning the judge in each district a certain number of weeks or courts for each of the Spring and Fall Terms, then there was con-tained this section, provided that where a judge held the courts of a district for less than twenty weeks, he could be required by you to hold extra weeks up to the amount of twenty weeks without compensation. The Act of 1919 provides that the expenses of the judges, incident to ro-tation, should be paid by a warrant issued by the Auditor, not exceeding $1,500 a year, the judge certifying his actual expenses to the Auditor. The question is whether the holding of extra weeks by a judge hold-ing the courts of a district where there are less than twenty weeks assigned to the district, is incident to rotation, and whether his expenses should be paid as his expenses for each week of the terms of court in the district in which he is presiding. As heretofore stated to you, I have reached the con-cluson that such extra weeks, necessary to bring his number of weeks of court up to twenty, are incident to the rotation system as outlined in the Act of 1913. Yours very truly, James S. Manning, Attorney-General. 58 biennial report of the attorney-general Governor's Authority to Order Investigation—Riot. September 5, 1919. Governor T. W. Bickett, Raleigh, N. C. Dear Governor:—I have your request that I advise you in reference to the letter of Mr. J. F. Newell, of Charlotte, N. C, to you under date of September 3rd, in which letter Mr. Newell appeals to you to originate some machinery of the law by which the recent unfortunate disturbance in Char-lotte may be investigated and the truth ascertained. The law-making body of the State, acting under the Constitution, has prescribed certain methods of investigation and has conferred upon certain-officers the duty to make such investigation. It seems that in Mecklenburg County the coroner of the city is very ill, and so is the clerk of the court. There remains the grand jury, which was in session at the time of this occurrence, and also the solicitor. Neither the Constitution nor the statute laws of the State confer upon you any power to originate any investigation or to devise any machinery upon which any investigation can be made. The most that you can do is to call the matter to the attention of the solicitor of the district, but it is evident from the letter of Mr. Newell that the solicitor is fully advised of the situa-tion in Mecklenburg County. While I quite agree with Mr. Newell that such disturbances of the public peace and order as occurred recently in Charlotte should be fully investigated to the end that all persons who violate the laws of the State should be made to answer for such violations, yet it must be manifest that the truth will be more accurately ascertained when the public is less excited. You, of course, have no power to change the laws of the State or to origi-nate new methods not authorized by the laws of the State. Yours very truly, James S. Manning, Attorney-General. Boundaries Between North and South Carolina. February 21, 1920. Hon. T. W. Bickett, Governor, Raleigh, Nor'th Carolina. Dear Sir:— In re: Boundary oetween North Carolina and South Carolina in Brunswick County. The Secretary of State, with whom we conferred, was under the impres-sion that the Legislature authorized the Governor of North Carolina to ap-point a commission to meet a like commission appointed by the Governor of South Carolina, to determine the exact location of this line. We have looked through the public laws and resolutions, as well as the public-local laws since 1911, and find that no such act or resolution, if passed, has been indexed. The Revisal, however, section 5315, authorizes the Governor to appoint two commissioners, a surveyor, a sufficient number of chain bearers, on the part of the State of North Carolina, to act with the commissioners or surveyors appointed or to be appointed by any of the contiguous States of Virginia, Tennessee, South Carolina and Georgia, to re-run and re-mark, by some permanent monuments at convenient intervals, not greater than five miles, the boundary lines between this State and any of the said States. BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL 59 In 1735, commissioners of the two provinces of North and South Carolina did run this line and fix it so definitely as that if the starting point at the Atlantic Ocean was made a permanent monument, there need be no difficulty in ascertaining the exact location of the line in Brunswick County. This line was to begin at the sea thirty miles southwest of the mouth of the Cape Fear River, run thence in a northwest course to the 35th parallel of north latitude; thence- due west to the South Sea. If, before reaching the 35th parallel, it came within five miles of the Pee Dee River (now Yadkin), it should then run a parallel with the Fee Dee at a distance of five miles to the 35th degree, etc. Of course, if the original starting point has been obliter-ated in any way, it might be necessary to appoint commissioners under the above cited section of Revisal. You will find a map in 11 Colonial Records, p. 80-, which shows the line established by the commissioners was a true northwest and southeast line. We return herein Mr. Heffner's letter to you. Yours very truly, James S. Manning, Attorney-General. Pension—Increase of 1919 His Excellency, Governor Bickett, Raleigh, N. C. April 10, 1920. Dear Governor:—Mr. W. R. Matthews of Charlotte, North Carolina, Chair-man of the Committee on Confederate Pensions of the present House of Rep-resentatives of North Carolina, has asked me for the construction of chap-ter 227 of the Act of 1919 and also chapter 204, Public Laws of 1917, and par-ticularly desiring my opinion as to when the increases in the pensions pro-vided in these two acts became effective. The Act of 1917 increased the pension of pensioners in the first grade from $72.00 to $85.00, and there were also in said Act increases in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th grade pensioners. The Act of 1919 increased all of the grades $15.00 per annum, making the first grade $100.00 per annum. The Act of 1917, section 2, is as follows: "That in no year shall the amount paid for pensions exceed the sum of five hundred and seventy-five thousand dollars. That the State Auditor is hereby authorized, empowered, and directed to so apportion, distribute, and divide the money provided by this act, and to issue warrants to the several pensioners, pro rata, in their respective grades, that the entire annual appro-priation of five hundred and seventy-five thousand dollars shall be paid each year to the pensioners, notwithstanding the amounts so paid be in excess of the amounts fixed in section one of this act for the several grades: Provided, that the total appropriation under this or any other act shall not exceed the sum of five hundred and seventy-five thousand dollars ($575,000) annually." This Act was ratified on the 6th day of March, 1917. Chapter 226, Public Laws of 1919, ratified 10th day of March, 1919, amended section 2 of chapter 204 of the Public Laws of 1917 by striking out "five hundred and seventy-five dollars" and inserting "six hundred and fifty dollars" where the same occurs, but section 2 of chapter 227 of the Acts of 1919, ratified the same day, to-wit, 10th of March, 1919, provides as follows: 60 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL "The State Auditor shall transmit to the clerks of the Superior Court of the various counties warrants for pensioners for one-half of the yearly pensions between the first and fifteenth of June, and for one-half the yearly pensions between the first and fifteenth of December of each year." Section 2 of the Act of 1917 is unusual in the legislation of the State in acts making appropriations for State purposes, in that the Legislature specifi-cally and emphatically directed that the sum of $575,000 shall be paid in pensions, and if that amount is not entirely consumed by the allowances to the various classes of pensioners, then the excess must be distributed to the several Confederate pensioners of the State. A similar provision is re-tained in the Act of 1919 except that the amount appropriated is $650,000. The Auditor of the State has informed me upon my inquiry that before the Act of 1919, directing that the installments of pensions be paid semi-annually, the pensions were paid as required by law between the first and fifteenth of December in advance. In other words, that the payments made to the Confederate veterans in December, 1916, were for the year 1917. I do not find in any statute of the State any warrant or authority for this custom in the Auditor's office. Its basis rests upon the fact that December is the first month of the fiscal year. By examining the acts of the Legislature in regard to pensions from the first act down to the session of 1919, it appears that when the Legislature adopted the policy of making a separate tax levy for the payment of pen-sions, the acts contained the provisions that the pensions should not be paid until after the first of September of each year, and later, beginning perhaps in 1907, there was the distinct requirement that the pension warrants should be sent from the Auditor's office between the first and fifteenth of December of each year. It is manifest from these acts that the Legislature, in re-ferring to the first of September and in referring to the month of December, was dealing with the calendar year and not with the fiscal year of the State. It was assumed that the taxes being levied at the usual time there would be sufficient money coming into the treasury of the State, by and after the first of September and certainly in the month of December, to pay these old soldiers' pension warrants. It appears that although the Legislature of 1917 distinctly appropriated the sum of $575,000 and provided that that entire sum should be expended in pensions, as a matter of fact, for that year only, the sum, of $434,086 was paid out, the Auditor's office basing its pensions for that year upon the Act of 1915, and not upon the increase by the Legislature of 1917. In the year 1918 the total amount paid out for pensions was $565,700, the amount ap-propriated was $575,000. In the year 1919 the amount paid out was $523,- 167. As stated herein the Act of 1919 distinctly appropriated the entire sum of $650,000 and it provided that one-half of the pension should be paid be-tween the first and fifteenth of June and one-half between the first and fif-teenth of December. The payments made in 1919 were based upon the amount appropriated by the Act of 1917 and the Confederate pensioners of the State did not receive in 1917 or in 1919 the increases in their pensions provided by the Legislature, although in the one case was ratified and in force from its ratification on the 6th clay of March and in the other case on the 10th of March. The pensioners did not receive in June, 1919, any part of their pen-sion, and in December, 1919, received one-half of the amount of their pen- BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL 61 sion under the Act of 1919 for the year 1920, so that the Confederate pension-ers of the State lost for the year 1919 the entire amount of the increase, to-wit, $15.00. For the six months of 1920, the warrants having been issued in December, 1919, the amount paid according to the treasurer to date, $317,- 660, which is less than half of $650,000. In view of this condition and of these facts furnished me by the State Auditor's office and by the State Treasurer's office, I suggest that a meeting of the State Pension Board be called and these matters be determined and rectified. The situation has caused a good deal of complaint among the Con-federate veterans of the State. Yours very truly, James S. Manning, Attorney-General and Member State Pension Board. Pardon—Dead Convict. June 30, 1920. To His Excellency, Governor Pickett, Raleigh, N. G. Dear Governor:—Referring to the enclosed letter which you referred to this office, I have reached the conclusion that a pardon from you to the man convicted of fornication and adultery, although he is dead, and where the judgment of the court was that he be fined the sum of $2,000.00, the fine not having been paid, would have the effect to remit the fine. The Supreme Court held in the case of Bynum v. Taylor, 171 N. C, 86, that the effect of a pardon, even where the fine had been paid to the clerk or proper officer and where it had not reached its final destination, was that it should be repaid to the pardoned offender. In that case the defendant was living, but I think the authorities sustain your right to pardon a de-fendant convicted who