y/3
101:973
THE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
ANNUAL REPORT
OF THE
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS
1973
THE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
ANNUAL REPORT
of the
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS
1973
Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2012 with funding from
LYRASIS Members and Sloan Foundation
http://archive.org/details/annualreportofad1973nort
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS
JUSTICE BUILDING
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
BERT M. MONTAGUE FRANKLIN E. FREEMAN, JR.
Director Assistant Director
To The Honorable, The Chief Justice of
The Supreme Court of North Carolina
Submitted herewith is the Eighth Annual Report of the
Administrative Officer of the Courts. This Report, prepared pur-suant
to G.S. 7A-343, relates to the 1973 calendar year.
Bert M. Montague
Director
CONTENTS
Foreword 7
Map of North Carolina Judicial Divisions and Districts 10
The Appellate Division 11
The Supreme Court 11
The Court of Appeals 12
The Superior Court Division 13
Total Cases Added and Disposed of
in the Superior Court 13
Total Cases Pending in the Superior Court 14
Utilization of Scheduled Court 14
Superior Court Civil Dockets 15
Civil Cases Added and Disposed of
in the Superior Court 16
Civil Cases Pending in the Superior Court 16
Distribution of Pending Civil Cases
among the Counties 17
Ten Counties with Largest Civil Dockets 17
Civil Cases Pending, Added, and Disposed
of in the Superior Court 18
Utilization of Civil Superior Court Terms 25
Superior Court Criminal Dockets 29
Criminal Cases Added and Disposed of
in the Superior Court 31
Criminal Cases Pending in the Superior Court 31
Distribution of Pending Criminal Cases
among the Counties 32
Ten Counties with Largest Criminal Dockets 32
Ten Counties with Greatest Proportion of Cases
Pending in Relation to Dispositions 33
Percent of Cases Tried in the District Court
Which Were Appealed to the
Superior Court for Trial De Novo 33
Percent of Superior Court Filings Which are
Cases Appealed from the
District Court for Trial De Novo 33
Criminal Cases Pending, Added, and
Disposed of in the Superior Court 34
Utilization of Criminal Superior Court Terms 41
The District Court Division 45
District Court Civil Dockets 45
Civil Cases Added and Disposed of
in the District Court 46
Civil Cases Pending in the District Court 46
Distribution of Pending Civil Cases
among the Counties 47
Ten Counties with Largest Civil Dockets 47
Civil Cases Pending, Added and
Disposed of in the District Court 48
District Court Criminal Dockets 56
Criminal Cases Added and Disposed of
in the District Court 57
Criminal Cases Pending in the District Court 57
Distribution of Pending Criminal Cases
among the Counties 57
Ten Counties with Largest Criminal Dockets 58
Criminal Cases Pending, Added,
and Disposed of in the District Court 59
Offenses and Conditions Alleged in Juvenile
Petitions and Number of Children
Before Court for First Time 66
Juvenile Proceedings — Adjudicatory
Hearings in the District Court 74
District Court Activity in Motor Vehicle
and Small Claim Cases 81
Days of Court Held at Each Seat
of the District Court 86
Fiscal Operations 91
Amounts of Fees, Fines and Forfeitures
Collected and Distributed 92
Representation of Indigents 96
Assigned Counsel - Cases and Expenditures 97
Tables
The Courts Commission 101
The Judicial Council 101
Superior Court Judges 102
District Court Judges 103
District Attorneys and Assistants 105
Public Defenders and Assistants 108
Clerks of the Superior Court 108
6
FOREWORD
The court reorganization movement in North Carolina began
in the mid nineteen-fifties and culminated in the adoption of
constitutional amendments in 1962 and 1965 and the enactment
of the "Judicial Department Act of 1965/' Yet, North Carolina's
unified judicial system is still relatively young. The year 1973
marks only the third year during which all divisions of the
General Court of Justice have operated in each of the State's
100 counties. The Judicial Department consists of an Appellate
Division composed of the Supreme Court and the Court of
Appeals (which has been fully operational since 1968), a Su-perior
Court Division and a District Court Division. The system
is unified for purposes of jurisdiction, operation and administra-tion.
All of the officers and personnel of the Judicial Department
are employees of the State.
There are now 7 justices of the Supreme Court, 9 judges of
the Court of Appeals, 49 full-time Superior Court judges, 112
District Court judges, 30 district attorneys and 112 assistant
district attorneys, 3 public defenders and 11 assistant public
defenders (serving in the 12th, 18th and 28th judicial districts),
100 clerks of the superior court, approximately 520 magistrates,
approximately 200 juvenile counselors (serving in 29 judicial
districts), 76 court reporters, and over 1,100 supporting person-nel
(primarily assistants, deputies, secretarial and clerical per-sonnel
in the offices of clerks of the superior court)
.
The Administrative Officer of the Courts is required to "sub-mit
an annual report on the work of the Judicial Department"
to the Chief Justice and the members of the General Assembly.
This Annual Report is based upon data supplied by the clerks
of superior court on a monthly and quarterly basis. The data
contained herein can most appropriately be used in making year-to-
year comparisons for the entire system and in comparing the
performance of different counties and judicial districts. The data
is also the beginning point for independent analysis of the per-formance
of the courts of each county and judicial district.
Although caution should be used in generalizing about the
performance of the entire General Court of Justice, this report
does evaluate the status of the criminal and civil dockets of the
Superior and District Court divisions. These evaluations are
carefully grounded on the available data base, but they derive
from quantitative rather than qualitative data and are based
upon totals for groups of counties rather than a thoroughgoing
analysis of each county.
As explained in the foreword to the 1971 and 1972 Annual
Reports most of the comparative analysis for those years was
based upon the data from the 83 counties where the court struc-ture
was constant throughout the period of comparison. Some
of the bar graphs were based solely on a comparison of these
83 counties. This year the distinction between "Group I" and
"Group II" counties has been eliminated, since all 100 counties
have been under the new structure for three full years. All com-mentary,
tables and graphs are based upon data from all 100
counties. Although Superior Court graphs permit a five year
comparison, District Court graphs will thus permit only a three
year comparison.
Although there are a number of statistical indicators that
may be used in evaluating court performance, there is no single
barometer that gives a weighted average of all factors. The more
obvious factors to weigh in making year-to-year comparisons
and relative rankings between counties and judicial districts
are filings, dispositions, and the number of cases pending at the
end of the year. Other useful measures are the pending ratios
(the relation that the number of cases pending at year's end
bears to the number of cases disposed of during the year) and
the rate of disposition (the percentage of the year's filings which
were disposed of during the year) . Low pending ratios and high
rates of disposition are positive measures.
The statistics contained herein are case flow statistics and
none are "backlog" or "delay" statistics. This report uses "cases
pending" as one unit of analysis, but the term "backlog" will
not be found herein and it is inaccurate to apply that term to
the cases which are properly described as "pending." A case
which is pending may be two days or two years old. "Backlog"
may be tentatively defined as those cases which have been pend-ing
disposition longer than an agreed upon standard of time
for the average case of the same type in the same court. A
"delayed" case would be any case which exceeded the agreed
upon standard time-frame and such cases could also be described
as "backlogged." Even if an agreed upon standard time-frame
with supporting data was available, such data could only prop-erly
be used (as is the case with the data which is available)
as a starting point for analysis.
In any case, the Administrative Office does not now routinely
collect data on the length of time required for the disposition of
particular cases. However, this office commissioned a special
study of cases filed in the Superior Court Criminal Division in
1971. The results of that study were published in December of
1973. Although the data for that study is somewhat outdated
(there have been marked improvements in the performance of
the Criminal Division of the Superior Court in both 1972 and
1973), it is valuable in that it makes available numerous types
of data that have not been available in the past. Moreover, it
makes a useful analytical contribution to the causes of docket
congestion and delay. Copies of Delay in The Superior Courts of
North Carolina and an Assessment of Its Causes may be ob-tained
from the Administrative Office.
8
Whatever the unit of analysis, whether "cases pending,"
"delayed cases," or "pending ratios," a number of questions
must be asked once the raw data is available. At what point in
time is the data stated? Cases pending, for example, are stated
as of December 31, 1973; are they generally higher during
a holiday season? What effect do the customs and practices of
the local bar have upon courtroom and trial delays? What are
the policies of the court, the bar, and district attorneys with
respect to continuances? Is there a well thought out system for
the calendaring of cases? Are pre-trial release procedures work-ing
effectively? Is the waiver procedure for motor vehicle cases
fully utilized? Are continuances caused by court congestion or
are they sought after by the parties ? What effect do sentencing
practices have upon the rate of criminal appeals between the
District and Superior Courts? How much court was held in
the district and how often ? (In some counties there are no more
than two weeks of Superior Court each year.) What are the
geographical dimensions of the judicial district? Are seats of
court distant from one another, requiring a great deal of travel
time by court officials ? Are there sufficient courtrooms available
when needed ? Are the courtrooms located and designed so as to
permit efficient dispatch of the court's business? How many
cases counted as "pending" are essentially "dead" cases and
will ultimately be nol prossed or dismissed? (It may in fact be
customary strategy to file a civil action knowing at the time
that the case will never be tried ; similarly, it may be good stra-tegy
for the district attorney not to nol pros a case, although
knowing that it will never be tried.) What is the extent of plea
bargaining in the district? What is the settlement rate in the
district? Has there been illness among court officials? Are there
adequate investigatory resources? Are law enforcement and
expert witnesses available when needed? The above list is not
exhaustive but is illustrative of the types of questions that must
be explored in analyzing the statistical data for each county
and district.
The purpose of this foreword has not been to denigrate the
statistical data reported herein, but to stress the subtlety and
complexity of the variables which they reflect. All quantitative
data must be read with care and this is especially true of court
statistics. Too great a reliance on numbers alone gives credence
to the concept of "mass justice." Court officials know that justice
is administered to individuals.
May, 1974
9
THE APPELLATE DIVISION
THE SUPREME COURT
One hundred and forty-six opinions were filed by the Su-preme
Court in 1973. Full opinions were rendered in 136 cases
and 10 opinions were per curiam. Of the total, 94 were criminal
and 52 were civil cases. Sixty-nine percent (65 opinions) of the
criminal appeals were affirmed and 35% (18 opinions) of the
civil appeals were affirmed. In the remaining cases, the Supreme
Court modified the decision from which the appeal was taken.
As reported in the North Carolina Reports, the court disposed of
235 petitions for certiorari, 2 motions to dismiss, 2 motions to
rehear, and 1 motion to withdraw.
JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT
Chief Justice
William H. Bobbitt
Associate Justices
Carlisle W. Higgins Joseph Branch
Susie Sharp j. Frank Huskins
I. Beverly Lake Dan K. Mookb
Emergency Justices
William B. Rodman, Jr.
J. Will Pless, Jr.
11
THE COURT OF APPEALS
Six hundred and sixty-four opinions were filed by the Court
of Appeals in 1973. Of these 664, 363 were criminal cases and
301 were civil cases. The court determined and disposed of 317
motions and 452 petitions in 1973.
JUDGES OF THE COURT OF APPEALS
Chief Judge
Walter E. Brock
Associate Judges
Hugh B. Campbell R. A. Hedriok
David M. Britt Earl W. Vaughn
Naomi E. Morris James M. Baley, Jr.
Frank M. Parker James H. Carson, Jr.
Emergency Judge
Raymond B. Mallard
12
THE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
The performance of the superior court division of the Gen-eral
Court of Justice is adequately summarized in the sections on
civil and criminal dockets which follow. Only a few items deserve
highlighting in terms of the combined civil and criminal dockets.
Total filings increased by 4.8% and dispositions increased by
2.2%. The number of cases pending at the end of the year de-creased
by 6.0%. The number of days of court scheduled in-creased
by 4.1% and was followed by an increase of 2.9% in the
number of days of court actually held. For all 100 counties the
percentage of court utilization remained about the same, drop-ping
by less than 1%. Significantly, the total number of cases
pending is the lowest since court reorganization began in 1966.
It is especially encouraging to note that the pending ratio
for the criminal division dropped from 50.9 in 1971 to 40.5 in
1972, and to 32.3 this year. It is discouraging to note that the
ratio for the civil division rose from 131.3 in 1972 to 154.6 in
1973. Extrapolating these ratios, it may be estimated that it
would require less than 4 months for the court to dispose of its
pending criminal cases and over one year and six months to
dispose of its civil cases.
TOTAL CASES ADDED AND DISPOSED OF
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
January 1, 1969 - December 31, 1973
Added hbhhhbhhb Disposed of BBBB^Z^aBBB
1/1/69-12/31/69 ^HBHHiHH 45,698
VEZZfflZZB2ffi2Z&ZE2ZZEZZZ22ZZE22E&ZZE& 54,148
1/1/70-12/31/70 HnmHunn 50,590
^&ZBMBBzmawmmBBB^& 48,259
1/1/71-12/31/71 nnaiHHHHH 47,389
WMBBnaBm&mWEBBBBMBm 47,214
1/1/72-12/31/72 HHnnnHH 48,542
mS&BZmB2BBMEmE2E22BZBZ^m 51,395
1/1/73-12/31/73 mil— II H—— 50,849
WWBEnBBa^mznBBBBBBBBBMl 52,533
(in thousands) 10 20 30 40 50 60
13
TOTAL CASES PENDING
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
December 31, 1969 - December 31, 1973
12/31/69 HHMnBHH 28,631
12/31/70 BBUaBHUHBUHUHMH 30,971
12/31/71 HHHBMMHMHm 31,146
12/31/72 imwihimiiiiiiw mill 28,293
12/31/73 Mil!! ihm—— 26,609
(in thousands) 5 10 15 20 25 30
UTILIZATION OF SCHEDULED COURT
January 1, 1969 - December 31, 1973
Days Scheduled Days Held Percentage
1/1/69-12/31/69 9,06iy2 7,118 78.5
1/1/70-12/31/70 8,940% 7,1781/2 80.3
1/1/71-12/31/71 8,792 7,266% 82.6
1/1/72-12/31/72 9,170 7,496 81.7
1/1/73-12/31/73 9,542% 7,716 80.9
14
SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL DOCKETS
Although delay in the disposition of criminal cases and the
resulting congestion that occurs has received considerable public
attention in recent years, the problem of delay and congestion
in the civil division of the superior court has been virtually
ignored. As indicated in this space last year, there is room for
much improvement in the disposition of superior court civil
cases.
For the first time in the last seven years, the number of
cases filed has exceeded the number of cases disposed of and the
number of cases pending at the end of the year has shown an
increase from the prior year. As has always been the case, the
pending ratio for this division is higher than for any other
division of the General Court of Justice. The 1972 ratio was
131.3, indicating that it would require approximately one year
and four months for the superior court to dispose of all cases
pending. Significantly, the 1973 ratio has increased to 154.6
which indicates that it would require over one year and six
months to dispose of all civil cases pending.
Most performance indicators are not favorable when com-pared
to 1972. Filings increased from 8,249 to 8,490 or 2.9%;
dispositions decreased from 8,871 to 7,897 or 11.0% ; and the
number of cases pending at the end of the year increased from
11,617 to 12,210 or 5.1%. The rate of disposition dropped from
108.8% to 93.0%. There was improvement in court availability
and utilization, the number of days scheduled increasing by
1.6% and the number of days held increasing by 4.3%. The
percentage of court utilization increased from 73.3% to 74.9%.
Among all 100 counties, the 10 counties with the largest
civil dockets accounted for 48.5% of the total pending cases.
Sixty-eight counties had 100 or fewer cases pending and only
4 counties had more than 500 pending.
15
CIVIL CASES ADDED AND DISPOSED OF
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
January 1, 1969 - December 31, 1973
Added bhbhbbh Disposed of w///////////////m7m
1/1/69-12/31/69
1/1/70-12/31/70
1/1/71-12/31/71
1/1/72-12/31/72
1/1/73-12/31/73
(in thousands)
7ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
mzmmzmmmwm
v/MM/MM/maz
V///////////////7777?.
I I I I I
5 10 15 20
11,880
20,692
13,589
15,535
8,251
10,064
8,249
8,871
8,490
7,897
25
CIVIL CASES PENDING
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
December 31, 1969 - December 31, 1973
12/31/69
12/31/70
12/31/71
12/31/72
12/31/73
(in thousands)
I
10 15 i
15,991
14,052
12,239
11,617
12,210
16
DISTRIBUTION OF PENDING CIVIL CASES
AMONG THE COUNTIES
Number of
Cases
Number of
Counties
1972
1973
Less than
50
50-100 101-200 201-500 Over
500
42 30 15 9 4
41 27 19 9 4
TEN COUNTIES WITH LARGEST CIVIL DOCKETS*
County
Pending
1-1-73 Added Disposed of
Pending
12-31-73
Percent
of Filings
Disposed of
Mecklenburg 1,490 891 874 1,507 98.1
Wake 844 664 469 1,039 70.6
Guilford 693 695 580 808 83.5
Forsyth 576 758 707 627 93.3
Buncombe 407 297 303 401 102.0
Henderson 334 36 34 336 94.4
Franklin 305 54 24 335 44.4
Durham 374 212 288 298 135.8
Gaston 327 261 291 297 111.5
Cumberland 237 247 207 277 83.8
STATE MEAN 116 85 79 122 92.9
*A11 of these counties were listed in this table in the 1972 Annual Report.
&
OOCDr-lr-IOOlOlO
++++ I 1 +
OWHCOCDO
I I 1 + ++++ +
S) TfCOWHCOWH fc^goSS gu,- 33g§
lO OJ 00 gj ^f O 00 g 00 00 00 CO 0> CD
CO U5C0W S H S^8 «p "* c* e* -* go as^sa
e
m
J^
00
&
£
oo
OS
-O O ^tf Tf © CO CN Oi 3 rH »h ^£2p
OOHOOI'Nh
CM tH -^
tOOOOOtt
ag^as
t-COO't^
Ufa
icca-^coiocseo'^
cocn Tt< cOth wb
CO C£><NO lO
*o CM ss iO<N O>00
fH CN
II
CSJ i-H CO 1-1 <*t CN t*
eCrCbf « S3 <U
18
t»HOWOH OOCdb-irtW
ao
j ©CO<Dt- O
I+++
§"2
+ 1 + + I +
CO i-t Irt
+++ +
to >o© ©
Tim
3^- <N 00 Oi Ol 00
*a
3£8S§ »-l© i-H
1 S MSSS 353 38S33 SSSS 8333
w*©:* ©
CO CN»H I*
i *r3°°8
S°°6
8°°3
g32°°8 353S
cowo© S!
CO r-l © 333 8
© Oi CO 80 w*© co
»agjs
h C^C0C*<<tf »H OH H HC^IOO 00 iH © CO "^ t» "<* © t»
Ufa
coi-^C5CO© t* © © C0r-H>C0 © i-(H m OJ©C0tJ« © E2SS ssggs
00©COfr* ao
OOi-llO© JH
T-t CO gs§ S<NO<N *
t>CO<N © ©t-O i-ICOiO ssHNas^
a
slid
pqKKZ h
19
Pig
oJh
O
I
© CM -<* "tf CD 00
CO rH r-4 iH
+ + 1 1 1 +
en
1-H
+
HHCO P5
I++ +
*>M
la
IQ t> b- t" CD CM
CO CD CM 00 lO t*
CO «5
CO
©^
T-T
,—l CT> CO CO
t>TfC0 1ft
++ +
t> CM ©
S-8
+ 1+ I
© O H rH (N «-•
CM CM CM i& CM 5
2 ©<<*IOCOOO OS
5 iHi-HCO t»
© Tf COb- i-< Oi
CD CO rH-^ ^ 00
©CMiH ©
i-H CM
£ t>© ©
CMCM t- JN
t» CO 00 00
t> 00 W9 o s CM CM
CO
W5rH ©
CD CO
2838
^ (N CO ^
oooi^; ^ CM ^f
OO © ©r-"<N eo
Tf CO ©Ot* ^t
iO CO <N lO © uocopo © iH-HH©b- ©CM CM CM
t> © U5 00
r-tCM© ©
n ©»ClIOT2Ci-O4 »©-bl-^ ^A co m stsss CO,H 5»o ©
En
u
-H
s
h
QQ i^ M&
q s*> §
£ g g g ^ t- >H fl)
0) fcOOn
Eh Eh
Os Ota 8 «
^H En
rN/5 S? **H
q q
s
0)
CO Q & *«(
3=5 .
1
1
WO p
20
1 CO cncoco o> s w s N © H S 8
O
1 n+ i i+ i
1 +1 1
IS to as© "* Tf io 5>
1-1 l-f "
fc^H
<NCO 1/3
+ + +
CoOolO 0o0 (DIN 00
1
00
oo _
H CM
u
«M
O o
CO
dS
}a
CA M
•o
9
00
i-H
U *9
3 a
H
rHOJ t> l>
OS CO "3 00
ITjtNCO iH
rHCOCN OS
CO i-"-1 W
(Ncooo eo
£3*° E; a s
COCS 00
eo co
eo eo
3° 3
t>t^O00 £?
co r^
i-H eo
®3^ 0S0
in
co't
Tf 1-H
OS 00 f
oo to m
iH CN
<N t> OS
(N CN
§2 3
35
Ufa
OS CO CO 00
oocncd r* s^s 2§?33§ tH OS
5 CM CO
00CNCO CO
r-l CN ^ 8S3 3 o ior>oo o HN CO
co co o>
iO r-i CO
•s
3 c
<3 II
5
111
.
St! -S3
ila I
2 "S5S§ fH CD 00
©
!
s
l+l 1 1 ++I I + +
tin
OH OJCOlQ lO ]$ ssssagg
N05«30 CO
CN CO
I++I +
i-l t^ CO »H
+ 1+1 I
rHrH OOlO CO
1 S3SS8 3 SSSSSS
cJ »H CO w
2 OOHIO CO
£ COCNCDlO co
o *
S H S°) 8
TflOt»IOCS| CO
t-i r-t <N CD
CNtNCOCOrH lM
»-lCNCO r-t 00
00 CO 00 COM £-
S$S8§ 32S8S r-t fH CO rH
tHIOiHCO M5
CStN^OO CD
i-HOi-H 00
300^33 <"<N2!38
OOSCNCTCS0S IXNOOiQ a
as
cncdcsoo m
OOCOCOt- CO
r-ii>coooeo cn
COt!<IOi-IiH CO
iH CN
05W500J CO
r-tt-C0O> CM
CO ^* CO CD CN
rii-IOOCN ^
P
oococoo © OiCNOCD Oi
CN CO §83 £ iHCOlOQ W Oi CO o CD go
CN'tftN^ CO IH00CO CO
th ih eo iH
b
II- b£ O S
III
73
c
S 2 1 £a
8*l-«6! pj ° S S H
^u
•H
c$
£h %*H
6 Q
>> Q 05 ^ O CN
iM CN
73 o
11111
22
s NNOOO) 2 S N35 hocoo
<n cocs el
©
I
I++++ + 1 I + + + + I + +
Sc
IS
IS
2§SS2« O
r-T
CO t> CO CO
(0
lO CO CO CO t?
CN HNH ©
| coo^^g
£ conohh I*
I
se§§
933 3
©©i-H **
JhfH^ CO
g^g
©,-«iO l« CCgCOjH
cn©co co
CO CDC* "^
COINH N
3^8
iO
is
Ufa
SSSSSS i-l co© CO ^-100
,-lCOlO
r-lCN
15
IS
8838*8 lOCO t> Ift OCD00 IO § CD t*0 CO
iHCNlO «
rH CO "^
S3 SI ^ bJ
.2 J 2 g <
llsll
o» i-4 1-1 e* cs n
i-H ^
+ + I I + +
NhOON«ON © CO
iH i-H W O)
|+++ |++ +
cocm2><n QO
ICNWOH'* i-< © C0CDI>00O « *H
CO N
3 3* t^ co ei i-< f*
o
cor^oico<N a CM i-< ©
M 1—
I
tOHrtOOJ ©
lomooo ©
tO I> «C U3 t^ Oi o P t* ©
,H HCOHCOH Z* £ ©
3 8
00 CS tM> 00 CO CNI © l> iH H N * Sp
CO ^
©N©lOCOU3CM t* © QO
Ufa
COOO<N©CO © COCNi-HlXN © lO lO CO CO © CO CM
i-l CO^WCOH 8
©
ncm ^ iO©©o W5
I
s
kO t* U5 f- © t" CM
03
§s la
so a &< 2 2^SS
24
UTILIZATION OF CIVIL SUPERIOR COURT TERMS
BY JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
1973 Calendar Year
| Days Scheduled Days Held Days Unused % Used
1ST DISTRICT
Camden 5 1 4 20.0
Chowan 15 7% 71/2 50.0
Currituck 10 5 5 50.0
Dare 7 4 3 57.1
Gates 5 2
f
40.0
Pasquotank 10 5 50.0
Perquimans 10 5 5 50.0
TOTAL 62 29*/2 321/2 47.6
2ND DISTRICT
Beaufort 30 24 6 80.0
Hyde —
Martin 15 6 9 40.0
Tyrrell —
Washington 10 3V2 6y2 35.0
TOTAL 55 33i/
2 211/2 60.9
3RD DISTRICT
Carteret 15 8 7 53.3
Craven 29 23
J
79.3
Pamlico 3 3 100.0
Pitt 30 19 63.3
TOTAL 77 53 24 68.8
4TH DISTRICT
Duplin 15 w m 50.0
Jones 10 6 4 60.0
Onslow 20 13 7 65.0
Sampson 20 8 12 40.0
TOTAL 65 3414 301/a 53.1
5TH DISTRICT
New Hanover 85 56i/
2
28i/
2 66.5
Pender 5 4 1 80.0
TOTAL 90 6OV2 291/a 67.2
6TH DISTRICT
Bertie 21 12 9 67.1
Halifax 20 13y2 61/2 67.5
Hertford 15 91/2 5U 63.3
Northampton 12 5 7 41.7
TOTAL 68 40 28 58.8
7TH DISTRICT
Edgecombe 25 9V2 15i/
2 38.0
Nash 34 16i/
2 17y2 48.5
Wilson 29 15 14 51.7
TOTAL 88 41 47 46.6
25
STII DISTRICT
Days Scheduled Days Held Days Unused % Used
Greene
Lenoir
Wayne
5
33
35
3 2
21 12
23 12
60.0
63.6
65.7
TOTAL 73 47 26 64.4
9TH DISTRICT
1
L2i/2
5
L0
5
Franklin
Granville
Person
Vance
Warren
10
25
15
20
10
9
12i/
2 ]
10
10 ]
5
90.0
50.0
66.7
50.0
50.0
TOTAL 80 46i/
2 331/2 58.1
10TH DISTRICT
Wake
11TH DISTRICT
14TH DISTRICT
Durham
15TH DISTRICT
179
69
154
63
25 86.0
Harnett
Johnston
Lee
49
50
20
32
31
15
17
19
5
65.3
62.0
75.0
TOTAL 119 78 41 65.5
12TH DISTRICT
Cumberland
Hoke
41
25
32
21
9
4
78.0
84.0
TOTAL 66 53 13 80.3
13TH DISTRICT
Bladen
Brunswick
Columbus
15
15
35
11
11%
25
4
31/2
10
73.3
76.7
71.4
TOTAL 65 471/2 171/2 73.1
91.3
Alamance
Chatham
Orange
TOTAL
43
20
28
91
34
71/2
22y2
64
9
12i/
2
qy2
27
79.1
37.5
80.4
70.3
16TH DISTRICT
Robeson
Scotland
TOTAL
40
15
55
30
1
31
10
14
24
75.0
6.7
56.4
17TH DISTRICT
Caswell
Rockingham
Stokes
Surry
TOTAL
6
53
10
30
99
4
39
22
701/2
2
14
4y2
8
281/2
66.7
73.6
55.0
73.3
71.2
26
18TH DISTRICT
Days Scheduled Days Held Days Unused % Used
Guilford 303 251
r
82.8
19TH DISTRICT
Cabarrus
Montgomery
Randolph
Rowan
40
10
80
46
28
6
53%
30
12
4
26y2
70.0
60.0
66.9
65.2
TOTAL 176 my2
58i/
2 66.8
20TH DISTRICT
Anson
Moore
Richmond
Stanly
Union
15
15
25
10
30
10
8
16
8
25
66.7
53.3
64.0
80.0
83.3
TOTAL 95 67 28 70.5
21ST DISTRICT
Forsyth
22ND DISTRICT
Alexander
Davidson
Davie
Iredell
TOTAL
23RD DISTRICT
229
9
84
10
44
147
208
4y2
5%
35i/
2
98
90.8
50.0
62.5
55.0
80.7
66.7
Alleghany
Ashe
Wilkes
Yadkin
15
8
50
20
8
5
39
12
7
3
11
8
53.3
62.5
78.0
60.0
TOTAL 93 64 29 68.8
24TH DISTRICT
Avery
Madison
Mitchell
Watauga
Yancey
3y2
15
7
10
13
3i/2
8
6
10
5 8
100.0
53.3
85.7
100.0
38.5
TOTAL 48% 32i/
a 16 67.0
25TH DISTRICT
Burke
Caldwell
Catawba
50
45
28
39
28
20i/
2 71/2
351/2
78.0
62.2
73.2
TOTAL 123 87i/
2 71.1
26TH DISTRICT
Mecklenburg 389 350y2 381/2 90.1
27
27TH DISTRICT
Days Scheduled Days Held Days! Unused
1
% Used
Cleveland
Gaston
Lincoln
TOTAL
53
75
15
143
45i/
2
68
14%
128 15
85.8
90.7
96.7
89.5
:>8TH DISTRICT
Buncombe 210 186 24 88.6
29TH DISTRICT
Henderson
McDowell
Polk
Rutherford
Transylvania
30
20
10
25
20
23
17
4
20
5
7
3
6
5
15
76.7
85.0
40.0
80.0
25.0
TOTAL 105 69 65.7
30TH DISTRICT
Cherokee
Clay
Graham
Haywood
Jackson
Macon
Swain
12
7
30
17
18
17
2i/
2
6
22
11
12
10
9V2
1
20.8
85.7
73.3
64.7
66.7
58.8
TOTAL 101 63i/
2
37i/
2 62.9
GRAND TOTAL 3,563^ 2,669 894 Vi 74.9
28
SUPERIOR COURT CRIMINAL DOCKETS
Nineteen hundred and seventy-two does appear to have been
a "turn around" year for the criminal division of the superior
court. The favorable results reported in this space last year have
continued into 1973 and it is hoped that a trend is being estab-lished
which will result in further reductions in the number of
criminal cases pending at year-end. While 1973 filings did in-crease
by 5.1%, dispositions similarly increased by 5.0%. Most
significantly, the number of cases pending at the end of the
year decreased by 13.7% compared to a decrease of 9.9% in
1972 and increases of 28.3% in 1971 and 32.3% in 1970. The rate
of disposition (the percentage of filings which were disposed of)
exceeded 100% for only the second time since 1965. The rate of
disposition for this year was 105.4%, compared to 104.7% in
1972, 89.3% in 1971, and 89.8% in 1970. Moreover, the pending
ratio dropped from 40.5 in 1972 to 32.3 in 1973 indicating (all
other things being equal) that the estimated amount of time for
the court to dispose of all criminal cases pending has been re-duced
from less than 5 months to less than 4 months. This trend
is more encouraging when it is remembered that the pending
ratio in 1971 was 50.9, suggesting that more than 6 months
would have been required to dispose of all criminal cases pending.
The number of days of superior court scheduled increased
by 5.6% and there was a modest increase in the number of days
actually held, 2.2%.
There is no single variable that can explain this continued
improvement in superior court criminal dockets, but one factor
deserves mention. The impact of appeals from the district court
for trial de novo in the superior court was discussed in this space
last year. It was indicated that any minor change in the number
of cases being appealed from the district court (a high volume
court) has a significant impact upon the superior court (a low
volume court). The number of cases being appealed to the su-perior
court has been further reduced in 1973, dropping from
20,899 to 20,268 or 3.0%. The 20,268 cases which were appealed
constitute 5.3% of the total number of cases tried in the district
court and amount to 47.8% of total superior court filings. The
comparable percentages for 1972 were 5.5% and 51.9%. This
marks the first year since the district court has been ooerating
in all 100 counties of the State that misdemeanors have consti-tuted
less than one-half of superior court filings.
As was indicated in this space last year, the statistics
demonstrate that the longer the district court is in operation,
the lower the rate of appeals and the smaller the proportion of
superior court filings which are appealed cases. For the 83
counties where the district court has been in operation for five
or more years, the appeal rate from the district court is 4.8%
and appeals constitute 44.9% of district court filings. This is in
29
marked contrast to the 17 counties which entered the system in
December of 1970 where the appeal rate is 8.5% and appeals
constitute 62.1% of superior court filings. It is hoped that the
number of cases being appealed in these counties will be reduced
in 1974.
The 10 counties with the largest criminal dockets accounted
for 38.3% of the total cases pending at the end of the year.
Fifty-four counties had 100 or fewer cases pending at the end
of the year, and only 4 counties had more than 500 cases pending.
In the order named, Wake, Guilford, Mecklenburg, Cumber-land
and Forsyth had the largest number of cases filed in 1973.
Among the counties that exceeded the statewide average for
filings, the following counties had the largest percentage in-creases
in filings between 1972 and 1973: Chowan (106.4%),
Nash (59.2%), Caldwell (34.5%), Robeson (30.3%), and Ala-mance
(25.3%).
Wake County disposed of the most cases in 1973, followed
in order by Guilford, Forsyth, Cumberland, and Mecklenburg.
Among the counties that exceeded the statewide average for
dispositions, the following counties made the most significant
increases over 1972: Johnston (119.8%), Alamance (76.9%?),
Union (52.0%), Caldwell (51.6%), and Carteret (51.1%).
The highest number of jury trials, 243, was held in Wake
in 1973 ; Mecklenburg held 227, Guilford held 193, Gaston held
171, and Durham held 161. As would be expected, Mecklenburg
led the State in the number of days of criminal court held (442),
followed by Wake (396), Guilford (255), Buncombe (220), and
Cumberland (207)
.
The 1971 Annual Report utilized pending ratios as a baro-meter
of court performance for the first time. As already indi-cated,
the pending ratio for 1973 is 32.3, suggesting that it would
require less than 4 months to dispose of all cases pending. The
pending ratio, of course, varies from county to county, and it is
useful to apply that test to each county. The table at page 33
lists the 10 counties with the highest pending ratios.
30
CRIMINAL CASES ADDED AND DISPOSED OF
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
January 1, 1969 - December 31, 1973
Added
1/1/69-12/31/69
1/1/70-12/31/70
1/1/71-12/31/71
1/1/72-12/31/72
1/1/73-12/31/73
(in thousands)
Disposed of WZZZBZBBZE&^
'////////////////////////////////I
'//////////////////////////////////////////////A
I I I I
10 20 30 40
33,818
33,456
37,001
32,724
39,138
37,150
40,293
42,524
42,359
44,636
CRIMINAL CASES PENDING
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
December 31, 1969 - December 31, 1973
12/31/69
12/31/70
12/31/71
12/31/72
12/31/73
(in thousands)
12,640
16,919
18,907
16,676
14,399
12 16 20
31
DISTRIBUTION OF PENDING CRIMINAL CASES
AMONG THE COUNTIES
Number of
Cases
Number of
Counties
1972
1973
Less than
50
50-100 101-200 201-500 Over
500
28 23 27 15 7
27 27 26 16 4
TEN COUNTIES WITH LARGEST CRIMINAL DOCKETS
County
Pending
1-1-73 Added Disposed of
Pending
12-31-73
Percent
of Filings
Disposed of
* Mecklenburg 676 2,071 1,812 935 87.5
*Wake 1,511 2,989 3,658 842 122.4
*Alamance 763 921 1,070 614 116.2
*Guilford 561 2,378 2,373 566 99.8
*New Hanover 489 1,396 1,409 476 100.9
Wayne 364 796 684 476 85.9
*Pitt 671 820 1,035 456 126.2
*Forsyth 720 1,809 2,094 435 115.8
*Cumberland 486 1,836 1,955 367 106.5
Durham 346 1,023 1,023 346 100.0
STATE MEAN 167 424 446 144 105.2
* Counties which were listed in this table in the 1972 Annual Re port.
32
TEN COUNTIES WITH GREATEST PROPORTION OF
CASES PENDING IN RELATION TO DISPOSITIONS 1
Disposed of
in 1973
Pending
12/31/73 Ratio
Person 115 166 144.3
McDowell 151 153 101.3
Wayne 684 476 69.6
Chowan 303 210 69.3
Columbus 367 245 66.8
Granville 217 145 66.8
Haywood 258 158 61.2
*Alamance 1,070 614 57.4
Mecklenburg 1,812 935 51.6
*Rowan 755 338 44.8
STATE MEAN 446 144 32.3
1—Excluding counties with less than the statewide average of 144 cases pending on
December 31, 1973.
*Counties which were listed in this table in the 1972 Annual Report.
PERCENT OF CASES TRIED IN THE DISTRICT
COURT WHICH WERE APPEALED TO THE
SUPERIOR COURT FOR TRIAL DE NOVO
Total number of cases tried in the District Court 379,306
(Includes only cases actually tried; excludes cases
disposed of by waiver, preliminary hearing, nol pros
or otherwise.)
Total number of cases appealed from the District Court for
trial de novo in the Superior Court 20,268
Percent of cases tried in the District Court which were
appealed to the Superior Court for trial de novo 5.34%
PERCENT OF SUPERIOR COURT FILINGS
WHICH ARE CASES APPEALED FROM THE
DISTRICT COURT FOR TRIAL DE NOVO
Total number of cases filed in Superior Court within its
original jurisdiction 22,091
Total number of cases filed in Superior Court upon appeal
from District Court for trial de novo 20,268
Total number of cases filed in Superior Court 42,359
Percent of Superior Court Filings consisting of cases
appealed from District Court for trial de novo 47.85%
33
00 t- O lO CO rf CO Oi t> kO r-l r-l iO
th co i-ieo
CO COCO lO
r-l CM
3S
+++I 1+1 +
H^HOOti>OWNO«lcOq^0W5
CM r-l i—i 10
I+I++I
00 r-l ^ t-I ^ S
l+l I
?DOO«DN
OS i-HlO lOiH
rHCM -^ Oi
eg
£
Q
00 CO O ONCD t> ^OO'tlOOiO
CO r-l CN Tt<
eg
On «
On©
52 &<
S3
pc
Ha
"HtfO00CCHODCMHtjo ?d$
r-i th rr
tD © ^ CO 00 CM tD
CM
§fc 4nS
© CO JO O OS CM tO JO
CO U0 l> r-l r-l CO CO £ r-l r-l CM t©
rHCOrHCM rH 05
tO © OS lO OS © t* CO
iOlOTPCOTFCMlOrH
T* rHCM <«* "*
IflOlONCDINHH
GSTMO COr-l^
CM
tH © t)h CO CO CO CO C\| 10COOO0H0H^00tJ<I> CO iH
C0C000t>CMtOt~tD
cotowLOcor-icMoo
rH CO
|>CO lO t> ^t CO
CD CO CD r-( tO Tf«
CN tH Ift
CO OS © "# OS CO
|> t* rH t»
CO tD CM CO OS OS
lO COCO t- COOS
OOOOCOWH
k/5
Tt< Tf CO rH I> lH
t'OCOOlOW
CMCMI> CO U5
rH O t- 00O CO
CM CM lO r-l rj< W?
CM
N^OOOW O l> r-l CON
<N
§
HO
lOCOOt-tD
r-l 00 tD
CM ^iH
tO CO rH CM CM
CM lO CO CM CO
CMCM xj<ft
t> OS CD COW
lOlO COW
OiHCOOW
COCO t> CM OS
io ic coos
as r-i co irj ih
lO CD CM tDiH
CMCM ^©
O (4 > o
O «H
OOMON OOOTflOOO
CMCO COOS
05 COt-rHCO
Tf(M CMI>t^
COCM CDC^
a
H 9
«2^
!O !O
•o «
co cO
£ &
If
g 9 a
11
o.sn
HI'ggScrcrH B O ^ ^+) w JJx
BQ
Qq
C\J
34
g
isi ^
as
4> d>
p
pIS
s ra,°s3a
I+++ +
ho«oho(o6m weo
i-ICO *
I I I
coco cm
HN OJ ©
++++ +
00 iH COCO © woocoto JH
cow 10 r*
CM CO
I I + +
O^ »H JO
00COCD t-r-
l rH CO
3 §83 p cm ©
©©t- t-
_ C03?© ©
CM ©CM iH
O>0> 00 o oo os
©eo© cm
lO TfCM © CNrHrH IA
©<<# «H eo
i-4 00 fH rH
TttOO CO
OOCMCO^ CM
CM "* 3^8 CMrHCOrH t» CO© ©© £$
©O©
0>©t-"4« © rHrH©© ©
rH COrH lO
"O* ©CO
rH ©
CM©lO
COt-"*
coco 25 2
(NTf <N C3
3°°88 3 Br^S 33 8
©©CO© © t-COlO© CO
rH ©CO iH
©io © oo©^'* ©
COiH © CMrHrH ©
t>©©© C0r-<O5©
CO rH ©© IO © ©
©T-<00© ©
in ©t*«© © rH H W 38gS thcocm t*
O5©C0© O0<N©rH
CM iH © © © ©©© © C0(N©Tji
J*
CM©© © t><N© ©
CM CO CM ©
©^tH»OlIOO© So
co ©r>« eo
i-H wcoeo •«* ss§
1 6 i
rt > S w
a 5 22 — tn o a ^>
iilli
Eh
s
to
I
§
sis J § p
I
q
CO
35
T3
M 6
2 ^^
4) CC 0)
I
i ^
si ^bo^aiSf2; PC
©75
.So1
rH i-l ©
rH 1-1
+ | + +
MM
is
O CO CO *<
to o* fc- cn
rf co
OS CN H to CO N OJ OlOO 05 05 00 H
CD t}< CT> tO CN CD CO (N CO CO 1—< FH
1H CD (NH ^t rH 1H
++++ +
CD tO CD O t- "tf
T* tJ< CD CO t> rH
rH i-I rH rH t-t<
NQ0 t COxf 00
1+ I
CO IO rH
CO "«•
ft.*-
3 §£ O rH-*f H
oot> toco «* i-
CO H r-l CD CN OQ
CO CN rH Tt rH CN
0>
!