has died where the judgment of the court has not been fully performed or where the effect of the conviction would be followed by a continued denial of some rights to his family or his blood. I return herein the letter you enclosed. Yours very truly, Jajies S. Manning, Attorney-General. National Guard—Courts of Inquiry July 23, 1920. His Excellency, Governor T. W. Bickett, Raleigh, N. G. Dear Sir:—Referring to our conversation this morning in relation to the military laws of the State, the General Assembly of 1917, chapter 200, Public Laws, revised the military laws of the State and in sections 55 to 65 inclu-sive, sets out fully the system of court-martial for the National Guards. Sec-tion 45 reads as follows: "Whenever any portion of the militia shall be called into service to execute the law, suppress riot or insurrection, or to repel invasion, the articles of war, and articles for the govern-ment of the Navy, governing the Army and Navy of the United States, and the regulations prescribed for the Army and Navy of the United States, and the regulations issued thereunder, shall be enforced and regarded as a part of this act until said forces shall be duly relieved from such duty. As to offenses com- 62 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL mitted when such articles of war and articles for the government of the Navy are so in force, courts-martial shall possess, in ad-dition to the jurisdiction and power of sentence and punishment here vested in them, all additional jurisdiction and power of sentence and punishment exercisable by like courts under such articles of war and articles for the government of the Navy or regulations or laws governing the United States Army and Navy or the customs and usages thereof; but no punishment under such rules and articles which will extend to the taking of life shall in any case be inflicted except in time of war, invasion or insurrection, declared by a proclamation of the Governor to exist, and then only after approval by the Governor of the sen-tence inflicting such punishment. Imprisonment other than in guardhouse shall be executed in county jails or other prisons designated by the Governor for that purpose." The articles of war and the articles for the government of the army and the regulations prescribed for the army, not only provide for the trial of offenses against articles, but also for courts of inquiry where an officer hav-ing an independent command is charged with having transcended his author-ity or duty in the premises. If, however, the offense charged amounts to a crime against the laws of the State where the command is located, none of the articles of war or regulations made in pursuance thereof, can oust the jurisdiction of the State courts. Coleman v. Term., 97 U. S., 509; Grafton v. U. 8., 206 U. S., 333; Franklin v. U. S., 216 U. S., 559. It will be observed that the statute, in dealing with the National Guard, does not specifically provide for a Court of Inquiry as distinguished from a court-martial. We construe, however, section 45 quoted above as being broad enough to incorporate a court of inquiry such as that provided for the Na-val militia in section 85. It is not necessary to resort to this construction for the articles of war, section 2388, U. S. Compiled Statutes 1918, p. 315 et seq. in articles 97 to 103, inclusive, provide for these courts for the army also. They are instituted only upon the request of the officer or soldier whose conduct is to be inquired into. They are composed of three or more offi-cers and the procedure in these courts is set out fully in the articles above cited. Yours very truly, Frank Nash, Assistant Attorney-General. Commutation of Punishment August 17, 1920. His Excellency, Governor Bickett, Raleigh, N. 0. Dear Sir:—Yours of August 16th is received. In it you state that one Boone was convicted at the Superior Court of Lee County and sentenced to the State's Prison. The authorities of Chatham County are now asking you to have this prisoner transferred to the roads of Chatham County. This re-quest is endorsed by the Judge and Solicitor. You ask the opinion of this office upon the question of whether or not you have the legal and constitutional authority to accede to this request. After considerable investigation of the matter, we have come to the conclusion that you have such power. You are granted, by section 6 of Article 3 of the Con-stitution, power not only to grant reprieves and pardons, but also commuta- BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL 63 tions. Theoretically, at least, imprisonment in the State's Prison is a higher grade of punishment than imprisonment in a county prison. Conviction of a felony only authorizes confinement in the State's Prison. Not so, how-ever, as to confinement in county prisons. The legal definition of commuta-tion is the substitution of a lesser punishment for a greater. In determining the relative grades of punishment for the purpose of commutation, the Gov-ernor's discretion is large and its exercise is not subject to the control of any other coordinate department. In Williams case, 149 N. C, 436, the Supreme Court held that delivery and acceptance are essential requisites to pardon. Under ordinary conditions, it would be assumed upon the very nature of a commutation itself that its beneficiary would accept it. In a case of this sort, as the convict is the only person who could legally complain at the action of your Excellency in changing his punishment, we would suggest that if you intend to accede to the request made by the judge and solicitor, that you secure also from the convict Boone an acceptance of the commutation. Yours very truly, James S. Manning, Attorney-Genera I. OPINIONS TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE Co-operative Associations—Amendment of Charter February 7, 1919. HoN. J. Bryan Grimes, Secretary of State, Raleigh, N. C. Dear Sir:— In re: Lincoln Cooperative Creamery Co., Lincolnton, N. C. The letter of W. H, Childs to you in the above matter has been referred to this office for answer. Question put by him is this: "Is it permissible to change the above named association from a coopera-tive association chartered under chapter 144, Public Laws 1915, to an old line corporation by an amendment of the charter under Revisal, section 1175?" In our opinion this cannot be done. These associations are organized for the purposes set out in the Act of 1915, and have special privileges conferred upon them. The main intent of the Act was to enable small producers or manufacturers to organize and secure the benefits of cooperation without as-suming the liabilities and duties and responsibilities of incorporation in an ordinary corporation, and without incurring the expense of the organization and conduct of such a corporation. They are not so- much profit making as profit distributing and profit using concerns and no shareholder therein can hold more than 20% paid-in capi-tal stock. With these marked differences in their organization, conduct and control from those of an ordinary corporation, it seems clear that such co-operative associations should not be allowed to become ordinary corporations by an attempted amendment of their charters under Revisal, section 1175. We return herein Mr. Child's letter. Yours very truly, James S. Manning, Attorney-General. Motor Vehicles1—Transfer License March 15, 1919. Hon. J. Bryan Grimes, Secretary of State, Raleigh, N. C. Dear Sir:—In reply to yours of March 14: The State Highway Act became a law on March 10th, 1919. Since that time, A sells his 26 horse-power automobile, for which he had paid an an-nual license fee of $5.00 under the Act of 1917. He buys a new 30-horse-power automobile, and wishes a transfer license, under section 8 of the Act of 1917. What amount does he have to pay? The Act of 1919 provides an annual reg-istration fee of $15.00 for a 30 horse-power machine. It seems clear that he has to pay $10.00. There is nothing in the 1919 State Highway Act which conflicts at all with section 8 of chapter 140, Public Laws of 1917. That sec-tion deals wholly with transfer certificates of registration, and meets the case under discussion with this provision: "In case the machine for which a transfer license is desired is of greater tax horse-power, the difference be- BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL 65 tween the amount paid of the original license and the annual fee for the machine for which transfer license is desired shall be paid at the time such application is filed." The Highway Act of 1919, section 5, specifically repeals section 6 of the Act of 1917, and substitutes a different schedule of charges for annual license or registration fees, but it does not alter the annual period during which the license is to run. It does, however, contain this provision: "Any appli-cant for the registration of any motor vehicle on or after March 1st of each year shall be required to pay for said registration a license fee for the bal-ance of the year ending June 30th only one-half the fee levied in this sec-tion." This can in no degree modify the requirement of section 8 of the Act of 1917, that for these transfers, the difference between the annual fee for the old car, and the annual fee for the new car, shall be the amount to be paid for the transfer license. The necessary effect, however, of the Act of 1919, with its repeal of section. 6, of the Act of 1917, leaving section 8 un-touched, was that the new annual fees fix the cost of a transfer license there-after. Though, of course, those who have annual license under the old law, may still run their cars protected by them, and unaffected in this respect by the new law. To transfer their numbers from one car to another, however, is a privilege granted by the Legislature, and to be enjoyed upon such terms as it may impose, and not a right incident to the ownership of an annual license. Of course, this construction of the law will, in some instances, induce those desiring a transfer license for a new car to take instead a new license under the Act of 1919, because the latter would be cheaper. The term "an-nual," however, cannot by any proper rule of construction, be narrowed to a less period than a year. Yours very truly, James S. Manning, Attorney-General. Motor Vehicles—Transfer License. March 18, 1919. Hon. J. Bryan Grimes, Secretary of State, Raleigh, N. C. Dear Sir:—In reply to yours of the 17th: (1) Where an auto owner seeks a certificate of transfer to another machine of the same horse-power, he pays, as transfer fee, the 50 cents, and that only, provided by section 8 of chapter 140, Public Laws 1917. That was not af-fected in any particular by the Act of 1919. Indeed an invariable rule of statutory construction is this: An amended statute is to be construed as if it had read from the beginning as it does with the amendments added to it. Applying this rule, you will see that there is no difficulty in fixing the fee at only 50c. (2) The answer to (1) answers this section 8 so far as these transfers are concerned, makes horse-power the standard of comparison and the Act of 1919 has not changed this. (3) The Highway Act and the Revenue Act, both of 1919, must be con-strued together on this point, and reconciled if possible. Where there is plain repugnancy, the later ratified Act, if it was to go into effect on ratifi-cation, would control. The Legislature evidently did not intend to inter- 66 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL fere with the licenses already issued and to expire June 30, 1919 [f they had they would have said so in express terms. Far from this, it leaves June 30th still the end of the automobile year. (4) It is not possible to draw an annual license bill for any purpose in which there will not be inequalities. One might take the Act of 1917 and show similar inequalities. For instance, a man applies to register a 20 horse-power machine on February 28, and he has to pay $5.50. Another man applies next day and pays only $3.00. It is the fixed time which operates in this way. We enclose herewith our former communication of March 15th. Further reflection but confirms the view we take therein. Section 8 of the Act of 1919 speaks of funds hereafter collected under the provisions of chapter 140, Public Laws 1917, as herein amended, and there are no funds to be collected except license fees. Yours very truly, James S. Manning, Attorney-General. Bank—Certificate of Incorporation. March 18. 