75
MM
t^CJSCD CN
COt- 00 ©
rH<N IO
TfrHOJ "*
lOOOCO l>
rHCO IO
CJi CO Oi H
rH to 00
CD rH CD CO O CD CD CD
HTtff- CO
to to
00 to CN^
rHCDCO O
CO t>T* 00
rHCO tft
333 2
rHCO tO
9
0/ o sd
£§£b
CO rHCNrH CO
tOTt«CO 1
"
rH CN
p to Tf co to op
O 5P OO CJJ »H Tj<
CO tO CO rHCO CO NH N t-
(NOOCOcNtM ©
CO rH rH t-
I
OWi OCDOH0lN>O© CNCN tOrH Tf
CO OCN 00 to
IO CN IO CO CO
rH <N
COOiTt* OCN rH
Tf CO tOCO Oi CO
CNrHrH<N CO
»HOCOO to tO""* CM t>CN t- © CNrH rH IO to
O5C0 t- ©
CNC0 to rH
CO CD CO CO
oocot> oo
rHCOrH CO
CO toco ""*
rHCNrH IO
flJS
a
cH
PhOCh>£ p
8 CO t> o rH f IO NTfH 00
IO l> O CN
t- OO CO
rHCNrH ^
IO CO t> 00 COOt- CO
CN CO
CO <N 00 CO oco CO to
rHCNrH IO
tOCN l>
IOCN |> ©rH ©^
rH CN
COCO «*
CO to ©
03
CNCO IO ©IO Tf<
CO ©
t* co to io toco
rHrfCN GO NH
COO CO
CO CO CO Q0H ft
© CD IO
CM CO
CN
"3
B
it O «M
a
1H « O
I s s
IM
E o
11
* o
En
I
P CM
i
lis
OR H
o
St
S .2
«H ^
tl «
§5
8-I2
• 2
£ a
_i ft
i
*
2 s
3 5
<D
« S
« S o ®
rH <N
36
HhOW » ^t © c©
+ I + +
<«* i-H ©
I I
CO 00 IN
"tf i-H ©
+ + +
3f 10
t><N
l+l I +
tew
lo to in
rH^lCN
Tf pH CO iH O r-t r-l H05CO N 00© t*
CO H 00 CN CO
T*< © Tf CN ©
cooooco JO
<N rH ^
05 op t-
I> tO 00 CN ©CNW © So oo ©co ©
CN tO i-H i-i ©
Ht«HT)t W
lOi-HOO TJ<
t>r-ICO
t"5 « tOlO JH
rH CN
s (NHCO
ict^to
cnrr o
i-iCN
iO©CN CO ^ t> iH
00.00 to CO ©CO CO
cn r-* m COCN to
HOOiifl w ©COOOO tH
tH "«t CN ©
CN IOCO O CNCN<* © to
ICIOO O
t>r-irf CO
tHotHo tWN SSM5<N
CO COCN 00 »H©CN CN
CM lO 00 CO ©CNW I>
t>to
i-tCN
00 CO
POi-Ht-© to
iocs to in t^
rH I> rH ^ IQ
©HiH-HW© 0^0 00
Tf tH^ ©
ot>3J ^
tD rHCO fH
HC5 O oo to m TfCN l>
©© t>W 00
to loco io
r-t CN
MM
i-l rHr-i T* CN
^COO © ©t- ia CN
I
CO
3
s
Q
£88
CO CN
C©OiO-lCN © t> CO
t^iHTH ©
Eh O
g
31.
37
© t> CO com ©
co co
t*co © C0t> 1-4
tH CN
c« C3 <3
£+3 Eh
-° O Q
cn th ©Tt< r* ©OS tHCN tH
C-tHCO CO
00 t* 00 Tf N»
to co o^< in
tH iH i-l -^
- 3
* i
o o
££
S ey 5 o. a
a a
=5 a
Tf o io
CO tD
I++
©OHINOW CO lO I
s-i-
H t^ CO
t> CO t~- CO 00
CM ©10><N
++ I I I I
IS
IS CVN
coco
CO<N
tXNCO 00 © OHiHOHtC-OCQO0H
O O CO 10 1>
05 COO "<*
(N'-JCO
CO tH |>
lH cm
MHHino t>W<NiO©
OINIOI>(5
i* eC
CD CM 05
TfCO kO 1-4 CO ©cmcm©co £©J©t-t(HNTC*3ktO-r©H
rH CMrHcO©
CM*Ot*»
§38
©t><o©co
COOINHt*
lOrHCNCO iH
©i-l©^^
'tfCNt-lO©
3 CM rt* iH ift © OOtHo o^rp eo
r-l CM rH cN CO
CO rH CO CO t- © CM rH CM i-l Oi 00
ooopo
©COt*» ©©CO
r-T cm
©— ©© lOT* lO 00 © <SI
S8 tMTt CO CM
rH © lO © Ifl
T* l-4©0©
^tH<NC0©
"* lO©
COCO 00©W5
©co moo©
o^oococo
r-4 CO 1> © »H 00
Tj<CMrt ©L>l>
<N<NC0CM^ M
cotNoocot>eo
©tJ< OCMCOCM
i-l tH <m tH CM CO
COiHOiCO^W
COCOCO©COIO
cot-ioooicco
t-oocoiotrS
CMtHtJ<©
EOh EOs EOh Eh Nn «* »«H
cs °"S C$ 05
h s .a ^s g >> u Eh
2
lilford
—
Greensb(
High
Po
3TAL
2
Eh
Cabarrus
Montgome
Randolph
Rowan
TOTAL
2Q
£ ison
oore
chmond
anly nion
0TAL
2
Eh i
o O H en o
CM <^PiwDH
O «M
•a
°
i
h
53 ft
I
CO $
5 «u
38
ONNOS lOrHrHCOOO 00 00 00 OJ CN 00 CO <N CO £1 <Ji
COCM OS 00 H i-liHiH rHrHr-H-t «© 05 Nl» lO
CS
+ I I I I ++ |++ ++++++ | |+ | +
|S %£$% HOHt*C5
CN <N -<* CO rH
00 t- lO?N OS»H
CO 00 CO C- iH Jg CO EH i-H
to
JO »H iH CO
9888S S35S383 388§SS rHOOC^OOO CO W tH W
C*
C5COOCOW5
OOlOOOOi iH
CM (Nt"
g COrHl>d
1-5 1H
CO oo W
^<Ne0t*«O
ih t> a CS ^T
CO TT C^
uooo»-<!l!
»HCNCOt*
WHOOOCOfc ©oit>«p
COGS lOi-HC* <NCiiOt»
IH HHC0«O
CT>COCO00 fc
C0 1OO5D <N
iH CM
C5Tf tH<N <D !>©©xl»CM H00Nt*Oi
OiCNiHt>Ci H(NCOOt»
CO <NW
<NiO l>COt*
r-l (NiO
<OS<Ogg;
<NU3
iH CM
CM iH CO 00 CO CM
<HJiOOtH>bCOHCOMiOH
H00t>» iH
CO CDrHiM l>
CM'tGOlO O
IH <N
00 r-lt> «0 lO 0(N2N C>
i-l<NC0 |> O
SSSOJOt* 00«OlOt»«O CO iH rH IC i-H IH CO t> © © ^0pt*CO^| rHCOCM'tCM t}< lO CM 't CM 00 CM Tf CM 5>
iH ^ r-t W CO CM CO iH yt CM "'T l>
COCiCM'*T*f*t-H! OOit>»OI>eO i-ICOCDCO © £ «h «-0 cm © i-h © »-» oo io co © co t>- m —
T3 8 J
frill 3fi s
Eh O
s i *^ EC < <
P
C- OS 1-1 lO
00 00 iO CO
I 1 +
5^.
io ©co
CN r-i
co »h ©"<*<<* t--
co <n ^ i-l ^ IO OS
+ 1 I++1 1+ I
^ <P. °P 2* os ^r jh os
CO CO
NlOt>iHCO
COCO'*
to 00 OS O <N ©
IOtJ«Ca5 oo
5 ^K-iti
o
rt 00 00 ICiH
S l> 00 Tf iH
©rH©ift
Tf t>i-lCO
1-H CM
oh^oow
CM tH CO OS
cm co r^ oo rt< ;*
i-i m r* CO CM t*
co oo oo co 31 os
<N^C0C0C0£»
rH tH CO
CM©©OS<NCM
CO IO lOH ©
co co t> oo © io -*f oo ©©
-*t i-( CO IO CO © © jH «* « r-l NH l> ©g
5-
t> co i-i h op co co os r*oo
IO CN OJ ^fl CO CO 00 CM-j
a
00©iHO0©©© W 00 l>
l> rH r-l iO 00 CM CM OS
rH CO
00
r> O K3 OS CM CO 00 a
CM
iH IO
3o
H
©i*co©
CM©C0C^
iH
8
©^
.22
ao
"3
fa
l©OrHI>©t©N» HTfHh s©
M
©a
«
S
1
©©ti>o3"<*£©
CMr-l<* CO
n rH© 00 -iCO
cm o
l> CM iO rt< t}< N ©00 00 CO OS©
CMrH CO ©
1-H t> © Tf © ^*
rH © ©CM©C0
C<1 CM ©
©iocs © oo©
lO r-l i-H i-t CM CM
iH rH CO
t>CMO0©rHQO
00<NCM©CO©
rH rH CO
T3 k;
ffi CQ
i s
°o -2 o>
«i CQ C)
73 fl S cd
lid 5
©©©©©"$C0© ©© IOiH(N©00CO©iH Jfc^
-rH CMrH 00 C0§
CMiH
© © t* I> CO © 00 i
00 © COTf CO'
rH CM
S3
©E» t* CCMMC<NOL©OC<M*CIMOC©O 00 © SJ^
S
s?SS5SSS|-|
I
IS
» 5
O M
II
40
UTILIZATION OF CRIMINAL SUPERIOR COURT TERMS
BY JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
1973 Calendar Year
|
1ST DISTRICT
Days Scheduled Days Held Days Unused % Used
Camden
Chowan
Currituck
Dare
Gates
Pasquotank
Perquimans
TOTAL
10
34
15
50
10
45
15
179
7
28%
12
26%
7
33
11%
125%
3
51/2
3
23%
3
12
31/2
53%
70.0
83.8
80.0
53.0
70.0
73.3
76.7
70.1
2ND DISTRICT
Beaufort
Hyde
Martin
Tyrrell
Washington
TOTAL
40
15
20
10
15
100
36
io%
17
4
77
4
4%
3
6
5%
23
90.0
70.0
85.0
40.0
63.3
77.0
3RD DISTRICT
Carteret
Craven
Pamlico
Pitt
45
79
7
120
39i/
2
57
5
90
5%
22
2
30
87.8
72.2
71.4
75.0
TOTAL 251 191% 59% 76.3
4TH DISTRICT
Duplin
Jones
Onslow
Sampson
TOTAL
79
20
109
54
262
57
10
81%
87%
186
S
27%
16%
76
72.2
50.0
74.8
69.4
71.0
5TH DISTRICT
New Hanover
Pender
192
25
I68I/2
20
23%
5
87.8
80.0
TOTAL 217 188% 28'A 86.9
6TH DISTRICT
Bertie
Halifax
Hertford
Northampton
TOTAL
18
30
15
23
86
13
26
9
191/2
67%
I3%
18%
72.2
86.7
60.0
84.8
78.5
7TH DISTRICT
Edgecombe
Nash
Wilson
44
65
45
40
57
40 1
90.9
87.7
88.9
TOTAL 154 137 17 89.0
41
8TH DISTRICT
Days Scheduled Days Held Days Unused % Used
Greene
Lenoir
Wayne
TOTAL
15
75
113
203
131/2
69
103V2
186
11/2
91/2
17
90.0
92.0
91.6
91.6
1TH DISTRICT 1
Franklin
Granville
Person
Vance
Warren
TOTAL
40
20
20
29
19
128
31
16
20
25
141/2
IO61/2
9
4
4
41/2
211/2
77.5
80.0
100.0
86.2
76.3
83.2
WTH DISTRICT
Wake
11TH DISTRICT
Harnett
Johnston
Lee
TOTAL
12TH DISTRICT
Caswell
Rockingham
Stokes
Surry
TOTAL
435
73
30
142
24
74
20
54
172
3951/2
29i/
2
69
25i/
2
124
191/2
67i/
2
18
47
152
39i/
2
£*
42
6i/
2
2
7
20
90.9
75.6
94.5
85.0
87.3
Cumberland
Hoke
228
15
2061/2
13
2I1/2
2
90.6
86.7
TOTAL 243 2191/2 23i/
2 90.3
13TH DISTRICT
Bladen
Brunswick
Columbus
15
30
31
15
28i/
2
27i/
2
VA
31/2
100.0
95.0
88.7
TOTAL 76 71 5 93.4
14TH DISTRICT
Durham 192 174 18 90.6
15TH DISTRICT
Alamance
Chatham
Orange
103
24
64
91
20i/
2
35
12
a
29
1/2
88.3
85.4
54.7
TOTAL 191 146^ 44 1/2 76.7
16TH DISTRICT
Robeson
Scotland
120
20
90
19
30
1
75.0
95.0
TOTAL 140 109 31 77.9
17TH DISTRICT
81.3
91.2
90.0
87.0
88.4
18TH DISTRICT
Days Scheduled Days Held Days Unused % Used
Guilford 293 255 38 87.0
J9TH DISTRICT
Cabarrus
Montgomery
Randolph
Rowan
100
15
70
65
75
12
54
5iy2
25
1
13y2
75.0
80.0
77.1
79.2
TOTAL 250 192i/
2
57i/
2 77.0
20TH DISTRICT
Anson
Moore
Richmond
Stanly
Union
35
30
65
30
70
22
22
52
25
65
13
8
13
5
5
62.9
73.3
80.0
83.3
92.9
TOTAL 230 186 44 80.9
21ST DISTRICT
Forsyth 214 180 84.1
22ND DISTRICT
Alexander
Davidson
Davie
Iredell
12
65
20
79
9V2
551/2
18
69
2
10
2 79.2
\ 85.4
90.0
87.3
TOTAL 176 152 24 86.4
23RD DISTRICT
Alleghany
Ashe
Wilkes
Yadkin
5
14
35
12
41/2
11
34
11
I
1
2 90.0
78.6
97.1
91.7
TOTAL 66 6OI/2 5Vi 91.7
24TH DISTRICT
Avery
Madison
Mitchell
Watauga
Yancey
5
10
8
15
10
6
12
4%
2V
2
2
3
5M
2 50.0
80.0
75.0
80.0
45.0
TOTAL 48 33 15 68.8
25TH DISTRICT
Burke
Caldwell
Catawba
79
64
105
69
45
82i/
2
10
19
221/
87.3
70.3
78.6
TOTAL 248 196^ 511/, 79.2
26TH DISTRICT
Mecklenburg 484 442 42 91.3
43
27TH DISTRICT
Days Scheduled Days Held Days 1Jnused % Used
Cleveland
Gaston
Lincoln
75
208
38
71
183
34y2
25
3y2
94.7
88.0
90.8
TOTAL 321 288i/
2
32i/
2 89.9
28TH DISTRICT
Buncombe
29TH DISTRICT
238 2191/2 I8I/2 92.2
Henderson 40 371/2 21/2 93.8
McDowell 34 29 5 85.3
Polk 15 10% 4y2 70.0
Rutherford 35 32 3 91,4
Transylvania 20 131/2 ey2 67.5
TOTAL 144 122V2 211/2 85.1
30TH DISTRICT
Cherokee 13 91/2 3i/
2 73.1
Clay 5 iy2 31/2 30.0
Graham 15 7 8 46.7
Haywood 24 15 9 62.5
Jackson 18 141/2 3i/2 80.6
Macon 8 5 3 62.5
Swain 13 9% 3l/2 73.1
TOTAL 96 62 34 64.6
GRAND TOTAL 5,979 5,047 932 84.4
44
THE DISTRICT COURT DIVISION
The district court has now been operational in all 100 coun-ties
for three full years. It has operated in 83 counties for 5
years and in 22 counties for 7 years. The total of civil and
criminal filings increased by 4.4% and total dispositions increased
by 3.0%. The total number of cases pending increased by 12.0%.
These figures appear to reflect normal growth trends for this
high-volume court. Much of this increase is attributable to the
civil dockets where filings increased by 15.2% affecting an in-crease
of 22.8% in the number of civil cases pending. There has
been no significant change from last year in the ratio between
criminal cases pending at the end of the year and dispositions for
the year. The ratio for criminal cases is 8.7 indicating that it
would require about one month for the district court to dispose
of its criminal docket. The ratio for civil cases increased from
28.3 to 33.5, the estimated time needed to dispose of all civil
cases increasing from three and one-half months to four months.
The total number of days of district court held in 1973
increased by 2.2% over 1972, the number of civil days increasing
from 5,404V2 to 5,728^2 and the number of criminal days in-creasing
from 10,852 J/2 to 10,893%. Upon assignment by the
Chief Justice, district judges held 334i/2 days of court in judicial
districts other than their own, up from 248 such days in 1972.
The tables relating to juvenile proceedings are found on
pages 66 and 74. The number of new cases opened (children
before the court for the first time) increased from 13,341 to
14,514 or 8.8%. The number of adjudicatory hearings increased
from 23,796 to 25,818 or 8.5%. The composition of the caseload
varies little from year to year: delinquency accounted for 62.1%,
undisciplined for 22.4%, dependency for 6.7% and neglect for
8.8%. The bulk of delinquency charges were for misdemeanors
(64.4%), 20.6% were for felonies, 14.7% were for violations of
probation, and .3% were for capital felonies. The number of
undisciplined charges which were for truancy dropped from
46.1% to 36.7%.
DISTRICT COURT CIVIL DOCKETS
Civil filings increased by 15.2% but dispositions increased
by only 5.9%, resulting in an increase of 22.8% in the number of
cases pending at the end of the year. The rate of disposition was
94.1% (fewer cases were disposed of than were filed).
Among all 100 counties, the 10 counties with the largest
civil dockets accounted for 49.5% of the total civil cases pend-ing.
Fifty-three counties had 300 or fewer cases pending at the
end of the year and 13 counties had more than 1,000 pending.
As stated above, the ratio of pending cases to the year's disposi-
45
tions is 33.5, indicating that the docket could be disposed of in
about four months.
Of the 171,368 cases filed in 1973, 64.9% were small claims,
13.5% were domestic cases, and 21.6% were regular civil actions
in which a hearing before a district court judge was requested.
Of the 161,342 cases which were disposed of, 19.6% were handled
by a judge without a jury, a jury was impaneled in 1.3% of the
cases, magistrates disposed of 63.6%, and the remaining 15.5%
were disposed of by other means.
When the plaintiff so requests, claims for $300 or less are
subject to assignment to a magistrate. Magistrates continue to
dispose of almost all of these small claims. In 1973, magistrates
disposed of 92.1% of such claims.
CIVIL CASES ADDED AND DISPOSED OF
IN THE DISTRICT COURT
January 1, 1971 - December 31, 1973
Added iiwuiMi imni Disposed of y/m//mm//mm//m
1/1/71-12/31/71 nsBBBH 134,837
vmszmzz 134,583
1/1/72-12/31/72 minium mill i 148,739
VEZ2ZZZZ2Z2ZZBZZZZZZZ2Z2Z2Z. 152,289
1/1/73-12/31/73 — IINMJW ifFULMMWiill 171,368
v/////////////////////////////////////y/////^//M 161,342
I I I I I I
(in thousands) 120 130 140 150 160 170
CIVIL CASES PENDING IN THE DISTRICT COURT
December 31, 1971 - December 31, 1973
12/31/71 MHnMHSEHmnfl 47,539
12/31/72 aEvnomoH 43,989
12/31/73 i^MiWHl 11 imiiiwiii 54,015
(in thousands) 30 35 40 45 50 55
46
DISTRIBUTION OF PENDING CIVIL CASES
AMONG THE COUNTIES
Number of
Cases
Number of
Counties
1972
1973
Less than
100
101-300 301-500 501-1000 Over
1000
30 28 18 17 7
26 27 17 17 13
TEN COUNTIES WITH LARGEST CIVIL DOCKETS
County
Pending
1-1-73 Added Disposed of
Pending
12-31-73
Percent
of Filings
Disposed of
*Mecklenburg 4,986 17,581 14,453 8,114 82.2
*Wake 3,260 11,452 10,683 4,029 93.3
Guilford 3,490 15,874 15,876 3,488 100.0
Surry 1,660 3,175 2,538 2,297 79.9
Durham 406 8,975 7,207 2,174 80.3
*Gaston 1,402 4,624 4,509 1,517 97.5
*Cumberland 1,563 5,365 5,593 1,335 104.2
New Hanover 1,219 3,123 3,017 1,325 96.6
*Person 992 1,443 1,133 1,302 78.5
Robeson 854 3,220 2,898 1,176 90.0
STATE MEAN 440 1,713 1,613 540 94.2
Counties which were listed in this table in the 1972 Annual Report.
47
©
31
0*1
Is
CO
CJ>
CO
rH
CV
s
Q
CO
C5
§
•-5
</J{^
rH rH<^ COCN CD
I+ +++ |+ +
aooo^iccOTfr-ieo
CD TT CO lO CD CO iti
rH,_| kfj
©r©H©©©CCOO©CIO>lt>»'r3H'©
Of
CN rH © CO CN CO © 3!
^* © i-l CN CN © ^
CN tJ< ^ lO CN CO CN CN
C^ t> © rH -«* CO © CO
i-H »H rH rH CD CO
CN CWOHCTD tf> CO OrfH©
OCOOOtHCOCDCO
CN CO
^ O (N CO lO rt t> lO CD
73 © O lOCO © t}< <N CD g HC0HW<M05HO
rH COCO © © CO © rH rH CN © CO CO CN
rH © © rH CM © © I
rH <N lOCN CM
00 3< t)< rf CN CO © CD l>CO©CNlOCO©t»
rH rH rH rH © CO
"tf CN © © CN © CO rH
CN ©COt}< CN © CN©
S^^SS
+++ |+ +
rH Tf t> lO »« HHHt»0
CN t*
iC t* I> CN t> CO !>©©t>l>aO
rH CO CO»A
©©COcNrHiH
COrH© lOjH
CN
j>I>rH^O5C0
© t» CN©„
CN
Tf©COlOCOO
lO rH CD rH CO ri
r-i CO
T»< OOHT)< ©
CM rH CO
CN
lO CO ©rH ©rH
CO rH© © CN
rH rH CO
l©> rH CO ©IOCN r-*^D i-i^t © rH CO
t>^com©
sal ^Sj
fl £ b: 2 £ & crh
C3J3 p eg g cj <pO
48
CN
HOHOOOO OJHHHHit.
CN CN ifJ
o
I 1
MM «
it
w « to
5* § 3^ §
o"S -a
II
II -
g
1 1++ I
Cft CO 0>0 |> OcoHco S 8£3S8
*3
£*
&
&
t* CO ^* '
cn»o I
cococ©!-" ih
01 fi rH lO CO
r-T Of IO
o~oo®9 »H«-<0 8
8S3S8
ih of
CDoJeNf©
CN »C ^r
OIOOJO J* r-(CO CN t-
I++ I + + I + ++ | + +
«o t* co oo £
d OlH CO
00 CO 05 O O
M H CO A O
i-T of r-T U5
5°°S§S
r-1 «HCN M5
t>i>oi £r
t* i-i CD CO
iM CO
00 CO 00 <N
CNt-iO 00
ICrH OS
S°S$33
»OCO 00
CMOS »H
COtN CO.
OHOUi5»H
CO CO
Is
COrf t^
IOC0 co
OOOOt* OH Oh H
t»OS CO
lO CO
2COi-itN £ lOCOO o
us >r tj« ^« o>
iH oi
8 co in o co
HHotHNTf r» CO
WCOOJt- £3 OOiCOOQ OI
<*OCNCN O
H CN
WHCOO JO
H05HMJ CO
I—1 r-t CO
2 WCDONH COCOr-CN^
•g OOIOCMIOH lHtHCOCO 0\
in
11
W>l W'J W W—I
00 00 CO T£
0)
£ sri
SN CT> CO 00
ooiooo <n
33 coc^ ^e»
CSOiOOi-H t»
r-T of iH U8
Sa8 H
I
CO Ih CO •-i uopnPh
^OOCOCN t;
rHtO'tOO CN
tH rHr-l lO
t-iOCDO
CO CD lO
3ooo
PO Oi-SI
CO
CM^titH o^
En
.jle
49
Fgfl
- 00 O rtifl t»
co" CO
a
CNt* o> S3S
00 00 CO
Oa CO CD
a8» cnco ia
s a
ffig^ 5
00 CO coo? CO
oo co co t*« a
i-f Ol
CNC5JHCN "^
r-l»H i-t TP
»hcn COCO *
Tj< i-H OJ CO iH
H of
m*%
<D CO
cd co
d
»-> -m u
o> o O
O tq O
r a
r-J Ci
ei ©
I
©ft CM t-tH
CO CO 00
+++ +
oo^cm S lOOOoO N
<NCOCO O
O00H ft
lO lO ft ft
od i> 10 ©
eC i-T cm" cd
ftCM(N CO
CO i-H O LO
i-HCMCN »o
HOC5 H
ft r-4 CO F*
CO to 00 iH
1>CDCD JH
CMCOCM ft
00©CM ©
t> lO <N ^*
ON CO
+++ +
o ft ^t1 co
CO rf 00 ©
i-t •<? O ©
CD © I> ft
00 t-ft »o
CM "^ CD "<*
CM"<Nf «f
CM CM t> CN
Tf CD 1H
00 © © LO 00 lo
t^ CD i-( lO Tt<
CO !3*S
CM CO ft T*
cm ft rh «o
CM ©^ CO
tH t-I CO
CO CM lO ©
CO CM CO ft
CO LO GO
CO COO ft CO^ l>
+++ I I +
"<* O CM i-i CD CO
t> Tf O00t> t»
LO CN M LO r-l 00
i-T CM"
i-H LOCO 00 CO to
CM OCOft CO ^
CD ft tH OCO fH
rHCM lO
CMlOft ft t- CM
CO COCO 1-HCO rH
r-l CO
CM ©1>I>CM CO
LO CO ft "^ CO LO ^ t>ft 00 CM CO
r-T ^f
LOOCOCDOO LO
00 ft ft rH CD LO
CM © iH CD r-l s-s
+
6.
cot- CO CO
CDft CM CO
C0t>©„ |>^
CM" r-T cm" ©"
C0t>Tf <T}<
i-H t>rt< CO
CM CM CM t>
©CO r-l ©
Q-t^© ^ CM CO CM
_- " C-t-00 CM 9 g Tt4 Tf iH lH
fl'S ftrHiH CM Bg rH rH CM lO"
CML0© t- ^^ LO CO
CMCOCO ft
CO i-1 ft CO O LO <N CO
CO LO ft^ l>
CM" CM" iff
t>CM CO |>
CM^-CO CO
Tf ft rj<
©CO O CO
<<* CMTf o COLO ft
CD CD r-l
COJOLO
CO
'-'£: 15 w
,H CO CO CO
ft LOCO CO © ©
ft CD Tj< Tf< 2* ©
CD ft ^ft CO CO^
rHr-T LO
t-COft CO CD CO
i-l CD Ti< 00 CM CO
iH HN ©
HTfWHCO t* HC5HHIO CO
r-l CM
iHCOCMft CO CO
!>©00t^io ©
Ti<00<N©CM ^
CDQCMCD -^ CO
ft OOftCOCM CM
Tt* tH ft t> CM ©,
CM
Eh En O o *N hH
05 05
1 H
8 -S3
En Eh
a h 0>
a |
%»-«<
q
Edge Nash
TOT
00
S o >>
1 g Eh
C5
c a CO s
g
55 S
•I 2 a
tog co
3m S
o'ot o
50
11
CO»H© CN
CO (N 00
<N iH
00 Tf
CNCN
CN
1+1+ 1+ I
to ^ 5Jf CO 00 HWOO 1ft CD
+++ + +
00 CO 00 Tf«
NH^ OOi
+++ +
a*?
Is
i f- r}< to
-•J © © 0*
CO to ^t t*
3 toto O
COCN to
to*
O Tf to ©
CN CO CD CO
(N CN CO i-H
o^co S_
-Tel
Tf t> lO l>
to to iH
8 00 CO CN
CO "fl1 ^*
oo <? co ©
S3
coootMSS
CN toOOO
CO COCN CO
©CNt-C©
CD l> to 0>
0)00) o>
rH 01
CN^i-t^-
to tocoeo
CN COCN 00
tf CD O
t>T*< tN 00H O
rHCD t*.
TfCO O tHiH CO
CO 00
©<D ©
CN toCO OHCHN(ON
toCO CO CO
COOCO CO
,-ico to
00^ 00 ©
COiH ,-1 ©
^ Tj< 00 © oothco eo
r-Tr-T co*
<N<NI> iH
CNrH T*
C©OCO OH 888 K rHOi t> t*
CN CO
tO}<COOOi-OHCHO CO © CO t>
CNOOCNCO l>r-l
id id
CO OS 01
oo es oo
CO CO*
2-co 3.
toiH t-a
ri
s
CD 3
a 3 K
6ffiH
358
©©CO t;
CO iH to CO
totoco
to©T-i <o ©cooo-^t
CNCNto ©
I III
PQWO F
CD
CO CD© §
CNr-T US
^COCNi-H © E- Tf to
CO CN ©
CO <N to
050t)«
COrHCN
«N t>©^« IH
«tf cn©© cn
©* ©^CN to t^
co i-Ti-T eo
r-llDt*
En En O O
>->i -H S 05
bs cVh
CO CO
•*N •^
Q B q
s
a £
fc 5
to
« SI
51
a o
0*5
£2
s §
s a
3
&
b3
'1
ecu
<N CD QD
++ +
CDH |>
i-iCN CO
oo © t- ©CN CM
00 C- ©
CN co"
COCO ©
CD 00 ^ CN CO
l>© CD
l>00 CD
<N
cow co
WH CO
©WCHN CN CD
OlOW
NCMtt-«D©
co" co"
©<n ih HCOW5
©CN rH
00 CD <*
VOCO ©
cot* ©
el «n
00 rH
C "2 HH
CO «J <
III
CD CJ5CO t^ CO
CNCOOCO ejj
i-H CD 00
+++ +
3838$
lO H ID lO ^
CM CN US
,-icn c0 r*
©t-co© ©
§ xt^Ol CN
CM CN rH t^ «N ^ S © © CN
^CO CN I>
^S^SS
cdt}«;£io © 00l>00t> iH
rp CM CD rH CO
CN CO" tO
<M Oi rf tJ< C7J CO© io© t*
CN CN ©
i-HOOCN© w in ©©
T»«l-HCN
cOor>oocN © i—i CN »-H CD
Tt< lO^»© ©
rH tN Ifi
© CDCN © Tf
rH «N
fc s o £ R
<N © CN
CNCN
5* © 1-HO0 * ©CN CN CO
•o
6
13
1+ I 1 |+ + + +
2,757
731
3,488 8883 8
el*
V)
—•a
Qa
1
11,204
4,672
15,876
2,524
533
1,482 1,639 6,178
1,986
322
2,308
950
18
254 217
1,439 s
7,135 3,423
10,558
1,148
453 834
1,072 3,507
CO
6
&
3
1,949
874
2,823
HOHift t- ©©00 rH IA
rj< coco i-i
CO
I•**
TfCO t-coio
oo
i-H iH
locNcow w
CM 1-HCO l>
!
.9
o
CNCN Tf
lOCN t^
©^©^ 00^
©"<* Iff
COCO rH
l>CN ©
^"<tf ©
CN CM
WOO CO
r-JcN rf
<N
t*"cO ©*
©rH ©
8.9 |
CO 00
Ia
©CNCOf «N
CO © CO© -^
tJ«»0 T}«00 CO
CN rH rH tO
CN^JOOt- rH
lO OOCOpO rH © rHCN CN
§©©io *
CNCN r^
"t* CO^ C^
00 00©lfj t*
CO Tl1 © rH ©
fi T* CO
coi>©eo «n
iOt>CNC0 *
© ITi© ©
R §
I J5-fl
I-S3 o CD b0 >
b
2 S
bC o 3
31(2.
i i
it;
J*
to
5
1
«a *
»" ? 01 « 3M 3
52
Oi IQi
++++++
©
+
CO © © © cn
(Nio co 25 t-xfCN
r-tOi CM
COrH H f
+ I+++ +I++ +
MM
5
o
e
11
5 w
s?
n
II
tH i-< to © oo C*
CO i-i <D '-' k> £ CMCO-^TflO ©
ooicosooco CO oooo^mw Q W5t»00NCO 00
IO© r> © © ©
I © co '-' © g "^ lO CJ5 00 »H
CO
00 fH ic "<? ©
CHOH© NrHH©W©
HMO00CD l>
© CD © CO CO
l> CO tN W ©
CO *-t^ Oi
-<*r> l>t- © ©©<©NCCNN ©CD ©©
iH oi V
©©©CN ©
s CM CO
CD CO "**•»-< ^
©cm co© i-«
CM©i-H<tf ©
** *h H
OOlHO CO oooooo k>
lO CO
co i> co 5H
©CM©CO CM
COl> 3 CM *
COrH ©
©« COMr-t © © <N 00 00
^(Nrj"^ CO
1-H N
»-l CO Tf CD t>
©Tj«1-I© co
to •>
C5©t>CO ©
in io oo S co
CO i-t lO CO ^*
CM ©IO!*
oot>o
CM
CDi-llOCO 00
ft
04
t> ©cot-!* © W©fHooejoo © 00 ©WW CO
»H fH ©
lOCOrf CMIO ©
Tj< CD CM © "ft* irt
CMr-lrHCM ©
©iHoocoio 52
©©COCM^
CNCN©CD<N ^IO©©00
C©N©©t"-t-t- 2 t*» 3* TT !>• rH CM©©© ~
13
M
8 o^^ .2 h
CO ©
CO CD CD© © ©©CMCM t-t>
^ © © ©
23 3
fH ©©©Od ©
s » as
<n©i>© a l> CO CO© CM CM©ri© ©
fH «
©©©©©CN g©
•a
ft!
CO
6n
2 9
£
•*i o CN
CM fo CN
,2 (8 M 0) O
53
CM©CN© CM
CO CD CM O CM
lOCN rf< IO t-rl
CM
C©*- ©CM© © iO IO © © -<* ©
©CO©© cm
CO io 00 © ©
rH CO
t-r-nn© cm © wx © t-co
H t>co ©
WCrOf©t^^©^ O& ©rH IO
d
ad
S P
co
3 cfl
o
I!
CO IO lOCOCO tN OI>00 OS
to I>^ 00
+++ 11+ ++ I +
c^mH1(0 cNd 52 00
++ + + +
4) CM
(N CO t>iOrt "*|
t-iHl>tOCO «g
tN
rH-lOC^OlOHlQO HCO JO tN
CO tNcOCM 1-1
IO OSiH iO
5 CO tO ^
OWOHOOOO CO t* o^co i>
1-1 1-Tcn "^
0W0 H1>H10h© COWH Oi
u COCSOOCOiH ^00 co w
*HOHtNUCJM ©00
(M
lOrH t> CO
Tf IO 1-1 1H HCOH CO
01
CO CO CO CM
tN os 10 co Ooi>
CO
I>*O00 O
il-HOIOOCHX) ^t^
r-Tr-TtN
OS NO iH
OOO00 tN
CO(NlO iH
co 00 co 5C t>t>l> tN tNO^ t>^ O
OOHNH "* ooioi> ©
^(NCO H
31
P
05b-0(NO CO
COOOrf Ot> CO
CO CNCOr-l iH
<N00C^Tt<I> 00 lOcN<NrHCO kO
Oi o to to to t*
COCNCNIOIO OS
C0Oit> tN t» CO
""t CO coco t- CO
«2 ^iHcsicor> cn
C. 4iHiOtOt» iO
r aj .T3 a3 2 fs
00 1>© 10
1-1 00 to to
rH -tf CN 00^
rH iH CN "<*
I>i-ITJ* CN
CO CMOS IO
<NCOTf ©^
iH
O00 CN OS
lOCMOS t>-
CO iO OS
(NCOtJ* ^*
cm cot- co
IO1H1-H CO
fHi-Tcf
lOtMCS CO
00 t> IO IH
COCNCO CO
a>
3 « 03 O WOO H
COt}<CM tN
t* CMOS CO
cocot> O*
o »oo ia
00 1-1 CO CM
iH to i-l OS
-<*
Eh Eh O» O
<
»*
p W) P &H u En
CO 3 CQ
N«n -£ Nh
q CD q
EtS 2 Jtj
Ex 0> Eh
s CM
Tt<Tt<CO
os 10 os
tNlOCO CO
i> 10 co os
CMOS IO t»
tN
tD <N OS t^ oso 00 00
(NtJ< t*
3 *
hi i
3
S i
•3 «i
.& o
I 6
I I
^ Cfl
s §
sl i
II »
cu £ a>
•OS «
54
e
is
rHOOCN
toco
cn3»i> rH CO 3! t» CO
CN <N
++I+I +
WWOOOiNO «
rH rHCOCNCN CO Ub
+ 1 1 1 1++ I +
£3
CO © Tt< i-l © © "" lO M O © ©
88 »—l COH h
o^ooioeoc^oo co
CO lOt^HOO H
iH fH 10
!
tog
l
§3
CD CMOS© CD CN
5 i-i
moiojow
CN ©CN © lO
© t^rHOO CN f-
Oi CO CD 00 OJ t-
CNCN ©CN ©
O OOCO CD I> T* N©Hi-l ^t <N CN O <N rH 00
CO © © Tt< CN rH © iH
CO © Tj< -^ © lO © -*t
CNrH ©CN rH ©
lO CN © l> Tt< CO « CM
OS '"t
CN
CO CN lO © CO I> CO tH ©©CO rH CN t" © 00
CO iH t*
CO CN Tf © rH CO © CN
I© rH rH CO Oi IO W CN
CN IO
CN O
3 d
S? ^t>OOcNC0 CN O O Oi rH CN CN CO SCNr-ICNr-l^ r-^ CN
co ©
©is
CN
iH CD
t* CD
Is rH
CO
CN
73
•**
©
!>©!>©© CO
oo Oi i-i ico © t-^rHCN"* ©
rH 00
OiCOOi^jCOCOCO^ 00 O
u 00I>-t>COtN t*
* lO© ©© £;
t»^$ lO ^ © © lOCOcOOirH CO
CNrH CNrH 00
38
13
ecu
CN©lO©£ ©
t> W>00 rH
COCN OOCN t*
flJ2 CNOOcOt^CO © a^. COrHcO»Ot> rH ^5»H COrH rHCN ©
I? 2 %
si? 3
CN
CO © CO 0S0 CO t> CN
iCCN^?t vl ©
t>oo©ioco©oo t*
•^ CDI>l>rH 8
OCN^t^^lOCO t*
CD rHOiCOCNCO © rH CO
co t*» oo © CN t> oo
CD rH rH rH O © lO
CN y-*
CO © © |H
°lCN ©
CO
© m
S.2
CN CO CO CN © OJ lO CO CO©
CO © CN CN CN t> t<- CO © ^ rH © rH 00 CO &
ill
pa o
b®
J*
3 to
H-1 CB
DISTRICT COURT CRIMINAL DOCKETS
Criminal filings were up from 1,000,893 in 1972 to 1,028,532
in 1973, an increase of 2.8%. Dispositions increased from 998,389
to 1,023,310 up 2.5%. The number of cases pending at the end
of the year increased by 5,222 to 88,632, up 6.3%.
For the first time, both filings and dispositions in the crim-inal
division have exceeded one million cases. Twenty-one of the
100 counties had more than 1,000 cases pending at the end of
the year and 41 counties had 300 or fewer pending. The 10
counties with the largest criminal dockets accounted for 51.6%
of the total number of criminal cases pending. The rate of
disposition was 99.5%.
From year to year, the percentage breakdown for the types
of cases handled and the manner of dispositions remains fairly
constant. In 1973, 64.4% (662,545) of all criminal cases filed
were for violations of the traffic laws. Other criminal offenses
made up the remaining 35.6% (365,987). Only 9.5% of the cases
disposed of were contested, requiring a full-fledged trial before
a district court judge. A judge or magistrate disposed of 27.6%
upon a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, and 45.1% were dis-posed
of by a written appearance waiving trial and pleading
guilty before a magistrate or clerk. Preliminary hearings consti-tuted
1.9% of the criminal docket and the remaining 15.9% of
total dispositions were terminated by other means.
Since mid-1971 the uniform traffic ticket and complaint has
been in use by all law enforcement officials; the ticket contains
detailed instructions on the use of the waiver procedure. In 1970,
63.0% of motor vehicle cases were disposed of by waiver; in
1971, 65.7% ; in 1972, 69.4% ; and in 1973, 69.6%. There are still
a few counties where this procedure is still not fully utilized;
greater use of the waiver in those counties would tend to allevi-ate
some courtroom congestion and delay.
All statistical measures continue to indicate more than satis-factory
performance by the criminal district court. As already
indicated, the ratio of criminal cases pending at the end of the
year to dispositions for the year is 8.7. This ratio indicates that
it would require about one month for the court to dispose of its
criminal docket.
56
CRIMINAL CASES ADDED AND DISPOSED OF
IN THE DISTRICT COURT
January 1, 1971 - December 31, 1973
Added
1/1/71-12/31/71
1/1/72-12/31/72
1/1/73-12/31/73
(in thousands)
Disposed Of WMMMMUff7?7777<
&BEBmMBn2MZB&
v//;/;////;;/s///////;s/;;//////////;//////7777.
939,967
943,908
1,000,893
998,389 fHwnnnHBH 1,028,532
vw/j////yy//y^/^//////////////////M/yy///M 1,023,310
I I I I
850 900 950 1,000
CRIMINAL CASES PENDING IN THE DISTRICT COURT
December 31, 1971 - December 31, 1973
12/31/71
12/31/72
12/31/73
(in thousands) 65 70
I
75 80 85 i,
80,906
83,410
88,632
DISTRIBUTION OF PENDING CRIMINAL CASES
AMONG THE COUNTIES
Number of
Cases
Number of
Counties
1972
1973
Less than
100
101-300 301-500 501-1000 Over
1000
14 31 11 27 17
11 30 14 24 21
57
TEN COUNTIES WITH LARGEST CRIMINAL DOCKETS
County
Pending
1-1-73 Added Disposed of
Pending
12-31-73
Percent
of Filings
Disposed of
*Wake 10,853 75,399 75,565 10,687 100.2
* Mecklenburg 7,937 86,750 85,267 9,420 98.3
*Guilford 11,176 65,929 67,763 9,342 102.8
*New Hanover 1,381 21,861 19,980 3,262 91.4
*Cumberland 3,117 43,649 43,831 2,935 100.4
*Gaston 2,428 29,277 29,014 2,691 99.1
*Buncombe 1,767 28,015 27,463 2,319 98.0
* Forsyth 1,763 47,907 47,744 1,926 99.7
*Davidson 1,468 16,929 16,784 1,613 99.1
Caldwell 686 10,288 9,416 1,55'8 91.5
STATE MEAN 834 10,285 10,233 886 99.5
Counties which were listed in this table in the 1972 Annual Report.