1919. Hon. Bryan Grimes, Secretary of State, Raleigh, N. C. Dear Sir:—We think both Articles 8 and 9 of this certificate should be disallowed. Both of them, where they incorporate within them provisions not already allowed by law, are attempting to legislate through and by the charter. It is a safe and proper rule to strike out from these certificates any matter which concerns the public (and not the relations of the corpora-tors among themselves only), when it attempts to provide a rule other than provided by the general law. Articles 8 and 9 of this certificate offend against this rule. Article 8 in these particulars: a. It attempts to limit the liability of individual stockholder for the debts of the corporation; b. It attempts to set up a secret lien for the bank upon the stock of its stockhold-ers. The first attempt (a) offends against section 16, chapter 6, Consolidated Statutes. The second attempt (b) offends against section 21 of the same chapter. The Legislature having spoken definitely upon both of these sub-jects, the method provided by it cannot be changed in any particular. Article 9 is even more objectionable: A safety deposit system cannot be converted into a general warehouse system in the charter of a bank. One rents a safety deposit box, and the bank has no control over its contents, so they do not endanger its or its customer's property. It is in no sense a bailee for hire of the property deposited therein, and assumes no obligation in rela-tion thereto, except that the place must be made, and kept, as safe as under the conditions it is reasonable it should be. The bank is not entitled to a lien upon its contents (strictly speaking), and it gives no receipts for those contents. So in any aspect of the case Art. 9 is wholly inadmissible in a bank charter. The statute, section 1 of chapter 6, con. stat., requires the certificates of incorporation to state the nature of the business to be done, whether that of a commercial bank or savings bank, or both, or of a bank with a trust, fiduciary and surety business. In whatever way, then, the certificate sub-mitted, goes beyond, or outside of these objects, it should, in our opinion, be disallowed to that extent. Yours very truly, James S. Manning, Attorney-General. biennial report of the attorney-general 67 Motoe Vehicles—Transfer License—Departmental Ruling. April 7, 1919. Hon J. Bryan Grimes, Secretary of State, Raleigh, N. C. Dear Sir:—In reply to yours of April 5th, 1919. You say: "I will thank you to give me yaur opinion as to whether or not our departmental ruling of applying half rates to transfers is permissible under the 1919 law." A departmental construction of a law as to one of the details of its admin-istration, acquiesced in through a series of years, is presumed to have been known to the Legislature. The General Assembly of 1919, legislating as to the fees for automobile license, increasing the amount materially, left the law providing for transfers as it was. In the absence of specific legislation upon the subject, the departmental ruling may be taken as the law of the case. The fact of a departmental ruling, acquiesced in for a series of years, distinguishes this opinion from those of March 15 and March 18th. Yours, very truly, James S. Manning, Attorney-General. Corporation—Change of Location—Certificate—Record April 23, 1919. Hon J. Fryan Grimes, Secretary of State, Raleigh, N. C. Dear Sir:—In reply to yours of April 19: You ask for the opinion of this office as to the county in which the cer-tified copy of the certificate of change of location of principal office should be recorded, under the following circumstances: "A company is incorporated under the laws of this State with principal of-fice at Asheville, Buncombe County. Certificate of change of location of the principal office is subsequently filed under the provisions of section 1176 of the Revisal, changing the location of principal office to Andrews, Cherokee County." 1175 of the Revisal, relating to amendments generally, provides that, after the filing of certificate of. amendment and its recording in the office of Sec-retary of State, he, the Secretary of State, shall issue a certified copy thereof, which shall be recorded in the county in which the original certificate of incorporation is recorded. This is the only provision in the statute in re-gard to the record of such certificates, and such being the case, it is, of course, controlling, so this certificate should be filed and recorded in Bun-combe County. There probably should be an amendment to the law in this particular which would require the filing of these certificates in both the county from which the principal office is removed, also in the county to which it is removed. Yours very truly, James S. Manning, Attorney-General. June 23, 1919. Motor Vehicle—Occasional Carriage of Passengers June 23, 1917. Hon. J. Bryan Grimes, Secretary of State, Raleigh, N. C. Attention Mr. Brown:—You ask if the occasional carrying of passengers for hire would require the owner of a motor vehicle to take out a service 68 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL license under section 6 of the automobile law. There are two reasons, it seems to us, why this law should be enforced strictly: First, if the gap was let down and the owner was permitted to hire a vehicle occasionally with-out taking out license, because the applicant for its hire was insistent, the privilege would be liable to very great abuse; second, such condition would leave the owner of a motor vehicle who had taken out license paying double fees for that license unprotected against those who had not taken out license. While Ave think that a single use of a machine in this way, under cir-cumstances which would justify, would not constitute the use intended by the statute, yet even this must be in good faith, that is, the owner hiring it under circumstances in which he would not compete with a holder of a service license. In other words, it must be under conditions when it would be practically impossible to secure carriage from the holder of a service license. Each particular case would necessarily, under such circumstances, have to be determined by the good faith of the hirer, considering all the condi-tions of the hiring. Yours very truly, James S. Manning, Attorney-General. ' Corporation as Fiduciary—Oath Raleigh, July 5, 1919. Hon J. Bryan Grimes, Secretary of State, Raleigh, N. C. In the matter of certificate of the Home Investment and In-surance Co. Dear Sir:—The only reason at common law, omitting some that were purely technical and have long since ceased to exist, why a corporation could not be an executor, or administrator, was because it could not take an oath, such oath being required in this State. The General Assembly of 1919 provided the machinery by which such oath could be taken in an Act ratified February 25th, 1919, No. 301 of Captions. The reason of the old rule having thus been abrogated, the rule itself, in our opinion, has like-wise been abrogated. Consequently we advise that you permit the amend-ment desired by Mr. Henry to be made in above certificate. We return Mr. Henry's letter and the certificate. Yours very truly, James S. Manning, Attorney-General. Corporation—Capital Stock—Non-resident Incorporators July 17, 1919. Hon. J. Bryan Grimes, Secretary of State, Raleigh, N. C. Attention Mr. Brown:— The statute, Revisal section 1137, sets out the essentials to the proper certificate of incorporation. Among other essentials is that there should be capital stock, sub-section 4. This sub-section sets out also the excep-tions to this general rule as follows: "The provisions of this sub-section shall not apply to religious, charitable or literary corporations unless they desire to have capital stock." None of these corporations, so excepted, could be in any sense considered a business corporation. The Pickert Amusement Com- BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL 69 pany seems to be an organization for the purpose of conducting a theatrical business, or, stated in other words, the business of providing amusement for the people with a profit to itself. In our opinion, the proposed corporation is, in no sense, a religious, charitable, social or literary corporation. We are confirmed in this view by the stringent provisions governing the issue of stock, its transfer, etc, as contained in Revisal, sections 1159 to 1173 inclusive. Besides these objections there is still another. All of the incorporators are non-residents of the State. While the statute does not expressly require that one or more should be a resident of the State, yet it does require that one director should be a resident of the State and no one can be a director of a corporation unless he is a stockholder. For these reasons we think that this certificate should not be passed. Yours very truly, James S. Manning, Attorney-General. Banks—Dealing in Real Estate September 6, 1919. Hon. J. Bryan Grimes, Secretary of State, Raleigh, N. C. Dear Sir:—The second amendment proposed is as follows: "To take, acquire, buy, hold, own, sub-divide and develop, sell, lease, mortgage, exchange, improve and otherwise deal and dis-pose of real estate and real property or interest or right therein within the limits of 50 per cent of the capital stock and surplus of said Corporation." In the opinion of this office, this is not authorized by law. We think there is no express authority given by our statutes to a bank to deal in real estate. The right to hold real estate is fixed by chapter 55, Public Laws of 1919, which reads as follows, and speaks for itself: "Such as shall be necessary for the convenient transaction of its business, including furniture and fixtures with its banking offices and other apartments to rent as a source of income, which investment shall not exceed fifty per cent of its paid-in capital stock and permanent surplus." In our opinion section 228-a, Pell's Revisal, does not confer any additional authority upon banks to deal in real estate, except to protect its loans, debts contracted in the course of its dealings or acquired by sale under execution or judgment of any court in its favor. For these purposes it may invest not more than twenty-five per cent of its capital stock and permanent surplus in real estate. Yours very truly, James S. Manning, Attorney-General. Motor Vehicles—Interstate Use October 6, 1919. Hon. J. Bryan Grimes, Secretary of State, Raleigh, N. C. Dear Sir: In re: The arrest of North Carolina car owners by the State of Virginia. 70 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL You have sent to this office two letters which you have received from resident automobile owners in regard to their treatment by the officials of the State of Virginia while on a continuous passage through that State. These statements, if true, put such officials in a very bad light to say the least of it. A very few states in the early history of motor vehicle license legislation required non-residents specifically, as well as residents, to comply with these laws. United States Supreme Court in Kane v. New Jersey, 242 U. S. 160, sustained the New Jersey law in this particular. Judge Brandeis says for the court: "The power of a State to regulate the use of motor vehicles on its highways has been recently considered by this court and . broadly sustained. It extends to non-residents as well as to resi-dents. It includes the right to exact reasonable compensation for special facilities afforded as well as reasonable provisions to insure safety. And it is properly exercised in imposing a license fee graduated according to the horse power of the engine. Henclrick v. Maryland, 235 U. S. 610." Again he says, quoting Hendricks v. Maryland, supra; "In the absence of national legislation covering the subject a State may rightfully prescribe uniform regulations necessary for public safety and order in respect to the operation upon its highways of all motor vehicles . . . those moving in interstate commerce as well as others." Under these decisions there can be no doubt that the Legislature of a State may require the same license tax of non-resident, as of resident, cars. If one State does do so, however, all the others must perforce follow suit. Thus this method of locomotion which has become so common and so far reaching in distances would have imposed upon it an intolerable burden. The pressure, then, upon Congress to take over the regulation of motor vehicles used in interstate travel, or in interstate commerce, would become so great that there would be no resisting it. If Congress did take over such regulation, its action would exclude any regulation by the State. This con-sideration, no doubt, influenced legislatures, which before had been adverse, to admit non-resident cars upon much more moderate terms. Some now require a nominal non-resident tax, either for the driver or the car with identification cards or numbers furnished, while others, acting in a spirit of comity, extend to non-resident cars the same courtesies which the State of their origin extends to their cars. Both the North Carolina and Virginia laws seem to be founded on this eminently fair and neighborly principle. The North Carolina law is section 12, chapter 140, Public Laws of 1917, as follows: "That non-resident owners or operators of motor vehicles shall be subject to the same requirements and laws as resident owners or operators: Provided, that the non-resident owner of a motor vehicle which is properly registered under the laws of another State, district, or territory shall be exempt from the registra-tion provisions of this act for the same period that a properly registered owner of this State is exempt from the registration provisions of the State in which such non-resident "resides, not exceeding sixty days: Provided, that nothing herein contained shall be construed to exempt any motor vehicle used for hire by a non-resident." BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL 71 The Virginia Law is section 10, chapter 522, of the Laws of 1916, as follows: "Any owner or operator, not a resident of this State, who shall have complied with the laws of the State in which he resides, requiring the registration of motor vehicles, or licensing of operators thereof, and the display of identification or registration numbers of such vehicles, and who shall cause the identification numbers of such State in accordance with the laws thereof, and none other, together with the initial letter or letters, of such State to be displayed on his motor vehicle, as in the sub-title provided, while used or operated upon the public highways of this State, may use such highways not exceeding two periods of seven consecutive days in each calendar year . . . the Governor of this State is hereby authorized and empowered to confer and advise with the proper officers and legislative bodies of other States of the Union, and enter into reciprocal agree-ments under which the registration of motor vehicles owned by residents of this State will be recognized by such other States, and he is further authorized and empowered, from time to time, to grant to residents of other States the privilege of using the roads of this State, as in this section provided, in return for similar privileges granted residents of this State by such other States." We have been unable to ascertain whether or not the Virginia, statute was materially amended at the Session of 1918, the laws of that year not being in the Supreme Court Library. If it is still in force as quoted above, it is obvious that there are two courses open to you. First, and this is to use a sword for offense, is to invoke section 12 above and apply to Virginia cars the same measure of justice or injustice as that which the Secretary of the Virginia Commonwealth has apparently applied to North Carolina cars. Second, and this is a shield for defense, apply to the governor of Virginia for a conference under section 10 of the Virginia Act quoted above. Unless this act has been materially amended, the Virginia officials had no authority, even of Virginia law, to interfere with the cars passing through the State, provided they had complied with the North Carolina Law and had with them license plates showing their compliance with that law, unless they were arrested for the breach of some police regulation of the Virginia law. Yours very truly, James S. Manning, Attorney-General. Process—Service on Express Companies March 9, 1920. Hon. J. Bryan Grimes, Secretary of State, Raleigh, N. C. Dear Sir:— In re: Service of process on express companies. In reply to yours of March 8th. Section 1243, Revisal 1905, contemplates the service of process upon any corporation having property or doing business in this State upon the Secretary of State, when it has no officer or agent in this State upon whom process can be served. That service is to be made by leaving a true copy 72 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL of the summons with him. He shall then mail the copy to the president, secretary or other officer of the corporation. When he has done this, the Secretary of State has performed his full duty in the premises. It is the duty of the plaintiff or his counsel to see that due service of process is made upon a defendant when he brings an action against such defendant. When the matter is doubtful he may protect himself by service of process upon the local agent or otherwise as he may be advised. The question of proper service must be determined by the court before which the action is brought. So far as the Secretary of State is concerned, as above said, he has done his full duty when he has mailed the copy of the summons served upon him to the officer designated in the statute. We think there is no doubt as to the validity of section 1243 in its application to cases defined therein. We return herein the file of papers sent us. Yours very truly, James S. Manning, Attorney-General. Morris Plan Banks—Industrial Banks March 9, 1920. Hon. J. .Bryan Grimes, Secretary of State, Raleigh, N. C. Chapter 225, Public Laws of 1919, defines Industrial Banks and authorizes their organization in the manner therein provided. The Raleigh Morris Plan Company was organized as a Morris Plan Bank before the ratification of the Industrial Bank Act. Its charter authority included the powers set out in section 5 of the above cited act. Section 10 of the act is as follows: "Any corporation heretofore organized under the general cor-poration law of this State, and authorized by its charter or articles of incorporation to engage in the business described in sectin 5 of this act, shall, upon filing notice with the Secretary of State and the Corporation Commission on or before January 1, 1920, be recognized as an industrial bank within the provisions of this act and shall be subject to this act to the same extent as if actually incorporated hereunder." The Raleigh Morris Plan Bank, on January 1, 1920, filed with the Secretary of State a notice under section 10 of its purpose to avail itself of the Indus-trial Bank Act. If this notice had, at the same time, been filed with the Corporation Commission, we think that these two filings would have con-stituted an irrevocable act; that thereafter the Raleigh Morris Plan Bank company would have become an industrial bank and would have remained so until its charter had been amended in accordance with the provisions of the statute allowing such amendment. We had a conversation with Mr. Self, chief clerk of the Corporation Com-mission, who informs us that this company had left with him a notice similar to that filed with you, but it asked him not to act upon it or file it until further notice; that thereafter and after January 1, 1920, they did withdraw the paper from the Tax Commission. Under these circumstances we are of the opinion that this was not a filing with the Corporation Com-mission such as contemplated by above quoted section 10. To constitute a valid filing the corporation must surrender all control over the notice. It is to become a public record from the very instant of filing, and thus passes BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL 73 wholly beyond the control of the filer. The corporation, however, has the option to file or not file on or before January 1. If it does not file at that time, as positively as the act requires, then it has forfeited all the privileges conferred upon it by the Industrial Bank Act. The Raleigh Morris Plan Company thus having failed to file, in accordance with section 10, may, if it chooses, withdraw its notice filed with the Secre-tary of State on January 1, 1920, and proceed to conduct its business under its original charter. It is not, and has never been, an industrial bank within the definition of the Act of 1919. Yours very truly, James S. Manning, Attorney-General. Bank—Legislative Charter—Lapse March 16, 1920. Hon. J. Bryan Grimes, Secretary of State, Raleigh, N. C. Dear Sir:—We have considered the letter of Mr. A. H. Eller dated March 13th and addressed to you. The Dime Savings Bank of Winston-Salem was incorporated specially by chapter 452, Private Laws 1911. This Act was ratified March 8th, 1911. Mr. Eller states in his letter that the bank has never yet organized but desires to do so now. We think they have no authority under this special charter. A private corporation cannot be created without the consent of the persons incorporated, therefore, where a private corporation is created by a special act of the Legislature two things must concur in order to the bringing into existence of this artificial body: (1) Granting of the charter by the Legis-lature; (2) acceptance of the charter by the corporators. Without such acceptance, express or implied, there is no corporation. Where the act itself does not specify the time within which it is to be accepted, it must be ac-cepted within a reasonable time. If not so accepted, the offer will lapse and cannot be thereafter acted upon. What is such reasonable time has never been determined so far as we have discovered in North Carolina. It is quite probable, however, that the courts would hold that action within two years would be reasonable time. We think it beyond controversy that a delay of nine years without any organization at all, as in this case, would amount to a failure to accept the charter within a reasonable time, conse-quently the Dime Savings Bank cannot now organize and proceed to act as a corporation under chapter 452, Private Laws 1911. If it purposes to do business now it must obtain its authority under the general laws, its special authority having lapsed. Yours very truly, James S. Manning, Attorney-General. Entry and Grant—Corporation June 12, 1920. Hon. J. Bryan Grimes, Secretary of State, Raleigh, N. C. Dear Sir:—You ask this office whether or not a corporation may enter and obtain a grant for vacant and unappropriated land. We think not. The statute Revisal section 1692 defines those to whom a grant may be issued as follows: Any citizen of this State and all persons who have or shall come 74 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL into the State with bona fide intent of becoming residents and citizens thereof. This definition is repeated in the proviso at the end of section 1729. "We think the term "citizen" as thus used is confined to natural persons. Though a corporation may be a citizen of the State that its rights may be protected under the 14th Amendment of the Federal Constitution, we know no instance in which it can participate in the enjoyment of privileges conferred upon residents and citizens of a State unless they are specifically granted to it as a corporation. Yours very truly, James S. Manning, Attorney-General. Trademark—Trade Names July 13, 1920. Hon. J. Bryan Grimes, Secretary of State, Raleigh, N. C. Dear Sir:—We have carefully considered the application of the Apollo Company for registration of the word "Apollophone." If it was confined strictly to the registration of that word as a trade mark for goods manufac-tured by that company, we think there would be no difficulty in regard to it. Our statute Revisal sections 3012 et seq. seems to contemplate the registration of single trade marks. We think that under it no such concatenation of words as those set out in the particular application can be registered as a trade mark. This application seems an attempt in one proceeding to have registered 10 different trade marks and as such under out statute is not allowed. It would be impossible for the Secretary of State to go over this application and determine from it which one of the trade marks suggested can be legally registered. The term "trade mark" has a very definite signification. It is defined as a name, sign, symbol or device which is attached to goods offered for sale in the market so as to distinguish them from similar goods, and to identify them with a particular trader or with his successors as owners of particular business. It is a fundamental rule that terms merely descriptive of the goods or business to which they are applied cannot be exclusively appropriated as trade marks or trade names. The reason for this is that everyone must be allowed to describe truly his goods or business and in order to do so he may, indeed must, use the terms necessary or appropriate for that business. No one can secure a monopoly upon the adjectives of the language. Therefore, words belonging to the common stock of words cannot be exclusively appro-priated as trade marks. The particular application for a trade mark offends against these rules and others which would make