58
^©©mmCDCSrH
i-l »H CN HHCON
OHHOOHHtDCO TfCOINHOCOOOlfl
CN rH i-t tH tH 00
co co
l+l+l I
rH CD OS l> Oi CN m co to cm rH©
cn rH m
C O
3s
ETmcsicoinS^oo
io"^r^T TC!lco TXrtT
i-ToCih i-H erf of
co HHT^iNeq
•<r 10 <T rr c^p"***"
© Tf i-Teo
««
©©eNC-COrH©O0 mcNOsco©o©oo
<N 1-IC0 CN CN
o cnj i-H co in i-i
© 3
«S
M^COOOIOOW
CO <N l> i-H rH i-H
COrH Tf O
OOOOSO^H
Tt< rH © CO©
<N CO
=J 3 £
i-Hooinoo^osooeo
osin^ajcoinin^t
co © ^r> .co co m co
|H rH «©
COOCOCOTt<CO
t* i-H co co in cn
CO CM rH rH ©. CO
csf cn «© o 5
OCNCNCNC0C0t>^
©r-icominco^cN m Tf m i-i t> th co
CN
r- rH coo mo
i> co rH co in cn
CO rH CO rH CNCN
r-^ CO
cocNomrHaio©
COt>COTfCOTHC71rH
rH CN rH rH CM rH
CO Oi © Tt< CO 00
cnco in mco©
CO <N -<* rH CM Tt<
HCNH i-HCO CN CO Tt< rHCO ft£?-3
S—
at
mcoin©cot>cot»
CO©Tt<COCNCOCOCO
OS CO l> CN OS rH Tp
<N rH l> l> ©© co co o m C5 cn
CN (N in rH CO iH
CN rH |ft
^©c©o©rl->tC>O©©cCoOm©w m © © i-h © -** t> ©^ HCNHHN ©
© I> © rH rH 0Q
10 ^ SS OCNQ0
co co oo co i> ©
CO*" CN CO
©<n rHco ©m^ - -> ^2roo © ©
m <n oo
gal I"d
si lilies cci,C P <S S 9 <1>P UOOPOrHrwH
59
o
p*
a
o
bo i
r- CM
5 T3 h fc 1 H 15 £
t- rHlOOO *Q
+++ 1 +
HHHC5 00
I I++ +
3"
00 CO 8
i-T i-t
+ 1 + + 1++ +
So§§8^ S
33
i-t iocs co ih © CO CO CN © (NO H coh qo (NH CO
CO
.OSXC0O5^cHf ^H ©»H —"lOCNrH r*
E»"<N rH CO* © rH rH ^
coiotot- fh
to co co co t-th
co>t »o r»
©*rH ©*00* ©
OlrH © S^co1 ©3
CN 00 CO CO ©
CNCO©0J
CN CNCN"
rH rH CO" © SI to oi © © ©
co r- ^ co co
Tt<CN©© ©
t* «©
00 to *v
cn* eo h eo
"3K
t- Ci t- t- © ©COCNt> ©
COlO CO C^
© Gi ©
<N CN
©tj<©©
«* lO C-rH
00 t> 00 CN *0
co co © o5 eo O^CNT^^ tN
co*io* I> ©
CN t- *C CO ©
WN 00^ OS t>
Tj1 ^* Tj* ^
oo © toS t^
C& CO ©
cjTi-T ih
toco© © 3 CO HN t> ©
l> rf tD^CO t^
tH CO* rH iH OO*"
© rH CD t> ©
oo co Oirf ©
t> © T}< y-< "V
CNrf tO* CO
COO CN CO ©
oTf io UO CO © r-i rH o ih
t-T 0*rH «
t> CO CO
rH,_| CO
CO CO Oi
HCOWN t* lOHtDO ©
p
OhhtJ* W
t> iO o t> ©
CO CM CO tN »H
t-T iH CO
3©CN©I>rH © holO«CN <<* £J co co
H CO* CO* rH CO*©
i-H rH ^
Tf t> IO CO
rj< ic <* ©
to ©
wo t>«>
IO t- t» l>
tor}< ootj<
ss
l> lOCO^ ©
JM iH l> t~ ©
COCO CO eo
rH CN
CO rHiOO CO ©l>t>W o
Tf rf iH iO CO
i-T th eo
HCNC"*3*CI>0CWD OC5 05U5^ O rH
t> rH co co* of
CN CO
©rH CN© iH
t> © W O W rt r* i£> CO rH
CN
COCO lOI> © CO O 00 W CO
rt rH rH CN ©
IO r-T rH CD"
J*
8'
CN CO 00 l> CO
- CHNHCOt©O WW
rH CN
5 -i
lilli
COCO O
oo io co
W^j< CO
CD t>
rH tN CO COO CO
00 00^ CO
rH CO" Wf
CN CN
©CN CN
COCN ©
COCN
©~rH
rH O y* o © ©
lO W ©
rH CN V
00 CO rH
CO "«* «
>o
eg
" 4)
> C
<U CD
r5CH
CCNNCO^0H0 H00 5©
lOCO ©Tf
cNoeot>
CN 00*00©* ©
05 rt» CO CO Oi a t£ t> io co
CO CO CNO^ W
CO rH
CO CN t> rH C©
CN CO IO CN CO
rHCNTf 00 CO
CN IO <N CN tN
Tf CD © rH
-H •-< "•"' S fn
cS'cS S o O
i fa! i
I Sag &
3 o «
h hO<9 >—i
60
is
2a
Sg§3 iH COlH
g^
— t*t* t-rH
* sa«'s
ssss
++ 1 1 ++ 1
1
eo ifl cd©
rHt-QOt*
rH CM "*t t* NOwS
++++++
0}©0Q l ^ t!< CO lb rH <%
cn
«^00(Ng
QWHCO
ncoh©
I I I l
ssss rH 00 CD CO
rH of
^ OC0 00
mVoos rHrH 00
II
ii
£
1
CO t"-CD
TftN|> CO
i-HCOcN t"-
©rHio CM © rH f. 00
tN t> <N «
io©"»o'i>
coiqoq
©ooojeo
COOt-tN
tNCNtfi
©co cor*
t^Oi©tN©^
©©r-iCOCOt" ^ ^ Tr © CO I*
rH «
2°00 00 3<rH©
t> rl Tf CO U5 £j
rH CO ©
1!
c4^~CNCO~rHOI
©CNt-00
t-C55 ^t »H
iieo
(Nt-Cft
O Tf IO
00^05 *N
oo jo cc go
CO CO rH OS
CD CO ©^^ 00*10 0?
©CDO0 00©E t^CO CO 00 Tf oo
CO^OO HOh^
1-TrHr-TrH ©
UWCNrH
©oboes
©.©..CM C»
iowcnco
*-4l>00©
00 00 CD CO
eC
iCOOrf t*
OOr-J ICIO rHOOO©
rH *f
CM -*« CO <N CO «>
»0 CD I> O 00 t*
<N CO CO CO rH t^
rH CN
05 CO © CO HOCOW
E>
ii
«MCB-Thj<W© CO"'* lO CO
c5io<n2
OO rH CO CO
CO'TfCO''rH
r»< ©©'
rHOgfci
lOCOrH'
t* oT co'i
C-CD©CN
00 00 lO CO WOH/oo
©Ifl^OO
i> mooiH
COlOCOO
00rHlO^«
©COt- rH © ift t-©
rHCD'©CO
rH rH co wo© CDt>rf OlOCO
CN CM CM 00 lO rH
lO U2 rf |> CNjfl
CM
§38383
rHrHrHtN
OtT C0 00OC0 £ <N lO IC<N£
CO CD ©©CO©
COCO' CM rf rHt*
© t» © CO _ rH CO rH U5 T£ CO rH t»- CO '
-«0-«*t-eO ©©00t- CO CO lO Tf Tf '
XO^OiOi C-©t- CN^CM'tfrH
ill ill
61
<N©©rH
CM WOOD
CMt^tNrH
c* 00009
rH rH CO
©COlO© t-h©1>© © iOTt<0\
V-^COtN
CO CO iOtN
©CDCN ©
CO rH t-rH
a l&i *
CO OCDWH
w5 rf r- t> ©
<» COrHt»e|
©* rH rH CO
8 s£| s a -o-ss "o
o o o
tt o CN H CO 00 H ©
1 1 1
=3^
© © o
CO rH tfi © i-H o
g^ CN co"
5a
3
rH o 1-H
00 lO 3
H oo eo r-'
Tf ^*
•2 ©t> ©
£ l>© r~
COtP rH
J3 oo" ©"
>»
5-9 ©© ©
(N © 9
0)
© © oo
CD rt rH
©~eo l>
t}< CN © CN© tN Hrf ©
Tf"i-T \a
in t> cn
(iNnOq) Nco
©"cn" th
CN CO
£-£© CN
c* © t> © iH CM
I I + +
©O0O00©0 ©00
CO © © t>
©co c©m t* cn 00 rH
t> t>© co
©"©"©"
SS3
CN CO r-t CO
©oo©r> ©© w<
© CO CO iH
HHh CO
©CN© Tf< © Tt< © © »nt>co CO
©"©"©~ co"
i-H CN
O CN <M ^
OOCOCO iO
rHCN co" t>
©HCOOrhH ©CO
t> -^©^ iH
tT rf t> o
a
CN©< ©CO
CN
rH i-H CN CO© CO
©CO CO
C©M 00 © lO CO
t>C0(N CM
t> © © CO
00 ©_Tj< Tf
©
a
sHif CN©"©" Oi ©"
—
13,005
1,212
14,217
Tf ©CM t*
T"! 00^ CM T£
CM" i-H rj" 00
©
©
oo"
®
-a
9
•9
0©0 CM © in © CO CO © © t> m oo © CM m©
CM
I 1+ I
00 © CO i-(
oO © m -<#
i> co m co
CO © i"H CO
cn m ^ cm W ©^rH ©
©"m"©" ih
rH h «
© © © ^ CM^ © t^
oo m t> <d
©CN ^ CN © © CO
CO© © ©
l> rH © I> ©CO 00^ CN
oo"cNTf in
00 i-H CO CN.
Tt< © © t* ©_© ©^ ©^
CO iH CN* t>
o i-H m © t^rH 00 © ^lOCO CO
1-H rH CO
H(00 l>
C^NCONqt* ©CO
CD io"©" rH
*~* h eo
o© tji eo wco © ©
"3 r-T CM" oT
O© © © cm co o m 00 ©^© t^
OCO"|>" w4
i-H M
Oco^ t*
2J co in t»
En En O O •—
<
Kw
Gh 05
En En
CY3 CD c7) ^ o n •-H
s Q
Alaman
Chathan
Orange
TOTAL
Q
EtJ ^
CN
lO
1~-<
En
CO
»N
cm© m ^1 OS u
++ +
CO© CN
o
d<M
*->
s
bo
HH CO ui
cn m t> 0) a) o
-M ^
rH r-t eB-(->
- =
i-H
3
II o
©l> W CO"** ©© © ho CN© ©_
©"m" eo"
fa
rH cn 2°. 3
On" W3
<H 0) • «« © © © •°gS O ©© ©
m a>cq
X
OflO ai
00 CO 5
5
aj
O
© © © 4a
|1»
© © ©
CN rH ^ ft
o o I
©© Tj< 1^1 n © © © CM© CN •-*
t>T-T of d-5 h
g ©w © to
6,56 1,92 8,48 >>
a
i
'-3
CO ®
— ft 1 ^4
o T3
© © CN a g
CD ©Tt< m <w
rH -^ in O °tjS CO
t>© m cn© ©
©^© fH
©"in rf
i-H cn
rH © TT- © Tf t* © -^ ©
©"tN ©"
©© IH ©CN CN
©^CN CN
t-7co in
C©N © © © rH © CN CN
6*3 J
o«
62
o
Si
15
3.5
B rt
3 *
S© OO LO © lOrH<*< CiCM©©3J
rHiocMoo
•Or*
I++I I
srii>o!o
CM CM. CM CO
iH CM
SlOCO Tf <o
wo£:n:3m©InC
C<f CO 00 co"i>
tH CI
rHLO rHCM
Tf«Tf ,-)© © "<T CD CO
iH CO
CM © © rH rH
t^ go loo^ i-H
l> ©
CO CD (N CO "^
T*00COrHl>
CO Tf C5 lO CO
iHIOtHcO*^
cot- ©rH r*.
<N -<* ©rH ©
lO ©k*"ico©,
00"rH C*fl>
•O i-i CM tH 00 CM
3 «* 1-HC5 CD rH
•^ CM CM Tf CO, CO
>* r-T r-Teo
— COTfH050
« -£J© rf Tf rH
•g »or>r-i€qc>©
H CM."©"©"t>©
tH CM
CO CD CD 00 00 o cd rt< in t- t>0\U3C»©
*<f i-HCM©
TH
go ooooin 1-hcm 5S rHCMC5CnCO
0% J»C^CD©00
S> i-H
K
oo"rHin«r
©00 CM ©© LOLOl>0 l>
1-1 CN
_ 4he ,j
>. n cv ^^
3 ^ n H S C"H
7+1
rH <NCO
co£-
«
© © CD
OOOO^b-
©"tf i>
Xt< rH CO
T*©T*«
COT^O
©"rHift
©O©©L©O COTj^OI
Sg5 00t>U5
tH©"©"
CM CO
co ice© ©©eg
rH<N "^
i-T©
CM &
©© t>iHOi
t>"©"©
Tfi-ICO
lo lo©
CO t> rH
COCD^©
rf ©"i-T
rH CM
CD CO©
tQttH ^ ^,©
601-13
CO rH ^<
r-l 05 rH
t>"©"rH
I++++
CO © © CO tH
^t O©CMC0
l>00 00 lo©
LO© ©CM CM o©c-^^
i—( © © l> ©
rf Lo"CM"<N©
CO©Tf^H^
(MOt>CDCO O Tj< t^rH ©
rHl-TrHrH©
l> CO CO © t*
rH rH © © CM
Tf CM rHCM H
LOCQ CM ©CM
t> CO © CO»0
cd"cm"©"i> co"
CM
tcooc©o©©c©og© LO 00 CM © N
co" ©"cm"©
©I©>©© H(NO^h t>co cm £• ©
Tf © <** CDt>i-"CO00
THOOOi ©CM!T, 5r?P
t©> Tf © CO © t-h©„'*<0^
rf cD^CM"©"©
CM rH © CO©
00 © ^ lo LO
O^LO © © ©
10"CM~COCO~^
T©j<OrHOC^MC©^©^
co""co"© ©"iH
CO
CMTfCOCOt*-
2.9
a©
i i
©© LO © <M © © ^ i-H t- co dS © -<*05 ©© »>
i-T co
t*> t> LOrf CMlft (N -<J< H H ^ COOOt^CNt^H
© LO© Tf<CMiH ©l>t-©CO©N ©^Tf ©©^tH
i-h i-T f-Tio
© (N © C- CO I ©tj<t* <n on rH r-ICO CM©
i-l © Tt< rH i-H ©
LO (N -^ rH rtt*
©^TJ^LO rHI>
rHW^CO"©"^©
(N© 00© COLO
I> rH rH r* O lO
r-T r-T CM rH(N©
LO <NT^ CM Q© t^*©CD t- O 00 © CO ©©
©©© Tf t>©
LO I>CM©©CM
C- OTJ>Tt«-©lO
rf ©"l>©"t>CO
CO
I>©CO©©CM
LO LO© © LO©
O^^^tN ©©
rH (N CM" CM" CM" rH
i©-HrCHTi LO LO ©00 © CO CM ©CO t^ (N(N t> IG
CM"V©"Tf Tf rH
C*I
t>Tj< CO CM <35©©© LO
. a CM © © t— © ©
rHrf
T3
o h)
ajsi so
a a 2
•I 3
3fi
-1 s
2° i Oaf «1
"S a> • au ^Sg o
m 0)CO eg
WO TJ
reJ
1S| s
gS
o SJS w
^ «l* 1
& ^—-u^5 IS
O S+j O C
fl Mg«H §
O O^fi «
2 2Sa S
* ftsl I
£ r=g.g J
« «§« §
i IS* *
I Hi 5
! *
a a
1 pal
i is
o o
0) 0)±i O 4)
3 33Sdl*fc 3i
I c^c £
En O
-e
rn 1 p
CC o
fa
'<
©
eg
ftS
ii
11
a
u a
s°i5
Cm
++I + +
-t CN © co 1-1 © co QO cn
t> CN © CN iO CN CD 3 CN H rHrH © CN
++++|+ ++|+++|++
C©N HthCoOcnOc0oNHWt*- © co cm ©
P Q i-l in © © m © CO © y-i "<f CN t> to o -^ CO © CO CN
CN © © to rH '-' © © « in m Oi QOOtDCDOOOHOO «
Tf COCOJhN W T^lO^HCOrHl-i CO H (N CO (N H » »
a* ihc4" -^ cn n h co"
co Tf o cn co
CO O to 05 ^t1
CN^^--**
i-l|>^cO
rH ©CNCN
rH Tj< CN ©
CN CNco t* © tHco tj<
g OO^OO CN
* CO
n
3333
t- t- r-4 IO © th a ©
CO'r-T «D
o
IO CN t> © "^
t*» t>l> IO ©
jo. ^n^x "00 CO © © OS
i-i CM -^
CN Oo CNCO OIO oo o co©
05~ ©^rH©C3
CO TpCNrH©
CO
t* © t> t>co
Tf ©"i> Tf ©"
i-H CO
"or
—
-©cni>©
t>r o Tt< cn t^»
I-TCN CO"
Tf © CO CO
CN t>CN © ©Tt«00t>
i> Tf i—i c- cn 95
CN
r©H©CCOOtI>>©cD» ©© oCO ©rHl>
CN
CO © rH t> CN OS
©©Tt< O cnOS
CN rH CN ©
CNOOCNTf H £: I> CO CN i-l 53 CO W i-H rH rH ©0C\
CO"cNrHCO" rHC5
CO CO rH CN CO W
rH Oi CN l> IO i« 00^© CO © ©CN
rH rH ©
iOlOt>^ o H
t©> IO IO © rH © t> cn 55 co co
rH CO
©©^rHI^> rH CO I> © rH ©O CO © CO © £• rH • CN©r-<©©i*[>S cog
CN t-7©CN CNrHt^ CO rH 5 3
rH©0 CNrH CN CO ^ ©© I^O © © CN CN t> © ,« l>CO^t(NCN © 2
CN CN
O© © ©CNCOCN t* CO Oi
rH COrfCOrHSlO:
rH CN IO |H
©*
rH
CN
IOIO©rHO»CO©CO IOIO ^ CN CO C5 CO IO CN IO Ci aZ
rH rH CO I> T^ iO rH IO CN 03
IO lOCO© iflTf CO
y^ CO t- IO © CO Oi
©^ ©^l>00 CT^CO ©,
CO" t>rf r-T l> CN CO*"
CN CN
t^ ** IO © CO © ^C^COIXN©
©^I> Tf lO^© ©
CNrH CO" 00
CN I* ©
©CO CO © Tf CNCO © CN ©
r-f*©oiq>qmi>Tt<i©q©«CDOH CO ri to §
CN rH © CN CN rH CO CO i-H
rH CN ©
CNrHlOTt<rHC0Tj<lO t^©
CXO © iOt- 00©COrH ©^ CN « CN t> © IO ©^ Jg
CNrH «© IO
CO
©IO ©00 035HiOn^ © © CN CN rH © ©Tf< ^ ©CN©©©^©Tt< © Tt ©1>CN00©©©CN ^ _*
Tf CN
© © © ©^ Tf t> © © © 2>
00 «* eO lH'Vi-TUS JH TfrHrH rH CN
rH -H rH ©©
£h Eh o O N«j »*H B bfi a
^ U CH
S3
P
-o 2
q Q
to 2
S
^
^ K CO
CN s ts.
CN
rS S-S3
ll.sS
I> Tf< © IO t* CN rH
co m ©©cn iocn
t> Tf CN rH© rH©
1
II II- I
-Si llS S
£s Eh o O N- N- 3 B
h ^
CO <D CO
"-* pC r«N
q S Q
BCJ
ou
h s
pq
E^
oo Oi
CN
cc
©©©©CN©©©© © Tf ©© IO © E^ rH rH
(M CNCNi-HrHi-HCN "^
H
IO
P
J P -S S g g c
hJ"-^
il
oi
CO
mi
at
o
3G nu
0)
~ o w -
eo-1-1 —
fid
i-l
3
w rt C
bo45
cd*'
ft (-1
© 5
•i
"C
|
«<=> a
E . 3 o«
•^SS o
si
4)71
©CN©Tt<©©©© © rH e via ©©^©©r©H©©rJH>i©n©C©O^'.^_1;2 SS«"
rH N H b ri fl 3 h >>
S o»oS
l>T^0^^©©CO© rH CO © © © l> © t> © CN i-H • © rHCN«>CN©© © cM
C M
3
o 3^ o e
a wg«« a
O O^ C CO
si as 1
5
co ta «-g "£
ftftUl ^
3 32- 4>
0) 4» C,« C
o o c c
§ §| ft ^
3 ml i SUIUS«ICO «g
co to eu B
0) 4) r" a) E
s59sS,|«g
<o w^^- co
ill!!