this letter too long to recapitulate. Our statute, it seems to us, cannot have the extensive application involved in granting the numerous trade marks asked in this paper. If the parties care to make an application to have registered each one of the trade names as appearing on the first page of the affidavit, then, in the opinion of this office, the application must be made distinctly for each one of such trade names, that your office may determine whether the proposed trade mark is justified by our statute. We return herein the papers in the case. Yours very truly, James S. Manning, Attorney-General. biennial report of the attorney-general 75 Entries and Grants—Non-resident Enterer July 28, 1920. Hon. J. Bryan Grimes, Secretary of State, Raleigh, N. C. Dear Sir:—In reply to yours of July 28. It seems that P, a resident of the State, together with A, a non-resident of the State, jointly made an entry of vacant land under the statute, and now P wishes to place himself in a position to obtain a grant to himself alone, under such entry, and you ask what should be his procedure. We suggest that he obtain from A an assignment of his rights under the entry and then proceed as sole enterer. It is true that under our statute a non-resident entry would be voidable, but the fact of non-residence is to be determined upon evidence and under such circumstances there would be nothing upon the face of the transaction to show that A was conveying a void right. To do this, then, would make the record itself straight. In regard to such cases Judge Bynum, giving the opinion of the Court in Wilson v. Land Company, 11 N. C. 445 at pp. 457-458, says: "But the defendants have more than these entries; they have the grants from the State, and also a deed which conveys the legal title, which is good until avoided by the State for cause, or by a party having a better title or superior equity. Because a grant is taken out upon an entry which has lapsed by the efflux of time, it does not follow that it is void. On the contrary, it is valid. Horton v. Cook, 54 N. C, 270. So if a grant is issued upon an entry which is void because of the non-citizenship of the enterer (as Davis here), the grant itself is nevertheless valid, and passes the title, if the grantee is a person capable of taking and holding by the laws of the State." To the same effect is Johnson v. Lumber Company, 114 N. C, 717 at p. 720. It is noticeable that the proviso to section 1729 requires only the assignee to be a resident of the State. I return herein Mr. Pierce's letter. Yours very truly, James S. Manning, Attorney-General. OPINIONS TO THE STATE TREASURER Taxation—Corporation Not Legally Dissolved February 14, 1919. Hon. B. R. Lacy, State Treasurer, Raleigh, N. C. Dear Sir: In the matter of the tax levied against the J. L. Rogers Company. A corporation once a corporation within the period of its corporate life as provided in this charter continues a corporation until dissolved by some method provided in the statute. It appears from the papers sent us that the company has an impression that it can close business without com-plying with the forms of law. If this is true, then, it is still a corpora-tion and the tax may be enforced against it as in other instances when a corporation is a going concern. Whether judicial proceedings were ever taken against this corporation with a view of its liquidation or of its solution, we are not informed: It may be that such proceedings are pending now. Sections 1236 and 1237 of the Revisal render the property of a corporation, though in the hands of a receiver, liable for all taxes against it and the same may be collected by distraint and seizure as though the property of the corporation was not in the hands of a receiver. We return herewith papers sent us. Yours very truly, James S. Manning, Attorney-General. Forestry Reserve Fund—How Paid Out March 28, 1919. Hon. B. R. Lacy, State Treasurer, Raleigh, N. C. Dear Sir:—Referring to your request for my opinion as to how the Forestry Reserve Fund paid to you by the Treasurer of the United States under the foreign provision of the Federal statute. "That thereafter 25 percentum of all moneys received from each forest reserve during any fiscal year including the year ending June 30, 1908, shall be paid at the end thereof by the Secretary of the Treasury to the state or territory in which said reserve is situated, to be expended as the state or territory legis-lature may prescribe, for the benefit of the public schools and roads of the county or counties in which the forest reserve is situated. Provided: That when any forest reserve is in more than one state or territory or county the distributive share to each from the proceeds of said reservation shall be proportionate to its area therein." The only Act of the Legislature of North Carolina pertaining to this fund is an act ratified on the 10th day of March, 1919, entitled "An act relating to funds for school purposes in McDowell County," and which Act in section 1 provides : BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL 77 "That all funds paid by the National Forest for the county of McDowell, North Carolina, shall be paid to the Treasurer of McDowell County, North Carolina, to be expended by the Board of Education of McDowell County, North Carolina, for the benefit of the public schools of said county." I am informed by you that the distributive share of McDowell County in the moneys paid to you by the Secretary of the Treasury under the Federal statute above quoted is $832.76. I am of the opinion that the treasurer of McDoweS County is the proper official to whom you should pay the above dis-tributive share of McDowell County. The federal statute having created this fund and it having been paid to you under this statute for the benefit of the public schools and roads of the county, and it having delegated to the legis-lature the apportionment of the funds between these two beneficiaries, I sug-gest to you that you remit the part of the distributive share of McDowell County to the treasurer of that county, and he then can determine whether he will pay it to the school fund exclusively or whether he will regard the Act of Congress which has created the fund and named the beneficiaries of the fund. You will have fully discharged your duty, I think, when you have remitted the county official of McDowell County the distributive share of McDowell County. Yours very truly, " James S. Manning, Attorney-General. State Bonds—Caswell Training School March 31, 1919. Hon. B. R. Lacy, State Treasurer, Raleigh, N. 0. Dear Sir:—Replying to your inquiry of the 29th instant as follows: Whether the $300,000 appropriated by the General Assembly of 1919 to the Caswell Training School, contained in H. B. 1410, S. B. 1357, is a part of the three million dollars bond issue authorized by the Act of 1917, chapter 154, I beg to say that charter 154 of the Acts of 1917 did not carry any appropria-tion to the Caswell Training School. On the contrary, the appropriation for the Caswell Training School was made by chapter 269, Public Laws 1917, being for the sum of $75,000. The appropriation of $300,000 by the Act of 1919 is a part of the $946,000 which you are directed to borrow on short term notes, and for which no issue of bonds is provided in that act. In my opinion, therefore, no part of the annual bond issue of $500,000 under chapter 154 of the Public Laws of 1917 goes to the Caswell Training School. I return herein the copy of the Act of 1919 as you request. Yours very truly, James S. Manning, Attorney-General. State Notes Under Act of 1919 April 1, 1919. Hon. B. R. Lacy, State Treasurer, Raleigh, N. C. Dear Sir:—I have yours of April 1st asking me for my opinion as to H. B. 1410, S. B. 1357, ratified March 1919. This act was intended to accomplish two purposes: One was to authorize you, as Treasurer of the State, to borrow for a period of two years at the lowest rate of interest obtainable $946,000, which amount is appropriated 78 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL for the purposes and institutions named in section two of the Act, the aggre-gate of which amounts to $946,000. No bonds are authorized to be issued to pay these notes. On the contrary, you are directed to apply the surplus in the treasury not otherwise appropriated at the end of the fiscal year 1920 to the payment, as far as it will go, of these notes. By section 154, of the Public Laws 1917, you were directed to issue three million dollars of bonds, covering a period of six years, five hundred thous-and dollars a year, and the proceeds arising from the sale of these bonds were appropriated to certain of the State institutions and for certain purposes by that act and, with two exceptions, towit: $500,000 of the three million for the erection of public schoolhouses, and the sum of $50,000 for the erection of the State warehouse building, the money to be expended under the super-vision of the building commission. . By section 5 of the Act of 1919, the Legislature declared that the institu-tions benefited by the bond issue of the 1917 Act would probably need the total amount appropriated to such institutions before the six year period expired, and it directed you, by this section 5, to borrow by and with the advice of the Governor and his Council of State in anticipation of the bonds authorized to be issued by chapter 154 of the Public Laws of 1917 and for the institutions therein named, but, however, not exceeding the total amount for the bonds in said act authorised such sums of money from time to time as the trustees or directors of said institutions therein named might need, and which should be approved by the State Building Commission. The amounts so borrowed by you to anticipate the bonds authorized to be issued were to be paid out of the proceeds of the sale of such bonds. The institu-tions to be benefited with the proceeds of the notes aggregating $946,000 are some of the same institutions that shared in the proceeds of the sale of the bonds authorized by the Act of 1917, but, of course, the appropriation to them by the act of 1919 was in addition to the appropriation out of the bond issue of the act of 1917. How far you will anticipate the bond issue authorized by the Act of 1917 is left to the discretion of the Building Commission and the Governor and his Council of State. If an institution provided for in the Act of 1917 desires the full amount of its appropriation under said Act for the purposes of course therein named, its request must first be approved by the Building Commission, then, before you, as treasurer, borrow the money and execute the notes of the State, it must be approved by the Governor and his Council of State. You will note, also, that the limitation of time, towit, two years for the duration of the notes issued for money borrowed in anticipation of the bonds, is not applied to the notes issued for the $946,000. I think this fully covers the request in your letter. Yours very truly, James S. Manning, Attorney-General. Banks—Taxation Exemptions April 5, 1919. Hon. B. R. Lacy, State Treasurer, Raleigh, N. C. Dear Sir:—I have your letter asking my opinion as to the effect of the following provision in section 42, Machinery Act, being chapter 92 Public Laws of 1919: BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL 79 "There shall also be deducted investments by such banks in bonds of this State and of the United States Government and of the Federal Farm Loan Bank and bonds of the Joint Stock Land Bank not exceeding twenty-five per cent of the capital stock and surplus of such banks. To be entitled to this deduction it must be shown by the reports of such banks that the bonds were pur-chased and paid for in full at least ninety days before the first day of May, except that bona fide purchases of the current issue of "Victory" bonds may be deducted if paid for in full not later than the twentieth day of April, nineteen hundred and nineteen." The several statutes authorizing the issue of bonds for the State of North Carolina contain sections substantially as follows: I quote from chapter 154, Public Laws 1917, section 4: "The said bonds and coupons shall be exempt from all State, county or municipal taxation or assessment, direct or indirect, general or special, whether imposed for purpose of general revenue or otherwise, and the interest paid thereon shall not be subject to taxation as for income, nor shall said bonds and coupons be subject to taxation, when constituting a part of the surplus of any bank, trust company or other corporation." You will note that the above section exempts said bonds and coupons from taxation when constituting a part of the surplus of any bank, trust company or other corporation. The effect of this was to exclude these bonds from the assets of the bank in ascertaining the taxable value of its shares of stock, and this immunity was extended only when surplus of the bank or a part of it was invested in these bonds and to the extent only of such surplus. This right or immunity, by virtue of the statute, became in my opinion, a part of the contract between the State and the corporate holders of these bonds. I do not think the Legislature of 1919 intended to, in any wise, abridge or lessen this immunity, and I think the provision of section 42 of the Machinery Act above quoted can be construed so as to not be in conflict with the section above quoted from the bonding acts. Under the above quoted section of the bonding act, any bank, trust company or other corporation may invest its entire surplus in State bonds with the immunity above stated, and, in my opinion, under the above provision of section 42 of the Machinery Act as above quoted, it is competent for any bank, trust com-pany or other corporation to invest twenty-five per cent of its capital, sepa-rate from its surplus in such bonds, but the investment of twenty-five per cent of its capital must be made at least ninety days before the first day of May, with the exception of the purchase of the Victory Loan Bonds. It is my opinion, therefore, that under this provision of the Machinery Act, any bank, or banking association of this State can invest, not exceeding twenty-five per cent of its capital, in State bonds and this investment shall not be taken into account in ascertaining the taxable value of the shares of stock in said bank, or banking association, but this investment of its capital, as distinguished from its surplus, must be made ninety days before the first day of May, and it was the purpose of this provision to permit any bank or banking association to invest not exceeding twenty-five per cent of its capi-tal and surplus in bonds of the United States Government, bonds of the .Federal Farm Loan Bank, and bonds of the Joint Stock Land Bank, and for 80 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL such investment, when made prior to ninety days before the first of May, to be deducted from its assets, in ascertaining the taxable value of its shares of stock in said bank or banking association. To summarize: (1) Under the provision of the bonding acts of the State any bank, trust company or other corporation can invest its surplus in bonds of the State and this investment is not counted in ascertaining the taxable value of the shares of stock in said corporation. (2) Under the provision of the Machinery Act any bank or banking association may invest twenty-five per cent of its capital in said bonds, bonds of the United States Government, bonds of the Federal Farm Loan Bank or bonds of the Joint Stock Loan Bank, and such investment shall not be counted in ascertaining the taxable value of the shares of stock. Provided, this investment is made ninety days before the first of May. (3) Any bank or banking association may invest not exceeding twenty-five per cent of its capital and surplus in bonds of the United States Government, bonds of the Federal Farm Loan Bank, and bonds of the Joint Stock Land Bank, and such investment shall be deducted in ascertaining the taxable value of its shares of stock, provided, such invest-ment is made ninety days before the first of May. Yours very truly, James S. Manning, Attorney-General. State Bonds—Chapter 154 Public Laws 1917 — Journal Entries April 23, 1919. Hon. B. R. Lacy, State Treasurer, Raleigh, N. C. Dear Sir:—You have handed us a letter from the Murchison National Bank, Wilmington, N. C, dated April 21, accompanied by one from W. H. Lamar, Solicitor of the Post Office Department, in regard to North Carolina 4 per cent bonds, due 1923, 1924, 1925, and 1927, said bonds having been issued under Chapter 154, Public Laws 1917, and request the opinion of this office upon the legality of said issue. The Legislative history of the enactment of the law is as follows: Chapter 154 of the Public Laws 1917 is entitled "An Act to issue bonds of the State for the permanent enlargement and improvement of the State's Educational and Charitable Institutions." We copy its preamble and first section: "Whereas the State's educational institutions and the State's charitable institutions are inadequate to meet the demands of the people of the State, and it is necessary that the State's institutions be permanently enlarged and improved in order that they may properly be sufficient for the purpose of their creation, , and in order to make the State's institutions adequate to the de-mands and necessities of the people of the State it is necessary that State bonds be issued, as the annual revenues of the State are inadequate for said purposes: Now, therefore, The General Assembly of North Carolina do enact: "Section 1. That for the purpose of permanently enlarging the State's educational and charitable institutions, to make them adequate to the demands and necessities of the people of the . State, the State Treasurer is hereby authorized and directed to issue bonds of the State of North Carolina, payable in the BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL 81 manner and at the date hereinafter described, to an amount not exceeding three million dollars ($3,000,000), and said bonds shall be issued in the following amounts, to-wit: To be issued in the year 1917 $500,000 To be issued in the year 1918 500,000 To be issued in the year 1919 500,000 To be issued in the year 1920 500,000 To be issued in the year 1921 500,000 To be sisued in the year 1922 500,000" Senate Journal February 27, 1917. NIGHT SESSION The Senate meets pursuant to adjournment. introduction of bills and resolutions By Senator Holderness: S. B. 1406, bill to issue bonds for the permanent enlargement and improvement of the State's educa-tional and charitable institutions. Referred to Committee on Appropriations. Senate Chamber, February 28, 1917. NIGHT SESSION Senate meets pursuant to adjourning. Committee reports from committee on appropriations. By Senator Holderness: S. B. 1406, bill to issue bonds of the State for the permanent enlargement and improvement of the State's educational and charitable institutions, with favorable report. At the same session, Senate bill 1406, bill to issue bonds of the State for the permanent enlargement and improvement in the State's educational and charitable institutions, upon second reading. Upon call of the ayes and noes, the bill passed the second reading, ayes 44, noes 1, as follows: (Giving the names of those voting). Senate Chamber, March 1, 1917. NIGHT SESSION S. B. 1409, bill to issue bonds of the State for the permanent enlargement and improvement of the State's educational and charitable institutions, upon third reading. The committee reports the following amendment (strike out section 8 and renumber the succeeding section). The amend-ment is adopted. The bill as amended passed the third reading, ayes 43, noes 1, as follows: (Naming those voting). 6 82 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL Senate Chamber, March 2, 1917. Senator Warren, for the committee on engrossed bills, reports that he has examined the following bills and finds them to be properly emgrossed: Senate bill 1406, bill to issue bonds of the State for the permanent enlargement and improvement of the State's educational and charitable institutions. House Journal night session March 2, 1917. House meets pursuant to adjournment. Message from the Senate. Message received from the Senate transmitting the following bills and resolutions which are read the first time and disposed of as follows: S. B. 1406, H. B. 1767, bill to be entitled "An act to issue bonds of the State for the permanent enlarge-ment and improvement of the State's educational and charitable institutions." The bill is placed on the calendar. THE CALENDAR March 3, 1917. Bills and resolutions on the calendar taken up and disposed of as follows: H. B. 1767, S. B. 1406, bill to be entitled an act to issue bonds of the State for the permanent enlargement and im-provement of the State's educational and charitable institutions, passed its second reading by the following votes by ayes and noes. Ayes 90, noes none. The bill takes its place on the calendar. THE CALENDAR March 5, 1917. Bills and resolutions on the calendar taken up and disposed of as follows: H. B. 1767, S. B. 1406, bill to be entitled an act to issue bonds of the State for the permanent enlargement and im-provement of the State's educational and charitable institutions, passed its third reading by the following votes by ayes and noes, and is ordered enrolled, ayes 87, noes 14. ENROLLED BILLS Mr. Phillips, for the committee on enrolled bills, reports the following bills and resolutions properly enrolled and they are duly ratified and sent to the office of the Secretary of State: H. B. 1767, S. B. 1406, a bill entitled an act to issue bonds of the State for the permanent enlargement and improvement of the State's educational and charitable institutions. It will be observed that the bill on its passage through the senate was amended on its third reading without putting it upon its several readings again. This amendment, however, simply struck out section eight which required the Building Commission to purchase a certain lot of land in the city of Raleigh. BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL 83 The amendment, then, far from increasing the debt or liability of the State upon the bond issue, reduced it, and so, under the rulings of our Supreme Court, it was not material within the requirements of Article II, section 14, of the State Constitution. The foregoing record shows that this bill was passed through each house of the General Assembly of North Carolina by reading on three separate days in conformity with the requirements of the Constitution for legislation of this character, and in this regard I find the bonds to be in all respects regular. Yours very truly, James S. Manning, Attorney-General. State Highway Bonds Act—Validity May 10, 1919. Hon. B. R. Lacy, State Treasurer, Raleigh, N. C. Dear Sir:—Yours of May 7th received. In your letter you request my opinion upon the following questions, relating to an act to encourage road building in North Carolina by State's aid, ratified by the General Assembly of North Carolina, this act being Chapter 6 of the Public Laws of 1917, with some changes, the 1917 act having been considered and certain features of it held contrary to the Constitution of the State in the case of Commissioners v. State Treasurer, reported in 174 N. C, page 141: (1) You ask whether the act of 1919 is constitutional or not? (2) Whether an act of the Legislature directly authorizing the county to issue bonds would come under this act, as the act provides for a vote of the county being taken upon it? (3) Whether the county having the authority to issue their bonds direct could take advantage of this and hold election under this law so they could borrow the money from the State? (4) If the county issues bonds for a half million dollars, how much, under this act, would I be able to lend to them, and when would it probably be available? A further question you desire to know is, if it is impossible to float these bonds, could you borrow the money as you are instructed to do under some provisions of the acts of the past legislature, relating to other state bond issues? In the Act of 1919 entitled "An Act to encourage road building in North Carolina by State's aid," no authority is given you to borrow money in the event you are unable to sell the four per cent State bonds at par authorized to be issued by this act. Your authority to borrow money upon your failure to sell State bonds authorized by other acts, such as the bonds to commute the State debt due the first of April, 1919, and the bonds authorized to be issued under chapter 154 of the Public Laws of 1917, does not extend to the borrowing of money in the event of your inability to sell the State bonds to aid and encourage road building in the State under the act now under consideration. In the event of your inability to sell these bonds at four per cent at par you have no authority to borrow money on these bonds or in anticipation of the sale of the bonds. Your inability to sell a four per cent North Carolina State bond at par was known to the Legislature during the session of 1919, and in view of this it failed to give you authority to borrow 84 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL money in lieu of these bonds and to supply the demand under this act.