65
8«fj
•0©"E
H OS H © CD 00
rHrH<<*
O CO
rH CD
CN
COtO to t> CN CN
06 iji ^i m
P
2s
5 o
§ g O g
iJ IS
03 £
Si
|| Pgw
ig
H g
II
H
fa
s
11
1
00
«o
§
I
CO
at
1-5
© 2
1 -
O TJ w a
ft
o
© rH t> CO 00 LO <N rH
rH Tf CO Tf 00H ^
rH CO
HNHOOTflO CO
HOO^OWO
©
CM CN to rH T* r> rH S
5 ©
Or?
OHOHCOHH t*
(MH1COHCOO to
CO I> rH CO "* © CO ©
COCOTf CD
©cooooo© CO
CO © CO CM TJ* to CD
<N Tf Tj<
OWiflHO^O to
CN rH ^
OOOOOOO ©
00 lO^J t> Tt CO
T* 00 rH lO
rH <N
Oi CO CO o o to
rH 01
CO OOOO CO
UDWtorH^lg
rHCN"tf rHCN ©
Tj*©rHO © to
rH rH CN
rH© ©CO CM to
rH lO rH 00
to©©©© to
©©T* ©CN CN © ^ rH ©
©©CN©© 00
©©©©© ©
Eh
CO
d 1
r* c3 2
05
Camden Chowan
Currituc
Dare
Gates
Pasquot Perquin
TOTAL
CN
CTj
«c
Ml
9%
66
A
•3 0) Ben
S«5£
rHCM^C- ^ CMtJ< CMCO CM
rHrH (N »«
rH CN^lA CM co i-iCcOoO© CO
CiO
3** CO
i/St> "<# CO «*
CMOCMCO Cft
13
Is
i-l GO COCO
COCO (NO
rHCM <*
WHOOIN t»
rH CO rH CO
lO -<? OS
CO CD OS
CT5 OS
OOHOtO ifl
I
i
tOCN OCO O
CM CM lO
OS CO OOS CO
t-h CO
COOrHCO t*
"tfCO CD CO
CMI>OOS 00
rHrH CM 55
HCOH^ OS
•OrH CO h
CNCNCOTf tH
lO CO
rH ,H CM
iCCM t*
CM CDCM *H OH iH
Tf CO COrH t*
OHS O WOHClOfll« ,-ico^* Tf ^
CO CO O CO OS
rHCOt>rHCM HOH OlOOO IQ
rH rH CO CO CO iH tH
coi-hiccm. «0 coco cp coioooeo
OS rH io CO tH CM © CM CN CO O O GO
CO0O5S0O0O »o
IH rH CO
a C So
IS
-3 s
IS
I!
^t coioco lO
rHf-CMO CM
rHrH CO CO
Tj*r>oio co
rH£-iOCO CO
CO CO CM
J*
CO
OSCMOO tH
rH<^ iH t*
OtMOO CM
COCOCO^ CM
rH Tfc&J -§
CM0050 H
rH CM TT
rH CM
§^§^5
OOHO rH
»cco 8
CM CM
HO rH
t>CM OS
lO lO
lOOO CO
iO CO
t- COO CO
rH CO^ft
CO CO rH CM OS
CM CM
I>rHI>CO CO
oo cm co \a
sa^s
O rH rH rH O O rH CM
V
In En Eh bs O O O O
s a 1 5 5 ft! g Eh i Eh 1
i 2 1 .j
CO
H S c8 *5
i j? ,2 M <
s
Cart. Crav
Pam Pitt TOT Dupl
J
one OnsL
Sam] TOT
a:
Eh New Penc
1
TOT
CO
Berti Halil
Hert Nort
TOT
67
gg£l
u£
55H
VI M
o «
W fl V
A
Q
IOHIO H CO OS OS
co 00 co HCM
l-H
OS
INH^^iJ °Q
§
CO 00 10 to
HiocHdHtj< co ^t
F> 10 co h10 co I HHH ^
t> H 00 CD
<<* to CM CO
CM CM CO GO
CDC 00
Tf OS CM
CO CO a
CO OS CM "^ CO
rH O t> 00 CO
1—1 T—1 1—1
r-l
iH 10
OS
i-« rH U0 t^»
Tf rH CO GO
CM CO CO GO
HC5W U5 INH >t
»C OS CO
CO CM c©
I>OS 00tJ< tJ<
CO
CI
c©
os
1—1 332§
<NO0<N OJ (NH ^t
CO OS lO t*
CO CD-x* ^
(MO CO »-HTtt-<N<N H(N rf rH rH £ cHS£S
QCO © OSrH<NU0<NO> CO COlfliO CO OOlO^ rHCNCOH 00 OS t- CD O Tf 8 tH CS|
«* 10 CO Ifi CM^ rH GO "985 8 opoocmcm es|
rH r-ir-t y* CD
CM
CMCM^? OS
OS <<t OS CM
CM CM CO
CDCNCO "*
CO rH lA
OS CO <N CO© b-rHCM
^ CD CO CO I> CO
VI
VI
av
O
c
75
OH
•2.2
•§0
i^upco CM
OSrfcp O rHrHCM CO
CM CD© t*
CNrHrH l«
COOSCS
CO lO CO
CM CM
cocoes
COCO
SI
l
CD 10 10 co «s *
xtfl><N*OCN CS
rH CO
rHTf OS (NO CO
Z
1e
h
a> o fl
00 (N CD CO
"* COCO OS
r-* rH CO
OS CO CO
rHI>OS
rHrH 1
CM CM OS CO OS lO
Tf IO CO rH »A
i!
CNTfS 5j
CDOt>
CM f?
00 OS t~ 00^ tH
rH ^<
3
3 wir-iy^ CO OOO © OOOOCN CS
(4 u
©OS CO 01
CM CO lO rH
CO ^* CO O
CM CM CO GO
lO t^OS rH OSOO rH
rH rH CO
CM CO rH rH
rH 01
OOO O
0>
s .J
£ k 21 «3
rXJ
OS
68
r* > g * 8 <3
S I 1 c S H
PhOhh>^ H
£8£S
mi 3 s 838 2
1-H1H CO s 285
II
5h
©i-H C0O5O0OH oCO t«-CO »-i ^
CO ID CO CN
eon *
©CM CN
sO »*a w d
a
4)
Q
© ^ 00
COrH «5
(N CN
00 <N O
*CD S
O&rH O
<N CO
00 ID CO CO
<N CO
©©<* -*
oooeo »h
»H<NCD O
§ s^ss
s^s
CO CD CO CO
g^s
$Ȥ
00 CO CN
CO
CN
00i-< CO
r-tCM "* 3 coTfco eo
lO r-l ^ hooo>
00 (N ©
id © »o <N<N 00
tH tJ< 3 822 8 t>iD cn © fn
g 4>
Ml
S 1-?
t-lO© CN
COt^CN CO
©©lO »o
CN CM
C0CO"<* s
©CO 00
3°°3
ID«HCN
t>coco
CN t> A
CN CN
©CD CO
ID ID
CO ID 00
CNlD t^
$3S <N©lD r»
t- CN © t!«i-i 3
Win ^ ©©© © ©©© © ©© ©
1 3
S-g g
<oo
69
ss£l
-oo r H jo.h ©
C*D'3S
(NCOCDH IQ oowwo o corScq
i-H iHCO t^ THr-lrH IQ
00 CO i-H © © 00
rH»0 <N
§3
II
in be
a «
1
5
ft
CO i-l CO
WHHQO Ifl
l>i-4<N 1H
CO^rHtM ©
^pioeo cm
towoo^g
© £" t> © CM
CM CM t-
CNOO© ©CM
0\i-H O
iH i-T «
CMTf CO
tMlft £-
i-l iH CM
t>CM
t~© t*
00 t> Ift
00 iH IQ
OOCH5 ©iH
rH,H N
CHOOOJCONOHJ ^W
CO CM»0 fH
coowgg
OCM©
C0"*tft»li
th iocs r*
cot> OO00 i-l OO^CDrHi-l CM
i-l,-itMCM 00
3*23*: ^S^S^S
O ^f 00 0583
CMCO©?© §
t>Ort*rHt> © CMlOiHcM iH
(i-NHCWOHCDHCOeO i> © so co co t» OS i-l tH 00 CO CO CO
« o
2.3
o g
5 S
II
oa co co oo co
HlOOtO CM
iH ,H CO
^cocoio oo
t>©© t> CO
t^ ©
©COO© CO
§8 5
CO i-l to
^H IO
IO^COiH
CM r-ICM
8 C0t~© CO
CM'* ©
^N3S
iO©©cM t»
IQ CO CO CO©
lOCOlOT* i-l
©^©co© ia
tHCM »h ©
i-<t- © lOt>f©l> ©00 CO SO© CM© i-l l>COOCO U5 ^tlOiHCOt*
IOCM © r-l rHiH ^ i-l
i-i co cm t- eo
rHCM i-l «5
©©©©CM CM
Otf CAT)
o -m
70
i
Oi
W
i "S'2 I 5 -Q § fl I C
1
ill
j a o
HHCON t*
OlOlO
<N£-©CO W
CMCftiOCM
i-tcOCM©
SOOHMH H
CN<N<N
HO0Ht*U5 O
"* i-h cn co cm co
a ©
CO "T A
^5 3S
CXOgCOjH HHCOHt*
HHOWh t»0*©0©Cft
(NrH CO
CM©C0O>
?Ht>fH05 ©co*-^ e» t-cfti-<Tf ia ©
iOOi©Oi CO
CM lO OS
CO<<*©CM Ift tONONCO CO
t>t~co© t» COt^ICCM
J*
»Ht^iHCN(N CO
© ©
IS
*I
fi-s o ©
i
S3
r-<©oot- en
oo
<N
<N00 &;§
©©©i-l I*
i-4f-0OCft
©CO©t» ©
co N*
"SPSS
©fH©|> 00
«*©»-«eo go CM©<N ©
1HCO1H© IO
S^K^SS
COHNHO I*
lococmoco SB
lOf-icoco© g
oooo e ©©©© © cohooo <•
£*, En En
s 1
£ En En
£ 2 fa
a) c 2
En
CO
>>
|o
1
lexand
avidso:
avie
edell OTAL
Q
«
CM fc
CM
CM <POAh S9
CM
CO
.2 -13:372
Sn 9»2J8
s£
nil is
71
Children Before
Court
Foi
First
Tim
" tP co© ©
r-(r-4 ^
*-T
IOCDUJ OIO00 CO CO co in co too cp
OiCMco o m © »H r-< ^
II
CM lO I> "*<
Tf CD CD r* (NHCO t^
tH ©rH
CO
CO CM "* sOS
CO 00 CO Tt* CO rH
cm co co© t- r^
CMrH rH W
u
O fc 8
«HTj< OS <N
Tf CO i-i
CO CO rH S tH
rH
i>cocm Tf -rf ©
1-H tH t(<
§u 5Im
a
5Q
3
OOCOO H
CM CO 8
rH
CD "<* CM CM © ©©CM CM CM CO
rH CM rH "*
OINO) H
in cd Tf co
1H
§5
lO
CM CM CO
00 rH Tt<
CM § CM
"* in cm t-h i-< co
in t* CM CM CM CO
•a
4)
3
In V
£3
CM CO CM r>
1-H
in
cor>co
rl-CDr-l
CO
CM
CM
o
CM
CM
in 00 i-H© rH ^
Tf rH rH r-t ©
•9
I
2
H
00 H |> CO (NW(N 00
oo osiofc
CO ^<N 1-H
lH m ©t>(iN-HHCHM H© ©CO
en
II M89
«i
•3
•*»
oH
© o
5 rt
OQ0C0 H IO00W 05
rH <n ^
t>Tt<© lH
CMrHCO r-
CM
S3
coco
HCOH
©£
8
sm
CO ©
CM©I>t>CD CM
"* © t>CO CM
i-H CO
i> m ©oo t> r<-
CMCM COrH ©
lH
4*
s
1a
Q
CM rH© ©
00 l> i-H CD
CM CO
§o
|>CDt<* e CO CO© <<*<<*© co ©CM COrH "<f
rHCOW OS CM
00 ass rH 3 00
to
cm ©co m cm r4
in t*
| ©©CM CM Tj* OOr-l lH o ©©©OrH r-l
S3 «
s i i
g « co I US*,.
.2
•si
5^3 f2l os
m tress K98 a s
rH CO w
<P <N CO 00 1> rH © t* £j P <0 CO <N <N <N "* <N CO g» ©
8
i 1
u a
I
2*
5 s
rH H O CD O* CM i-H CO J£ 00
rH rH CO ^ 00
of
ooooHoto i> S2 ^
f> <o
O fH <N 00 t» C- IC © © ©^
U3 rH
f O O CO iH CO CO l> £j CO ^ gco
CO
CO iH <N iO CO "* <N CO
cO ^
UJ © rH T* f CM 00 t^ IH OH
©©©©©<NrH CO ^ t>
CO ,_|
CM
Cjj ^ ,h £ CM o t> "* <0 ^ rH <N CM «0 r-i CO f- $|S
<DC>©©lO©© © £ ©. W rH * go
©©©©©©© © 3 w
1 lligsg g >>-g ^^ 8'| u
73
1
=
CO
OS
CO
£
u
CO
Z8
3o
&
H
.5
i/:
1/3
• a
K 1 *j £
s 8
W> X3
SI o>
£
73
**
£
a w o
bJD H c
1 (A 8 tsi
to §
C
QJ 8
T3
C
P.
a
a
«
<u
H
S3
r- w
£
t}< CD t> t> 00 lO <N
COCO I> © rH
OHHOOMCO iH
© © © © © © rH rH
OHHOOCOW o
HOOCOOtDO O
rH© ©CO © rH © U3
©©OOOiOO lO
HHiOHrfCOO
0©©rH©rH© d
HH100^1>0 00
C©O © CO © "^ A r-l t> rH ©
©CO ©© © CM
rH C^
COCO tH © © t*.
co© ©© © io
rfHOOO »rt
rH©©©© iH
CO r-l©©© ^
COHHNH 00
CN rH CO
©©CNCN© "*
CO rH©© rH "^
<N CO
© ia co t> t* lOOINCO N
rH t}< t> CO
- <N H< rH CO Tf 00 CO 00 t>lO<N
73 co co co t- ^j com t^-lCCN t>CO TJJ
©CN COCOCO^cN CO
CO CO rH OS
CN CN iO t> rH "<* -<* W5
COCN CN CO W3
COTfCOrHIO CO
CN rH ^
^©COOOg
00 "St°©r£HS3
rHCO © © t*
OOO © rH CO
CN 00 rH
iO rH © Tj< ©
rH rH N Ifl
rt ^ ©t> lO
rH t>© t> lO
rH rH CO
lO rH lO ^ U5 ^ CO iO CO
rH CN
IO t>©CO kO
tHtH t* I>
©Tf lOrH ©
COT* rH ©
rHOl rHOO OS ~ ©CNl> "
CN Tf
© cni> c©
rHCN © IO
tH rH eN
CNiOCNUO ^J t>l>rHI> CO
rH CO CO
5 °3
111 81 III
I
d tj »-i r co H
as Is 5
OOPhCh h
o»5
slj!
*s£B
t, « 4)
,Q h fl C8
g««jr
<" o 5
«£ o
£838!
Jill
C3 >. rt rt
r! ^
•^ o OT
<w
»2,gl
74
3 60
g
K
a
13
in -M
be o
.2 H
•a
V <D
n 1/3
(A
>> I
a l«
4J s
|4) a
G rt
*»
£
t*i-H in©i-l
iH CO Ht*
t-tN©t>©
t>C0lOC0C0
CN rH ^
| 00<N^<NCO
©iH"<t »H»ft
co loi«S*S*
©tHCOCNIO
CNCNU3
rt<©©C0©
CN MH ©
cn©cn ©©
i-l iO rHOO
tpN©©iO© oocog
OOWHh TP ocow
lO<N t*
co -
©ro too
IO £8
"Jf iOOi
TfiHlO
N
IS
OOO
r-KNCO
co eo
COOrHHTHf*
Tf iHIO
§s§
©<ncn
in co oo
iOCCHOOHO
CO V
t» i-H Oi rH CO CO© "<* IO <N
rH CO
cowohoj
eoeooo©
OTfCC*
OOiOOiOO
rHCO IO
s CO © t-"I>
cq^t Tfco
»H CN
333B
ooiwooN
(N© rH <N©
OlOiOO
CO CO CO ©
38 W «
rt(NC0 05
iH(M CO
<NcN £•
OWOON COt>tN
S3 S3
COI>CNCO
OC0OOC0 <<tft"*iHtN
CN CO
MOHW t>(N ©© i-H r-1 rH •*<
COrT r-l©
t-©©tN
-<? f- 00 fh
CO CO 00
^ CO 00
ONOHW OW©© OItOo0o0o co
lOO t-CS»
COCN©
^•33
©(NOON ©W©ifO ©©i-lH
rH©00 528
t> t>HlQ
l>©Tf
OtNiOt*
©©©©io ©wooco i>io©ao
iHCO IO COTfCN© ©iocn
t}< oo-«tf ©
co Tf co "^
8$S
COr-lTtOO © 00©'
*<* CO t> © CO i-H<
rH i-ICO HtN
oo©^
00 rH CO
CN O
111 II
ao
a
E 03 CD OO
75
§5 St- 00 CO co
rH 40 00 -** t** V*
co w
©CNrH O t> O
CO ^C
©COt-CNCN 3|
OOWO<N IO
OCC^NO ©5
rHfHCOCCOM HlOCO ©00
CNU3C0 ©CO 00
1-4 CN
rH tH i-4 i-l if}
s?
IO n< 00 t^
l> 00 t- CO
CO CN CN C5
^3-CN ©
© t> © ^
CN rH CO
cn co r* ©
CNtNCN
CNI>I> © CONOCO i-H
DO ©00 CN
rH rH rH tfj
Tf i-l<35 <#
tH CO i—l ©
CNCOlG ©
CO © ©
IOC5H ifl 00H ©
r>^Tj« us 3
1,254
68
1,322
©t>
CM CM
05 iH
00
©
i-H CD ©
i-l
©
l-H
O5C0
8
CN
i-l
CO
© ©©
CN tN
1-4 t>
05 T-l 1CO
U0r-4 © s
©©
a- 9
CN
HHCO W
00*OCN if} © t*
OHO JH
CN CN
ooiow
© © i-l rH
©©^ <*
CN ©00 ©
<* CN© l>
COC0O5 if}
05 t> 05 if}
CO rH CO CN
IrtCN lOCO© If}
COCOCN U0CN ©
rH CN
05^10 00 ©CO rH i-H
rH rH CN If} 3^3 Tf U0l> © *>t-CN£
<NtN©rH© if}
T-* rH rHCN if}
C0©iOCN© ©
CNCO rH^f rt
r-4 (N
^I>CN CO
OSCNiO t*
intern in
rH rH CO
CO 00 ^ 05 ©
DO CO iH © r
CO
©co 3
© ©CO if} HH(N W
00©"tf rH co^©©
e 8
.9 a
c s §
3 <
git
^och>> h
76
i-3
si I"
IS a
§ 1 a <
J 2 o O
s
CO H W
2 —»*
to
S3
oo m co ci io oo eo
00t>t-^
CO CD CO Tf
CM i-H
co^t oo t- m
CO C^N
3 of
Hlflh
CO ^"OH Ifl ooh a ©co©<<* r^
<Or-i00CO GO
t^ CM ©
>o ^ ©
©io <*
WHO t CM iH CO rs co oo co oj co
»H cm
5
IOOH ©
COi-lCTi 00
tH CM
cdth r*
%*$
oooo ©
CO 00 CO CM CO
iH CM
coio op
CM CM ^P
©CM »H
00 l> CO
§8
l>C0rH CD
t^ CM ©
00©i-t Oi
ow w ©CM tH
T*CM ©
00 00 Tf CO CO HrfHCO H
l>©©00
CM CO
(N CM
CO CM
S3
8°°8& $S3§
§§ss (N CO
00© t-
OiCD CD
v* CM
Hi-MH©HTt(«lNO ©GO
HMNCft © ^H »-H tH t- iH
fH CM
s
©Ift com
t-co
g^s
goo i-l ©
CO© CM
CM CO
gsg
COHOt» H
CM CO ©
CO CD CsMCs*s
i-i IO ©
33 3
co©
©Tf
CO CM
En En En
o O O
fe »N »-h
tt tt « ©"£
^H ^H S s g.fl % V) CO % 1 _§ P
hatham
range
OTAL
Robeson Scotland
TOTAL
Caswell
Rockingh
Stokes
Surry
TOTAL
En
uilford-
Greens! HighP
OTAL
OO H CO
»N »*^
CO
1"H O H
77
3a
5 is
Ci CW to
tH fH t> rf
CD CO CD O O I
00 lO 00 t> t^
r-t i-l i-( <N i
lO<^N t>cooo tJ< ©
00 00 O CN HCOC5 CO
0OWMNN yM rH i-i iti
<NtN
(NOCO3tN
I>CO0O©<N ©
<N i-H i-l©
OOCOCNOO 8
©<M 00 O lO cot- "t co©
CO HOJ
TfCDOCOCO N005HN
(NCO iH
coiohooo
i-i r-lt> i-H
l>C0(N^^
28
ooo ss
t-r-4©00©
00 ©
COCN^ Tj<©
rH r-4 -^
©©t>© S
i-t <N© ©
©<N<N©i-lW3 ©
<N tN
rHCDOOt-frJ Tft>lO(N00
CO HCON lOH|>
i-f I> IOC0 ©
CO <N©
©00© tH©
iH i-lt-lOTf
tNi-HT*
©©TJ«tN©
iH©lO<NI> i-HiHCOCOOO
(N INIO CM iHCO
© r-lrf (NCO
CO 00 lO© CO
i-l CO
©CH0H©(tM^H©
© 00lO©C0
CO ©CO <MU5
i-HCSI
t* in to cd "*
<NC0(NC0 CO'
iHOOCN^lO©
<N ^ <N© 3
COt-COCN©^ © CMOOCOCOOO ©
Tj< OOtXN tH
rHt>CO CN©
CN© iO CO ©
iH COW
©© t©>rj< N©
©COs°s
<N©<N©C<! ©©COtJ<©
©CO00 © 00 ©
c©o <n © io © t>(N <N i-H
CM HNt*
U3©TJ<cN t>"<* © IO00 Tf i-l©© © ©00 00 CO CM
CO CD r-l© iH
<N r-i©
<N©CO^
lO©© ©lH © CO "<* t>TH
© © © iO"3«
<N CO © lO©
<N Hlfl
iH©lO©^i«
lO i-H i-H ©
^ © © © © © © t>co ©io© r>
tH n ©
t> © © Tt< ©
<NtJ< © CO
©C©r©-I©©N
W©©(N© ©©i-Jt-;'
i-4 rt I> i-l^cN'
<N HM
Ba
§3
ill is
E« O
co
©
Eh O
B
co
<^KcoDH cn
78
T3
P
O
O
fa
csT3
J § I go
8|3
w§ «o
00 r-KNrHCO 00
COCO COCO CO CM
CM
CM CO
(Nhhoco t*»
OOI>OC0 o
CM CO
00HOON iH
i-H CM
COOiOO ©
l> ©CM »H
CMCM "<t ©
00 t- CO 00 rCHW H
CO
.2 TfOOOO© CM
a
COCO Tf ©
CO r-l ^ ©
tH CO © t*
*H (M CO
CDlOTj* IO CM
iH lO 5f © CD t>C0 5 COlOrH ©
ss*s
a
©CM CM <*
OCOI> ©
co co t>
IOOOOCHM W00
C0rH^-l ia
S3
i
tJ«CO©©CM © lOr-tCO CM
CM CO "SS § t-
0)
a
©
t* »H tH lO^t 00
ip-IiH tH H W t»co©
E
CO
CO ssg S2
CM CM
T3
01 w
a
©OOlO^gj IOHH
iHrH s CO ©_4
W©00 3 5
s
-a
!