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 | 1918; 1919; 1920 |
Subjects |
Attorneys general's opinions--North Carolina Automobiles--Transportation--Law and legislation Banking law--North Carolina Corporations--North Carolina Criminal law Education Judicial statistics--North Carolina Local government Public officers--North Carolina Public welfare Schools |
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 | 9894 KB; 186 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_biennialreportattorneygeneral19181920.pdf |
Pres Local File Path-M | \Preservation_content\StatePubs\pubs_edp\images_master\ |
Full Text |
y
Library
OF THE
University of NortK Carolina
This book was presented by
IMC. £VH-o\~ney Gcrve^i-3-l
C3^o-HBla-l^
VS-XO
iiiief 00033944466
FOR USE ONLY IN
THE NORTH CAROLINA COLLECTION
.
BIENNIAL REPORT
OF THE
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
OF THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
1918-1920
JAMES S. MANNING
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
FRANK NASH
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY-GENERAL
RALEIGH
Edwards & Broughton Printing Co.
State Printers
1920
Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2011 with funding from
Ensuring Democracy through Digital Access (NC-LSTA)
http://www.archive.org/details/biennialrep1918attrny1920
LIST OF ATTORNEYS-GENERAL SINGE THE ADOPTION OF
THE CONSTITUTION IN 1776
Term of Office
Avery, Waightsill 1777-1779
Iredell, James 1779-1782
Moore, Alfred 1782-1790
Haywood, John 1791-1794
Baker, Blake 1794-1803
Seawell, Henry 1803-1808
Fitts, Oliver 1808-1810
Miller, William 1810-1810
Burton, Hutchins G 1810-1816
Drew, W'fUiam. 1816-1825
Taylor, James F 1825-1828
Jones, Robert H 1828-1828
Saunders, Romulus M 1828-1834
Daniel, John R. J 1834-1840
McQueen, Hugh 1840-1842
Whitaker, Spier 1842-1846
Stanly, Edward 1846-1848
Moore, Bartholomew F 1848-1851
Eaton, William 1851-1852
Ransom, Matt. W 1852-1855
Batchelor, Joseph B 1855-1856
Bailey, William H 1856-1856
Jenkins, William A ". 1856-1862
Rogers, Sion H. 1862-1868
Coleman, William M 1868-1869
Olds, Lewis P 1869-1870
Shipp, William M 1870-1872
Hargrove, Tazewell L 1872-1876
Kenan, Thomas S 1876-1884
Davidson, Theodore F 1884-1892
Osborne, Frank T 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-
Go
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
State of North Carolina,
Department of Attorney General,
Raleigh, December 1, 1920.
To His Excellency, T. W. Bickett, Governor,
Raleigh, N". C.
Dear Sir:—In compliance with sections 4409-4410, Revisal of 1905,
I herewith submit the biennial report of this department for the years
1918-1919 and 1919-1920.
Respectfully submitted,
James S. Manning,
Attorney General.
EXHIBIT I
List of Actions in the Nature of Quo Warranto Brought by Pri-vate
Relators in the Name of the State Upon Leave Granted
by the Attorney General.
1. S. B. Edwards, relator, against J. P. Arledge; to try title to office
of the Clerk Superior Court of Polk County, JNT. C. ; leave granted Dec.
21, 1918.
2. W. P. Robertson, relator, against Frank Jackson; to try title to
office of sheriff of Polk County, N. C; leave granted Dec. 20, 1918.
3. A. 0. Bradley, relator, against ; to try title
to office of Register of Deeds of Clay County, N. C. ; leave granted
Feb. 7th, 1919.
4. Lee Conley et als, relators, against Byron Conley et als ; action on
guardian bond; leave granted April 28, 1919.
5. Ed. 0. Hall, relator, against L. A. Byrd ; forfeit office of High-way
Commissioner of Wayne County, N. C. ; leave granted June 19,
1919.
6. J. jST. Buie, relator, against W. P. McAllister ; to try title to office
of Supt. of Public Welfare of Robeson County, N. C. ; leave granted
Nov. 3, 1919.
7. Julia M. Alexander, relator, against Edward W. Pharr; forfei-ture
of office, member of the Legislature; leave granted Jan. 28, 1920
8. Julia M. Alexander, relator, against J. Lawrence Jones ; penalty
for double office holding; leave granted Jan. 28, 1920.
Civil Actions Disposed of
Bickett v. Tax Commission, 177 N. C, 433.
Board of Agriculture v. Drainage District, 177 N. C, 222.
Motor Co. v. Flynt, 178 K C, 399.
Brown v. Jackson, 179 N". C, 363.
Jenkins v. Board of Elections, 180 N. C, .
Civil Case Pending in the Supreme Court of United States.
Motor Company v. Flynt, 178 N. C, 399.-
EXHIBIT II
List of Cases Argued ky the Attorney General and Assistant At-torney
General, Before the Supreme Court, Fall Term, 1918,
Spring Term, 1919, Fall Term, 1919, and Spring Term, 1920.
AUGUST TERM, 1918
(176 K C. Report, pages 702 et sequitur)
1. State v. Fulcher; from Vance; seduction; verdict, guilty; defend-ant
appealed; affirmed.
2. State v. Mclver; from Lee; statutory burglary; verdict, guilty;
defendant appealed; affirmed.
2. State v. Harrington; from Lenoir; larceny; verdict, guilty; de-fendant
appealed ; new trial.
3. State v. Tyndall; from Lenoir; guilty; dismissed under rule 17.
4. State v. Cook; from Franklin; seduction; verdict, guilty; defend-ant
appealed; affirmed.
5. State v. Pace ; from Franklin ; guilty ; dismissed under rule 17.
6. State v. Johnson; from Cumberland; murder second ' degree
;
guilty; defendant appealed; affirmed.
7. State v. Geneva Jones; from Durham; murder second degree;
guilty; defendant appealed; affirmed.
8. State v. George W. Craig; from Rockingham; insanity; reversed.
9. State v. Spencer, from Forsyth; murder first degree; guilty; de-fendant
appealed; affirmed.
10. State v. Carroll; from Rockingham; selling liquor; guilty; de-fendant
appealed; affirmed.
11. State v. Atwood; from Forsyth; murder second degree; guilty;
defendant appealed; affirmed.
12. State v. Rhodes; from Davidson; docketed and dismissed.
13. State v. Hege; from Davidson; docketed and dismissed.
14. State v. Fritz; from Davidson; docketed and dismissed.
15. State v. Wentz; from Union; murder second degree; guilty; de-fendant
appealed; affirmed.
16. State v. Harrington; from Richmond; docketed and dismissed.
17. State v. Lineberger and Clippard; from Gaston; distilling;
guilty ; defendant appealed ; affirmed.
IS. State v. Oakley; from Wilkes; manslaughter; guilty; defend-ant
appealed; reversed.
BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL 9
19. State v. Keever; from Catawba; manslaughter; guilty; defend-ant
appealed; affirmed. (177 N\ C, 114.)
20. State v. Wilson; from Yadkin; larceny; guilty; defendant ap-pealed;
affirmed.
21. State v. Charlie Jones; from Buncombe; docketed and dis-missed.
22. State v. Lunsford; from Cherokee; larceny; defendant appealed;
affirmed. (177 K 0., 117.)
23. State v. Fain; from Cherokee; barn burning; guilty; defendant
appealed; affirmed. (177 K 0., 120.)
SPRING TERM, 1919
(177 !N". C. Report, page 551 et sequitur)
24. State v. Bush; from Pasquotank; liquor; guilty; defendant ap-pealed;
affirmed.
25. State v. Dunning, from Bertie; assault; defendant appealed; re-versed.
26. State v. Lewis, from Wayne; rape; defendant appealed; affirmed.
27. State v. Wallace ; from Craven ; docketed and dismissed.
28. State v. Finch; from Wake; manslaughter; defendant appealed;
new trial.
30. State v. Harris; from Wake; docketed and dismissed.
31. State v. Pitts, from Forsyth; liquor; defendant appealed; af-firmed.
32. State v. Simmerson ; from Forsyth; liquor; defendant appealed;
affirmed.
33. State v. Davis, from Forsyth; murder in the first degree; de-fendant
appealed; affirmed.
34. State v. Hardeu & Beale ; from Forsyth ; highway robbery ; de-fendants
appealed; affirmed.
35. State v. Butler; from Guilford; liquor; defendant appealed;
affirmed.
36. State v. Brady; from Guilford; attempted abortion; defendant
appealed; affirmed.
37. State v. Coble; from Guilford; murder second degree; defendant
appealed; affirmed.
38. State v. Canup; from Mecklenburg; motion to docket and dis-miss.
39. State v. Wilson and Matthews; from Buncombe; liquor; af-firmed.
40. State v. Gash ; from Buncombe ; manslaughter ; defendant ap-pealed;
affirmed.
10 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL
41. State v. Ditmore ; from Graham; refusal to assist sheriff; spe-cial
verdict ; appealed by the State ; reversed.
•42. State v. Evans; from Cumberland; murder second degree; de-fendant
appealed; affirmed.
FALL TERM, 1919
(178 'N. C. Report, page 671 et sequitur)
43. State v. Windley; from Beaufort; embezzlement; guilty; defend-ant
appealed; new trial.
44. State v. Lamm ; from Nash ; docketed and dismissed.
45. State v. Exuni; from Nash; docketed and dismissed.
46. State v. Marks & Farmer; from Halifax; abduction; defendants
appealed ; affirmed.
47. State v. Southerland ; from Wayne ; murder second degree ; de-fendant
appealed ; affirmed.