l> CO CO Tj* ^ T|| CMIO©
t* coco CD
CO
rHIOlO
COiOCO 3
"5
OS
a
o
THOOCOCOTf CM
"t rHCMCM TH
Ot-H©»O£> HHCO s
©00© co©t>
CM CO ©
OS
t-
H cm"
•d
c/l
(A
CO COI> CM CO »H
t?£5co 2
»H
to gasss t* l
s
•a
i
00 lO CO Tf 00 iH
CM HH (•
CMCOt-
CMOOCO
iH CM 1
00
CO
CM
00 to©
00CMIO
iHCM ?
©3
I
"is 1 TO3P
79
-O.
c
o
I
T5
sis
bo
•—
S
f>
g Jj
q s
sn
o
CJ
t>
0C
*4 CO
2, © Q© t^<**
a •? t-cocococD
BH
3
ooi-h cooo t- r*
--e^t-f- \a
o
tn H
BCEa
& I
CDOOOHIO ©
M
U
4) S
M •o
0) CM CO CO t> CM l> £ "3 CM CO
£
K
a ©^CMCM"* CM
V! o rHCO rH «D
M H
a
•a v Von s .2
a
ICOOOIO o
CO -^
o (/) a
0) S
T3
d
a
Q
•a
a
•a
0)
lOrfCMCM© CM
a 00 ©CM »-<© t»
V)
Efl
a
CO ©CM CO »H ©
s o
H •V
S CA
t/l ICHIOO^i IO
T3
5
|
a
(A
ihio r*
fi
o.
•0 C0O5t-HN CM
5 o CM H«H 05
a a
P
3
©OlWOCHMN©tN» ©CM
B © l-l rH CO
5 H
E1
•a
CA TfCOlOOOCD CD
a
a ce
E3
s
c O ©CMt*00iH ^*
5
s
Q 3
CO r-l 00 © "*t CT> 00 CO lOCOHONNH t>-
<N CO
H CM CO
MOO00HOH 8
00OOC0OWH ^
O^O^OOW CO
«-H CM
ONOTfOOH l>
CO CM © CO CO CO CO ©
CM CO ?H l»
C- &N
O o
»*N Nn
cc
.2 K
E- En
CO Sa a i CO
cs
11
Polk
Rutherfo
Transylv;
TOTAL
2
O
oo ©
1 8
CM
CM © CO
CM ^H
© CO
**t © CO
*
r §
© iH
1-^ 1™* 'a
©CM©©©©^* © ifl ©
5*
© i-i©iOt~©e* ih
i-l IO 00
5,536 100.0
21.5
CO rH © tj CM CM iH © © t-
~2 ©CM
t» © © 00 to "** »-l W
CM
© CO
CM©O0©CO»-l© CM
CO tH ,H CM rH CM CO
5,726 100.0
60.9
©TfOOOOCO^© CO fH
© S
•J S -a -a
llliljii ill
80
DISTRICT COURT ACTIVITY IN MOTOR VEHICLE
AND SMALL CLAIM CASES*
January 1, 1973 — December 31, 1973
Percent of Motor Vehicle Cases
Disposed of by Wavier1
Percent of Small Claim Cases
Disposed of by Magistrate1
Motor
Vehicle
Cases Filed
Cases Percent
Disposed of Disposed of
By Waiver by Waiver
Small
Claims
Filed
Percent
Disposed Disposed
of by of by
Magistrate Magistrate
7ST DISTRICT
Camden
Chowan
Currituck
Dare
Gates
Pasquotank
Perquimans
546
1,068
2,097
1,177
1,039
2,403
735
391
658
1,445
798
834
1,659
558
71.6
61.6
68.9
67.8
80.3
69.0
75.9
78
184
104
124
152
638
96
72
174
104
115
142
683
92
92.3
94.6
100.0
92.7
93.4
107.1
95.8
TOTAL 9,065 6,343 70.0 1,376 1,382 100.4
2ND DISTRICT
Beaufort
Hyde
Martin
Tyrrell
Washington
3,850
347
2,869
301
721
2,848
210
2,183
133
954
74.0
60.5
76.1
44.2
132.3
970
44
731
54
301
917
47
721
54
289
94.5
106.8
98.6
100.0
96.0
TOTAL 8,088 6,328 78.2 2,100 2,028 96.6
3RD DISTRICT
Carteret
Craven
Pamlico
Pitt
4,655
8,479
877
11,477
3,038
5,237
468
7,492
65.3
61.8
53.4
65.3
404
782
159
1,783
439
742
148
1,591
108.7
94.9
93.1
89.2
TOTAL 25,488 16,235 63.7 3,128 2,920 93.4
4TH DISTRICT
Duplin
Jones
Onslow
Sampson
5,433
1,193
11,185
6,257
4,222
707
4/825
4,946
77.7
59.3
43.1
79.0
844
81
1,909
989
844
77
1,617
969
100.0
95.1
84.7
98.0
TOTAL 24,068 14,700 61.1 3,823 3,507 91.7
5TH DISTRICT
New Hanover
Pender
11,501
2,580
9,960
1,610
86.6
62.4
1,918
398
1,513
374
78.9
94.0
TOTAL 14,081 11,570 82.2 2,316 1,887 81.5
In some counties, the percent of cases disposed of exceeds one hundred percent
because cases pending January 1, 1973 are not included in the "field" column.
The figures in both the "filed" and "disposed of" columns are for the calendar
year 1973. Some of the cases filed in 1973 will not be disposed of until 1974 and
some of the cases disposed of in 1973 were filed in 1972. Assuming a fairly con-stant
rate of filing and disposition, the percentages are relatively accurate.
These two tables are combined for convenience of format; they are not otherwise
related.
81
Percent of Motor Vehicle Cases
Disposed of by Wavier1
Motor
Vehicle
Cases Filed
6TH DISTRICT
Cases Percent
Disposed of Disposed of
By Waiver by Waiver
Percent of Small Claim Cases
Disposed of my Magistrate1
Percent
Small Disposed Disposed
Claims of by of by
Filed Magistrate Magistrate
Bertie 2,126
Halifax 5,262
Hertford 2,457
Northampton 2,821
1,736
3,413
1,679
1,876
81.7
64.9
68.3
66.5
428
1,173
225
328
405
1,098
232
287
94.6
93.6
103.1
87.5
TOTAL 12,666 8,704 68.7 2,154 2,022 93.9
7TH DISTRICT
Edgecombe 7,514
Nash 9,300
Wilson 6,190
5,296
6,711
5,275
70.5
72.2
85.2
1,947
1,147
2,118
1,915
1,105
2.099
98.4
96.3
99.1
TOTAL 23,004 17,282 75.1 5,212 5,119 98.2
8TH DISTRICT
Greene 1,608
Lenoir 6.531
Wayne 10,775
1,092
4,323
7,325
67.9
66.2
68.0
236
1,756
1,451
222
1,693
1,449
94.1
96.4
99.9
TOTAL 18,914 12,740 67.4 3,443 3,364 97.7
9TH DISTRICT
Franklin
Granville
Person
Vance
Warren
TOTAL
3,859
3,624
2,952
4,958
1,620
2,824
2,423
2,134
3,645
1,219
17,013 12,245
73.2
66.9
72.3
73.5
75.2
72.0
471
'808
1,282
1,649
258
4,468
452
780
997
1,847
282
4,358
96.0
96.5
77.8
112.0
109.3
97.5
10TH DISTRICT
Wake 50,566 37,191 73.5 6,375 6,075 95.3
11TH DISTRICT
Harnett
Johnston
Lee
TOTAL
7,303
9,163
4,725
21,191
5,090
6,092
4,417
15,599
69.7
66.5
93.5
73.6
1,004
1,151
999
3,154
969
1,072
957
2,998
96.5
93.1
95.8
95.1
12TH DISTRICT
Cumberland
Hoke
TOTAL
29,525 19,020
2,097 1,583
31,622 20,603
64.4
75.5
65.2
3,083
199
3,282
3,141
166
3,307
101.9
83.4
100.8
In some counties, the percent of cases disposed of exceeds one hundred percent
because cases pending January 1, 1973 are not included in the "field" column.
The figures in both the "filed" and "disposed of" columns are for the calendar
year 1973. Some of the cases filed in 1973 will not be disposed of until 1974 and
some of the cases disposed of in 1973 were filed in 1972. Assuming a fairly con-stant
rate of filing and disposition, the percentages are relatively accurate.
These two tables are combined for convenience of format; they are not otherwise
related.
82
Percent of Motor Vehicle Cases
Disposed of by Wavier1
Motor Cases Percent
Vehicle Disposed of Disposed of
Cases Filed By Waiver by Waiver
13TH DISTRICT
Percent of Small Claim Cases
Disposed of my Magistrate1
Percent
Small Disposed Disposed
Claims of by of by
Filed Magistrate Magistrate
Bladen 4,719
Brunswick 4,430
Columbus 7,011
2,877
3,093
3,462
61.0
69.8
49.4
569
510
858
559
467
760
98.2
91.6
88.6
TOTAL 16,160 9,432 58.4 1,937 1,786 92.2
14TH DISTRICT
Durham 15,325 9,290 60.6 6,242 4,421 70.8
15TH DISTRICT
Alamance 10,820
Chatham 3,636
Orange 7,300
8,073
2,310
4,896
74.6
63.5
67.1
1,927
1,290
504
1,847
1,141
380
95.8
88.4
75.4
TOTAL 21,756 15,279 70.2 3,721 3,368 90.5
16TH DISTRICT
Robeson 11,996
Scotland 3,225
7,298
1,936
60.8
60.0
2,243
507
2,077
489
92.6
96.4
TOTAL 15,221 9,234 60.7 2,750 2,566 93.3
17TH DISTRICT
Caswell 1,818
Rockingham 8,228
Stokes 1,695
Surry 5,091
1,343
5,486
1,032
3,513
73.9
66.7
60.9
69.0
403
1,517
528
2,612
340
1,447
473
1,950
84.4
95.4
89.6
74.7
TOTAL 16,832 11,374 67.6 5,060 4,210 83.2
18TH DISTRICT
Guilford—
Greensboro 33,456
High Point 11,463
21,804
8,739
65.2
76.2
7,064
3,766
7,135
3,423
101.0
90.9
TOTAL 44,919 30,543 68.0 10,830 10,558 97.5
19TH DISTRICT
Cabarrus 8,994
Montgomery 3,581
Randolph 9,342
Rowan 9,829
6,759
2,836
6,624
7,305
75.2
79.2
70.9
74.3
1,318
478
966
1,155
1,148
453
834
1,072
87.1
94.8
86.3
92.8
TOTAL 31,746 23,524 74.1 3,917 3,507 89.5
In some counties, the percent of cases disposed of exceeds one hundred percent
because cases pending January 1, 1973 are not included in the "field" column.
The figures in both the "filed" and "disposed of" columns are for the calendar
year 1973. Some of the cases filed in 1973 will not be disposed of until 1974 and
some of the cases disposed of in 1973 were filed in 1972. Assuming a fairly con-stant
rate of filing and disposition, the percentages are relatively accurate.
These two tables are combined for convenience of format; they are not otherwise
related.
83
Percent of Motor Vehicle Cases
Disposed of by Wavier1
Percent of Small Claim Cases
Disposed of my Magistrate1
Motor
Vehicle
Cases Filed
•JOTH DISTRICT
Cases Percent
Disposed of Disposed of
By Waiver by Waiver
Small
Claims
Filed
Percent
Disposed Disposed
of by of by
Magistrate Magistrate
Anson
Moore
Richmond
Stanly
Union
TOTAL
2,901
4,419
5,285
4,225
4,708
21,538
1,951
3,729
3,444
3,511
4,141
16,776
67.3
84.4
65.2
83.1
88.0
77.9
426
526
606
962
824
3,344
344
494
567
916
806
3,127
80.8
93.9
93.6
95.2
97.8
93.5
21ST DISTRICT
Forsyth 31/852 23,457 73.6 4,804 4,573 95.2
22ND DISTRICT
Alexander
Davidson
Davie
Iredell
TOTAL
2,093
12,590
3,217
8,472
26,372
1,967
9,252
2,245
5,257
18,721
94.0
73.5
69.8
62.1
71.0
272
935
137
1,680
3,024
266
1,023
134
1,491
2,914
97.8
109.4
97.8
88.8
96.4
23RD DISTRICT
Alleghany
Ashe
Wilkes
Yadkin
TOTAL
605
1,565
4,069
2,192
8,431
361
830
2,373
1,735
5,299
59.7
53.0
58.3
79.2
62.9
397
151
785
339
1,672
359
150
587
343
1,439
90.4
99.3
74.8
101.2
86.1
24TH DISTRICT
Avery
Madison
Mitchell
Watauga
Yancey
TOTAL
1,684
1,596
1,031
2,607
1,203
8,121
1,352
1,212
700
2,059
1,227
6,550
80.3
75.9
67.9
79.0
102.0
80.7
148
39
87
132
77
483
166
34
81
127
56
464
112.2
87.2
93.1
96.2
72.7
96.1
25TH DISTRICT
Burke
Caldwell
Catawba
TOTAL
6,177
6,419
12,310
24,906
4,487
3,612
9,564
17,663
72.6
56.3
77.7
70.9
522
1,138
1,174
2,834
517
1,055
1,168
2,740
99.0
92.7
99.5
96.7
23TH DISTRICT
Mecklenburg 47,748 34,970 73.2 10,799 9,179 85.0
In some counties, the percent of cases disposed of exceeds one hundred percent
because cases pending January 1, 1973 are not included in the "field" column.
The figures in both the "filed" and "disposed of" columns are for the calendar
year 1973. Some of the cases filed in 1973 will not be disposed of until 1974 and
some of the cases disposed of in 1973 were filed in 1972. Assuming a fairly con-stant
rate of filing and disposition, the percentages are relatively accurate.
These two tables are combined for convenience of format; they are not otherwise
related.
84
Percent of Motor Vehicle Cases
Disposed of by Wavier1
Motor Cases Percent
Vehicle Disposed of Disposed of
Cases Filed By Waiver by Waiver
27TH DISTRICT
Percent of Small Claim Cases
Disposed of my Magistrate'
Percent
Small Disposed Disposed
Claims of by of by
Filed Magistrate Magistrate
Cleveland 8,690
Gaston 17,174
Lincoln 4,475
5.452
10,312
2,483
62.7
60.0
55.5
1,272
2,955
566
1,273
2,978
473
100.1
100.8
83.6
TOTAL 30,339 18,247 60.1 4,793 4,724 98.6
28TH DISTRICT
Buncombe 18,595 12,874 69.2 1,710 1,660 97.1
29TH DISTRICT
Henderson 4,988
McDowell 3,049
Polk 1,421
Rutherford 4,425
Transylvania 1,411
3,372
2,188
1,122
3,114
1,041
67.6
71.8
79.0
70.4
73.8
372
259
75
806
207
299
237
61
688
292
80.4
91.5
81.3
85.4
141.1
TOTAL 15,294 10,837 70.9 1,719 1,577 91.7
30TH DISTRICT
Cherokee 1,608
Clay 572
Graham 823
Haywood 4,585
Jackson 1,463
Mason 1,764
Swain 809
1,303
452
618
2,904
875
1,153
533
81.0
79.0
75.1
63.3
59.8
65.4
65.9
132
83
23
322
126
72
75
83
92
35
310
126
77
58
62.9
110.8
152.2
96.3
100.0
106.9
77.3
TOTAL 11,624 7,838 67.4 833 781 93.8
GRAND
TOTAL 662,545 461,448 69.6 111,303 102,561 92.1
In some counties, the percent of cases disposed of exceeds one hundred percent
because cases pending January 1, 1973 are not included in the "filed" column.
The figures in both the "filed" and "disposed of" columns are for the calendar
year 1973. Some of the cases filed in 1973 will not be disposed of until 1974 and
some of the cases disposed of in 1973 were filed in 1972. Assuming a fairly con-stant
rate of filing and disposition, the percentages are relatively accurate.
These two tables are combined for convenience of format; they are not otherwise
related.
85
DAYS OF COURT HELD AT EACH SEAT
OF THE DISTRICT COURT*
1973 Calendar Year
1ST DISTRICT (2 Judges)
Bertie—Windsor
Halifax—Halifax
Roanoke Rapids
Hertford—Winton
Northampton—Jackson
TOTAL
Civil
$%
20
7
16
10
611/2
Criminal
43V2
92i/
2
37
44i/
2
41
258V2
Total
Camden—Camden % 91/2 10
Chowan—Edenton 26 43 69
Currituck—Currituck 3 24 27
Dare—Manteo 4 25 29
Gates—Gatesville 21/2 14 I6I/2
Pasquotank—Elizabeth City 13 36 49
Perquimans—Hertford % Hi/2 12
TOTAL 4914 163 2121/2
2ND DISTRICT (2 Judges)
Beaufort—Washington 241/2 88 H21/2
Hyde—Swan Quarter !/2 16% 17
Martin—Williamston 191/2 531/2 73
Tyrrell—Columbia 1% 121/2 14
Washington—Plymouth % 3oy2 31
TOTAL 46i/2 201 247%
3RD DISTRICT (4 Judges)
Carteret—Beaufort 30y2
98i/
2 129
Craven—New Bern 101 175i/
2
276i/
2
Pamlico—Bayboro 4 23 27
Pitt—Greenville 80% 168 248%
Farmville 23 23
Ayden 24i/
2 24%
TOTAL 216 512% 728%
4TH DISTRICT (4 Judges) -
Duplin—Kenansville 16 731/2 89%
Jones—Trenton 31/2 16 19%
Onslow—Jacksonville 411/2 3271/2 369
Sampson—Clinton 25 84 109
TOTAL 86 501 587
5TH DISTRICT (3 Judges)
New Hanover—Wilmington 98i/
2 253 351%
Pender—Burgaw 20% 46 66%
TOTAL 119 299 418
6TH DISTRICT (3 Judges)
52
112%
44
60%
51
320
All days of court at each seat were not necessarily held by a judge assigned to
the designated judicial district. In 1973 District Court Judges held a total of 334V2
days of court in judicial districts other than their own. A day of court is defined
as at least a two hour session before lunch and at least a two hour session after
lunch. Judicial hospitalization, juvenile and domestic relations cases are counted
as civil court.