48. State v. Godley; from Johnston; docketed and dismissed.
49. State v. Stancil; from Pitt; larceny; defendant appealed; af-firmed.
50. State v. Simonds; from Pitt; liquor; defendant appealed; af-firmed.
51. State v. Mincher; from Lenoir; larceny; defendant appealed;:
affirmed.
52. State v. Joe Baldwin; from Wake; liquor; defendant appealed;-
affirmed.
53. State v. Hayes Baldwin; from Wake; liquor; defendant ap-pealed;
affirmed.
54. State v. Medlin; from Franklin; docketed and dismissed.
55. State v. O'Higgins; from Cumberland; abduction; appeal by the-defendant
; affirmed.
56. State v. Bryan; from Brunswick; murder second degree; defend-ant
appealed; affirmed.
57. State v. Dupree; from Hoke; docketed and dismissed.
58. State v. Latta; from Durham; liquor; defendant appealed; af-firmed.
59. State v. Phillips & Key; from Surry; F. & A.; defendants ap-pealed;
affirmed.
60. State v. Cain et als; from Surry; murder first degree; defend-ants
appealed; affirmed.
BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL 11
61. State v. Medley & Robertson; from Forsyth; robbery; defend-ants
appealed; affirmed.
62. State v. Rumple et als; from Forsyth.; riot; defendants appealed;
affirmed.
63*. State v. Prevo ; from Davidson ; town ordinance ; defendant ap-pealed;
reversed.
64. State v. Moon ; from Guilford ; bigamy ; defendant appealed ; af-firmed.
65. State v. Daniel; from Davidson; F. & A.; defendant appealed;
affirmed.
6Q. State v. Herret; from Davidson; docketed and dismissed.
67. State v. Little; from Anson; murder first degree; defendant ap-pealed
; new trial.
68. State v. Reid; from Anson; arson; defendant appealed; new
trial.
69. State v. Bridges; from Gaston; secret assault; defendant ap-pealed
; affirmed.
70. State v. Wiseman ; from Cleveland ; murder first degree ; defend-ant
appealed; affirmed.
71. State v. Mull; from Burke; liquor; defendant appealed; af-firmed.
72. State v. Killian; from Caldwell; liquor; defendant appealed;
new trial.
73. State v. Coleman; from Burke; liquor; defendant appealed; af-firmed.
74. State v. Nixon & Johnson ; from Randolph ; liquor ; affirmed.
75. State v. Lovelace; from Rutherford; murder first degree; defend-ant
appealed; affirmed.
76. State v. Lowe; from Buncombe; lottery; State appealed; re-versed.
77. State v. Yearwood & Tabor; from Graham; arson; defendants
appealed ; affirmed.
78. State v. Palmer; from Haywood; arson; defendant appealed;
affirmed.
79. State v. Kirkland; from Swain; larceny; defendant appealed;
new trial.
80. State v. Caylor; from Swain; larceny; defendant appealed; af-firmed.
81. State v. Dalton; from Macon; murder first degree; defendant
appealed ; new trial.
12 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL
SPRING TERM, 1920
(179 K C. Report, page 700 et sequitur)
82. State v. Sessoms; from Tyrrell; liquor; defendant appealed; af-firmed.
83. State v. Burnett; from Bertie; murder first degree; State ap-pealed
; affirmed.
84. State v. Bailey et als; from Johnston; murder second degree;
defendants appealed; affirmed.
85. State v. Perry & Horton; from Chatham; liquor; defendants ap-pealed;
affirmed.
86. State v. McLawkorn ; from Pitt; liquor; defendant appealed;
affirmed.
87. State v. Publishing Co.; from Pitt; libel; defendants appealed;
new trial.
88. State v. Walker; from Lenoir; keeping bawdy house; defendant
appealed ; affirmed.
89. State v. Walker; from Lenoir; docketed and dismissed.
90. State v. Hicks; from Sampson; selling wine; defendant ap-pealed;
affirmed.
91. State v. Hines; from Lenoir; murder second degree; defendant
appealed; affirmed.
92. State v. Taylor; from Lenoir; docketed and dismissed.
93. State v. Taylor and Taylor; from Lenoir; docketed and dis-missed.
94. State v. Shoaf ; from Forsyth; selling on Sunday; defendant ap-pealed;
reversed.
95. State v. Cline; from Forsyth; rape; defendant appealed; new
trial.
96. State v. Hobson; from Guilford; docketed and dismissed.
97. State v. Crowder and Liles; from Anson; liquor; defendants ap-pealed;
affirmed.
98. State v. Simonds; from Anson; certiorari; denied.
99. State v. Kirkpatrick ; from Mecklenburg; milk ordinance; de-fendant
appealed; affirmed.
100. State v. Gheen ; from Lincoln ; liquor ; defendant appealed ; af-firmed.
101. State v. Connor; from Iredell; murder first degree; defendant
appealed; affirmed.
102. State v. Fink; from Cabarrus; town ordinance; defendant ap-pealed;
reversed.
BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL 13
103. State v. Alexander; from Iredell; murder first degree; defend-ant
appealed; affirmed.
104. State v. Beam; from Iredell; liquor; defendant appealed; new
trial.
105. State v. Razook ; from Henderson ; town ordinance ; defendant
appealed ; affirmed.
106. State v. Hutchins; from Yadkin; docketed and dismissed.
107. State v. Yoder; from Buncombe; docketed and dismissed.
SUMMARY OF CASES
Affirmed 65
jSTew trial or reversed on defendant's appeal 17
Reversed on State's appeal 2
Appeal dismissed 22
Motion certiorari, denied 1
Total 107
CRIMINAL STATISTICS
STATEMENT A
The Following Statement Shows the Criminal Cases Disposed of During the
Fall Term, 1918, and Spring Term, 1919
County
Alamance
Alexander*---
Alleghany
—
Anson
Ashe
Avery
Beaufort
Bertie
Bladen
Brunswick...
Buncombe...
Burke
Cabarrus
Caldwell
Camden
Carteret
Caswell
Catawba
Chatham
Cherokee
Chowan.
Clay
Cleveland
Columbus
Craven
Cumberland.
Currituck
Dare
Davidson
Davie
Duplin
Durham
Edgecombe..
Forsyth
Franklin
Gaston
Gates
Graham
Granville*. _-
Greene
Guilford
Halifax
Harnett
Haywood
Henderson..
Hertford
Hoke
Hyde
78
14
10
28
62
21
32
18
1
22
247
69
60
39
59
12
32
11
132
11
17
86
33
58
15
3
6
30
25
42
110
21
146
19
115
5
79'
20
7
78
25
29
76
51
7
3
2
40
55
15
13
164
24
22
12
4
24
23
4
27
13
9
2
56
21
121
22
81
143
66
124
25
77
13
73
11
56
52
16
2
24
40
45
1
152
16
11
100
64
19
67
68
14
33
346
87
77
46
4
82
30
36
38
125
20
16
139
50
172
37
4
6
51
32
111
242
82
252
44
182
14
73
84
18
121
71
36
72
73
44
45
3
20
120
17
8
62
44
11
47
47
16
32
287
74
61
47
42
31
28
26
89
10
5
87
36
107
25
3
5
45
23
50
107
68
234
33
145
10
45
67
14
102
77
32
42
56
37
37
3
u O
V Q,
OQ
8
49 9
109 16
12
18 1
1 1
30
4
20 10
13
BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL
STATEMENT A—Continued
15
County
"J:
T3
o
"o O
a
-3
s
3
B
">
ao
O
a
'3
<
o
£
"o
z
"3
'£ 05
C O
J3 XL
oS
Iredell
Jackson -
71
46
17
12
18
93
9
36
48,
38'
38
112
37
12
15
38
23
14
3
43
5
14
14
22
23
74
50
64
21
119
38'
18
48
7
26
52
92
35
28'
6
13
16
140
3
8
. 16
42
83
67
47
32
35
1
9
19
14
166
7
2
4
98
49
26
31
32
219
16
33
41
107
69
286
37
18
25
93
56
42
11
94
8
38
46
36
26
68
74
78
145
67
175
73
25
94
31
33
53
96
34
34
10
39
37
259
15
31
16
69
75
1S4
50
32
8
2
. 40
5
7
3
42
1
4
10
1
1
6
4
8
3
7
13
2
10
2
8
8
2
3
4
5
4
4
4
4
27
1
2
9
14
19
3
1
83
43
26
10
27
155
12
22
36
107
49
219
20
15
15
60
66
39
13
74
8
28
35
23
26
36
38
72
104
49
137
47
24
67
IS
33
30
89
•:0
6
8
30
27
214
16
14
11
45
52
149
45
31
5
7
IS
1
18
Jones. ... ... 1
5
32
4
3
8
9 11
71 1
Macon... 13
4
69
34
216
McDowell.. .
Mecklenburg
Mitchell
7
52
4
1
12
16
55
17
2
7
10
59
43
29
9
57
3
28
40
17
19
52
13
30
91
29
64
43
7
47
25
15
1
8
1
10
8
30
25
146
13
25
19
1
2
3
Moore .
Nash... . ... ..
9
24 1
4
11 14 1
11
10
11
3
4
5
5
Pitt 20
9
8
21
11
22
22
1
29
9
2
7
9
9
21
5
7
6
45
18
40
1
Polk
30
9
24
12
7
14
2
2
11
1
6
8
28
Tyrrell
Wake*
16
1
11
13
19
6
2
955
3
4
22
24
35
2
36
6
136
6
1
Wilkes
Totals 4,014 3,481 29 6,943 581 5,227 1,255 90
*One corporation tit each sign.
In computing totals, add corporations to race and sex.
16 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL
Recapitulation of Statement A
7,527
6,943
581
3
Total...
4,014
3,481
29
3
7,527
White
Total
5,227
955
1,255
90
7,527
Convictions, including submissions
Total 7,527
BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL 17
£ i
nosjy uBtix
i |
OCLC Number-Original | 5792362 |