86
7TH DISTRICT (4 Judges)
Civil Criminal Total
Edgecombe—Tarboro
Rocky Mount
Nash—Nashville
Wilson—Wilson
141/2
10
461/2
36
711/2
58i/
2
70
1091/2
86
68i/
2
116i/
2
145i/
2
TOTAL 107 309i/
2 416i/a
8TH DISTRICT (4 Judges)
Greene—Snow Hill
Lenoir—Kinston
Wayne—Goldsboro
Mount Olive
51/2
47i/
2
1071/2
311/2
1511/2
149
23
37
199
256i/
2
23
TOTAL 160^ 355 5151/j
9TH DISTRICT (3 Judges)
Franklin—Louisburg
Granville—Oxford
Person—Roxboro
Vance—Henderson
Warren—Warrenton
6
21
12
8
41/2
421/2
48i/
2
50
87
27
48i/
2
691/2
62
95
311/2
TOTAL 511/2 255 3061/j
10TH DISTRICT (5 Judges)
Wake—Raleigh
Fuquay-Varina
Wendell
3061/2
191/2
1
6171/2
191/2
231/2
924
39
241/2
TOTAL 327 66OI/2 987i/
2
11TH DISTRICT (4 Judges)
Harnett—Lillington
Dunn
Johnston—Smithfield
Benson
Selma
Lee—Sanford
421/2
491/2
1
931/2
421/2
78
401/2
311/2
120
136
421/2
127i/
2
401/2
311/2
121
TOTAL 93 406 499
12TH DISTRICT (4 Judges)
Cumberland—Fayetteville
Hoke—Raeford
326 418
37
744
37
TOTAL 326 455 781
13TH DISTRICT (2 Judges)
Bladen—Elizabethtown
Brunswick—Southport
Shallotte
Columbus—Whiteville
Tabor City
29i/
2
22
731/2
61%
51
36
89V2
23
91
73
36
163
23
TOTAL 125 261 386
87
Civil Criminal Total
7-/77/ DISTRICT (3 Judges)
Durham—Durham 145 202 347
15TH DISTRICT (4 Judges)
Alamance—Graham 178i/
2 96 2741/2
Chatham—Pittsboro 17 301/2 47%
Siler City 7% 291/a 37
Orange—Hillsborough 27V2 52 79%
Chapel Hill 8i/
2 42 50%
TOTAL 239 250 489
J6TH DISTRICT (3 Judges)
Robeson—Lumberton 119 1551/2 274%
Fairmont 35 35
Maxton 471/2 47%
Red Springs 321/2 32%
Rowland 231/2 23%
Saint Pauls 28% 28%
Scotland—Laurinburg 441/2 85i/
2 130
TOTAL 163i/
2 408 571%
17TH DISTRICT (4 Judges)
Caswell—Yanceyville 8 35i/
2 43%
Rockingham—Wentworth 46 46
Reidsville 83 83
Eden 731/2 73%
Madison 46 46
Stokes—Danbury % 40 40%
Surry—Dobson 32 H21/2 144%
TOTAL 86i/2 390% 477
18TH DISTRICT (7 Judges)
Guilford—Greensboro 300 4001/2 700%
High Point 114 146 260
TOTAL 414 546% 960%
19TH DISTRICT (5 Judges)
Cabarrus—Concord 63i/
2 91% 155
Kannapolis % 51 61%
Montgomery—Troy 27i/
2 61% 89
Randolph—Asheboro 54i/
2 90% 145
Rowan—Salisbury 53i/
2 119 172%
TOTAL 199!4 413% 613
20TH DISTRICT (4 Judges)
Anson—Wadesboro 17 74 91
Moore—Carthage 24% 40% 65
Southern Pines 4 15 19
Richmond—Rockingham 32i/
2 68% 101
Stanly—Albemarle 39i/
2 94 133%
Union—Monroe 56 87 143
TOTAL 173i/2 379 552%
88
21ST DISTRICT (5 Judges)
Civil Criminal Total
Forsyth—Winston-Salem
Kernersville
TOTAL
283
283
3461/z
19l/
2
366
6291,4
191/2
649
22ND DISTRICT (4 Judges)
Alexander—Taylorsvijle
Davidson—Lexington
Thomasville
Davie—Mocksville
Iredell—Statesville
Mooresville
TOTAL
15
92
18
65i/
2
6i/
2
197
32
79y2
57
26
94
28
3161/2
47
1711/2
57
44
1591/2
341/2
5131/2
23RD DISTRICT (2 Judges)
Alleghany—Sparta
Ashe—Jefferson
Wilkes—Wilkesboro
Yadkin—Yadkinville
TOTAL
121/2
16
115
12
1551/2
16i/
2
29
102
441/2
192
29
45
217
561/2
3471/2
24TH DISTRICT (2 Judges)
Avery—Newland
Madison—Marshall
Mitchell—Bakersville
Watauga—Boone
Yancey—Burnsville
TOTAL
131/2
18
71/2
211/2
ioy2
71
231/2
201/2
25
531/2
23
145^
37
381/2
321/2
75
331/2
2161/2
25TH DISTRICT (4 Judges)
Burke—Morganton
Caldwell—Lenoir
Catawba—Newton
Hickory
TOTAL
44i/
2
521/2
55i/
2
52i/
2
205
1221/2
1331/2
76i/
2
IO91/2
442
167
186
132
162
647
26TH DISTRICT (7 Judges)
Mecklenburg—Charlotte 699 602 1,301
27TH DISTRICT (5 Judges)
Cleveland—Shelby
Gaston—Gastonia
Lincoln—Lincolnton
TOTAL
551/2
I641/2
36
256
12914
470
79i/
2
679
185
634i/
2
115i/
2
935
28TH DISTRICT (4 Judges)
Buncombe—Asheville 4341/2
89
464 898i/
2
Civil Criminal Total
29TH DISTRICT (3 Judges)
Henderson—Hendersonville 49i/
2
59i/
2 109
McDowell—Marion 19 531/2 72%
Polk—Columbus 3% 191/2 23
Rutherford—Rutherfordton 21% 67i/
2 89
Transylvania—Brevard 30 431/2 731/2
TOTAL 123% 243i/2 367
30TH DISTRICT (2 Judges)
Cherokee—Murphy 2% 28% 31
Clay—Hayesville 3% 9 12y2
Graham—Robbinsville % 16 16i/
2
Haywood—Waynesville 71 71% 142%
Canton 16 16
Jackson—Sylva 11 30 41
Macon—Franklin 4% 24 28%
Swain—Bryson City 21% 21% 43
TOTAL 114% 216% 331
GRAND TOTAL 5,728% 10,893% 16,622
90
FISCAL OPERATIONS
1972 - 73
The total receipts of the Judicial Department exceeded
State expenditures by more than three quarters of a million
dollars in the 1972-73 fiscal year.
State Expenditures for the
Judicial Department $28,946,343.80
State and Local Receipts from
Court Operations $29,714,049.97
Receipts by classification and governmental unit receiving funds:
Superior and District
Court Fees (State) $ 9,442,194.98
Supreme Court Fees (State) 6,517.25
Court of Appeals Fees (State) 15,472.83
Sale of Appellate Reports (State) 63,685.89
Law Enforcement Officers Benefit
and Retirement Fund (State) 2,299,876.30
Total State Receipts $11,827,747.25
Facilities Fees (Counties) $ 2,123,878.57
Officer Fees (Counties) 1,145,664.79
Jail Fees (Counties) 425,530.96
Fines and Forfeitures (Counties) 13,328,391.36
Total County Receipts $17,023,465.68
Facilities Fees (Municipalities) $ 134,240.17
Officer Fees (Municipalities) 671,257.45
Jail Fees (Municipalities) 57,339.42
Total Municipal Receipts $ 862,837.04
Total Receipts $29,714,049.97
Of the total Judicial Department receipts, $9,527,870.95 or
32.1% went into the State General Fund. The balance was dis-tributed
to the Law Enforcement Officers Benefit and Retire-ment
Fund (7.8%) and the counties (57.2%) and municipalities
(2.9%) of the State.
Receipts deposited in the State General Fund amounted to
32.9% of the State's expenditures for the Judicial Department.
Total State receipts (General Fund and LEOB&RF) equaled
40.1% of Judicial Department expenditures.
The table which follows shows a breakdown of the fees for
each county and the municipalities within each county.
91
CM C5 CD p cm 35
ci d d
LO CO 00
r-H CM IC
-<t rH CO O CO rH
co
Ot>OO000^O00^(N00OiO00t>0^O00
O^TTiO^CX)pCMC»I>COOO:<NI>05LO<N
CMdcMidcM^cMCMdoodiooOrHdcMrHoo
i0iOC0H00.00WMOOOC0Ht^(Nt>CD05
(N lO 00 CM IC Tt iH Oi CO OS CO lO CM O^ OS CM CM^©
r-""dTt to" co' t> U0 iH 06 cm" io to" Tf o" c$ oo" rH cm' oonfOoiCHcoMOTfHHiocoooiom
rH rH r-l CO rH CM CM T-l T$< r-i
CM O
t-l CO
CM
CMCO t>
rH 00 Tf
Tf dco
lO CO lO
Tf lO iO_
00"io"t*-" OO t>
CM rH i-l
p
hS
h S3
P <
O P
u u
0* P pS
& ©
p <
O CO
fog
^§
pp
2
° E
I
2
fa 73
faTe
3 H
CO
l>
I
CM
l>
OS
W
r~
P
p
P
fas
- s
15
fa
oooo
t*
oo oo oo
CO <<* Tt<
oo oo oo
00 t- r-t O Tf 00 O CdD oooooo^ N ooo N oJgooo«J»oogS o
€*
ooo
p P .
CD 00 t^
t> rH CO
CO t> rH
°2S£°oooooo <=> qooopoooqoo p oooopopo oooooooo
06CMCD^tCM00'^CMC>CTil> CM CCi "^ CM CD T}< O O O rHCDCMOOCDOCDCT)iiOI>CD /-«,CD r-,rHCDaiCM r-
1 CTitDt>CO
t> rH CR^t O I> CfcCNCN^O ° W <~> rH 0,00 0^ t> O O 00
rH co rH o"io"co"co" co t>CM cm" co rt<" tjT ea
CM rH
00rj<^ CM
CM
W o
OoOo Oooo oo oo
d d cd d ^ t}5 oooooo^gooooooo^goooo £ o §
rHCM* CO"lo" CM" I>"
CM
OpcOMCcDqOpOpOiOopOpOiOqOpOpOpOppOpUi0>OpOoOpOp
rHoodcocModcod^'dcoddcMdcDcDcDCM
OOCOCMOCDrHCMrHCM^^airHD-C^OCOrHiOCM O W O^^CM^WO O CM^O l> io *C »o no 00 00 CM CD
^f CM" rH CO" rH rH rH l-f rf CO t> 1-4 CO t> CN rH CO" CM" CM'
pooopo
00 Tt "<*
lO LO oo
rH CO L>
CM d id
t> CM lO
CO lOCO
CD" CM" rH rH 00 lO
CO CO CO
rH rH Tf
ti>0pOpOpOpOoO^OpOpOpOpOiOopOoTqfp<pOpOpOrOHOoOpOpOoOo
rH CD rH
CM rH t>
cntoc©
o"^f io"
CM CMI>
6& M o
a £ s 51 § ?>s^
,2^3 Cm > © 0^,2 CpCrtajcCaJcs 5 ^3 45 -C JS r5
92
i
rQ - P ISJ
o 2 3
oooo
Oj CO
fa "3
Oo oO Oo
CD H CO oogogoggo
03 rH
o o oo OO
O CM O
P "*! P
O
q
<rf i-I
06 CD
Tf CM OC oc 10 cd to
t>CO CD °C0 OC 03 og oog
coco l-l Cm" TT
8
OO
oo 0000
CO 00 t> oo!§ooo^
to"
0Q0O0O0O
E- 90AOO OI>
S 8 ° 00000 §g gg o o o go go o o o o o o o
CO"r-T C0"l>i-H CO T*
si
St 5
fafc
0> >>
faS
3°
WHWlOOWOOOOOOOOOCDCOlO^OOINOHinwOiOOOOOOW CMOl00500CM0005Tt<OOCDCOCMlO©COOI>COOOOI>CO©©t>OOOt>p
----. '^ai io co'tjJ
<OJi t> CO o 05 05 cm
00 CM CD CO
Tf CM IO t>
^ ( \^ M.*/ WJ \*J V.N W W WJ NT **S N-"' Si^ ^-i-J UN U.J W ^^ W L *•'•> \^ -*^ L~ ^-^ W ^p^ V W
O0't>OCOC0ld^t>O<NWlO^00't>t^0dt>W05l>M
0500TfC0MO00O(N(NI>HlOiC(NH(N(N00HCD00(NI>OlO{DC0f
t> qt> h t> t> a « (M 10 (N 1^ co w ooohtt o ** i> 10 t> co co O^co 1> 00
05 co t> o~ rf 10" cm* r* o" <n t> t> rf 00" co" i-T 10 00" t> th t> co" cm" t> oT Tf o" 00" co' lOCOCDCDCOCDOO^O(NHOCOlOCO(N05t>Wf-HCOW05HOt>gO
CM rH CM rH T}< CO rH IO i-I i-I CM rH rH rH
p0p0r0Hc0o0p0qp0r*t0j0rH0U030p0p0qp0i^ot0>0oOoOppOpOqcOqOqOcNOjOpOpqOpOqOpOpCcJo
CO<NCDCTicOI>OrHOlOCOo6t>rH(XJOO'cO^CNCOid(NCO^
C0C000T^t>l>T^0000O05C0U0CD«C0C0COO00C0Tf(Nt>t><NrHC0I>l>OCD00
CM 00 ^CM IO 00 CM IO CD l> CO OO CO tH 05 O CM CO CM CM CO CM OO^rH CO CD(NO « 00 00 CM
i-^ t> rH rH CO~ IO*CM~rH CO* CO rH rH CM* CM* CO "tf* rH CM* CO* CO* 00* l>* 0*^*1-* ^t
rH rH CM
oO oOOoOo oOO©
rw
i I
si-rtJriiJj
c
C :S 0) H X 43 oO
0) o
c§
-C C a.
crj cd ©='3 =
£3 CO CO
3 6 kpt^-p-S^J i cd ai <d
Ce t9B.C2 Bo
S'-glq S 5 5 5- 3 cd aj a} o rff R g a "g g g g -gg a S* 5J^ >? g 2*§ § 8 § .Si3,2iS.2
93
O CO
CT> r-l
CO o
00 CO
to CN
to o
Tf O
r-l O
OS CD
Tf 00
,-1 CD O to
td rt<
to o
CN CD
t> lO rt
CO O <M O CO CN "nhV
to CO CD
r-l©
oq q
t> CM
CO rt
co~io'
<N ©
o
<N
td CO
onooooHooomomocoooooiNO ptqcciqpcooqc^qoo©[>iopooiocoo
incoHHdddd(NC<io505mHa!HCDd(N
asi>ooLoooooi>c7i(MCDiot-TfcT)a^cooTf
00^ OS lO ON t> 00 CI t> Tt t> 05 "<* CD^© ©_ 05 05 Oft O
CO" to" ©~ 00 t> t> 00' iH ©~ to" to" 00* to" <N ©* t** o" ©" ©~
COCN00l>C0Tt<CD©©''tfCNCDr-lTJ<T}<©LO-<tfrH
CM WHCOHINHHrlH tH
CDO^
Tj| CO r-J
to oi i>
(N t> 00
CO CO ©
cdoTcd"
00 CN 00
i-i i-H ©
OpOoOp©Q Oo
CN 05 l> 00 CN o o o ^S g o ogooooo^o
cCihih* cm
o oo o
p p p p
co © i-i -rf
CM 00 00 00
oooo
oo© A to co
r-l O^tO^ CM ooo
8
ooooog
pOpOpOoOpOpOctxOjOpOpit>OiOqOpOpOpOpOoOoOoOo
cdoitdcDTtd^CNitd d c^ ri< © © cn 06 co d r-i '^ •-" ^ ^ r^ -,:
tO (N © to CD O 05 to 00 ,-, © 1> O —
'
r-H>CDi-H©CDC0©r-i o CN00<N
> oooooooo 5s Oooooooo
o § © rH CO © © CD CM
OS
cTco
OOCNOOCOOi-llOTtCNOCDTfilOTfO rof^Hihot>ooHinHOi^(N(Naii>(M t> cm cm th cooqqo i> to h<no5
co of wcMr>aT<ocsfcoc<fcsf to
i—i
ooo poto
CO CM CO
.-.CO 00 00
00
PEh
OOOOOO OOOOOOOO t- r-l © ^' co co cm co t^ cm ooo^ooogoooo^ooo^ooooooooooooj
C0~©" to" CD" rHr-T CO
r-l rH rH
HO (NO
(ONOTOHfClDiOHio-il>l(ONT9HqOqO(ONCqOiOqO«O)ToH^OoOqCtN>O^tcOoOwC^O^OwtoOwOiloO^OoCoDqOcCoO
Tn^O©Odat)oH^WtHdHdOcCoOtO>CdDo^o1©0o0d5i^o>^Hcoa©iiHOOr(HN^(rNHCdDt0d0©0^0©5'CrOH(dNcONO^MidO
tOtOt>t>©tNtOCDOO©©THCO©COl>©CD©CDT}<©Ti<CDOO''*lOTt<CD©
§5
CDlOT-i00r-l00I>CDC0CDO^
00CDT-l00aiCDtOCD00I>i-IO
rHCMlOCDOOCNOOrHCOCNTfCD
I CO CO Tj< ©
CD O
_ «„ w w u ^ w t- CN
CN OO^rH CD^CM T^CD^CN r£
rHCO~rH iHCN r-^
w^T^rH05rHCMOBC^N^CM60^W
0\^^
00"cNTf CO~CO~ lO^OT^^fC0"tN CNWCO" t-~tO~lcT
b£ E
9
II 111*
o •4-»
a
a ^ £ o
u %
£ c ZO
^g £ be .9 Stj
«oo-os^.Sa h ° o
II Mil ^£^>
2 1 1 g S SStI §.y§ ooig 85'5 S'P H Rjjj s-g^ " Is a© I* S-e 3 fe'l
S 8
II
94
00 00 <N rH CO t- t* O CNCOt>cqcO0q»HiH
00 o to 00 r-5 00 00 lO O 00 CN CD CD CO
"tf »H lO CD^CN O^CD Oi
PS 3* co* t> ^to* ef cn*
in CO CO 00 CN 00 CO -<*
tNiH^H
§8 8 oo
If oogo^
SI
oo
si
88888888
328 rH CD 00 COO
lOt> 00 00 Tf
t^iHt-O^CO
di-T^i*,-*
1ft
££ 1
ll fa p.
11
ooc
8
CN [Uoooo
d
3
fa
OOONHCOCOOQ
lO CO l> CO 00 Oi r-l CO s
Its
00 t-' O CO O CO CO CN
00 t> CO tJ< W <* CD t>
O^ t> rH Ub t> CO r-l CN
00* Tj* I>* 00* CO* r-T |> CO*
co <n rf o oo co n< co
CM iH 1
8
*J »*.
oooocc 88888 $
fas
t> d co tH d ih oo co
Oi OCDrHCO OrfCN
OCDCJS'-ICOiH'^CO 1
35 CM HftiOttHH
«) . fa&
** d
4>
So
OwqOqOqOiOnwHoNiOq
co rf cn ^ in t-^ in d t^OJ^QCJ^asCD
COrHC0fi0t>t*lCl>
Tt* co* co* a>* rH* oo* m*co*
fa&
JJ 1
fa
<NopqoS8p
co' cn 1-4 iei d d ©
C7> 00 CD <N O "tf tfi m
CO in CN CO CN t- CO O
co* rfr>* 0? d^r-* co*
co
§
1 iiflJiil
95
REPRESENTATION OF INDIGENTS
Private counsel are appointed to represent indigent defend-ants
in 27 of the State's judicial districts. In the 12th, 18th, and
28th judicial districts (Cumberland, Hoke, Guilford, and Bun-combe
Counties) indigents are normally represented by the pub-lic
defender's office. The public defender's office of the 28th judi-cial
district is not included in this report since it was not estab-lished
until July of 1973. The costs of this program rose from
$1,962,719.59 in the 1971-72 fiscal year to $2,624,378.41 in the
1972-73 fiscal year, an increase of 33.7%. The program consti-tuted
8.8% of total Judicial Department expenditures in 1972-73.
The cost of the program in 1972-73 is summarized as follows:
Assigned Counsel in Criminal Cases $ 2,159,508.30
Assigned Counsel in Juvenile Cases 120,360.43
Total „ $ 2,279,868.73
Public Defender's Office in
12th Judicial District 110,617.53
Public Defender's Office in
18th Judicial District 119,421.26
Total 230,038.79
Transcripts, Records and Briefs 112,915.89
Expert Witness Fees 1,555.00
TOTAL $ 2,624,378.41
The table at the end of this section compares the assigned
counsel program in 1971-72 and 1972-73. The number of cases
assigned rose from 11,278 to 16,304 or 44.6% and expenditures
rose from $1,655,837 to $2,279,869 or 37.7%. Of the 16,304
assignments in 1972-73, 2,123 or 13% were in juvenile proceed-ings.
Court appearances represent only a portion of the activity
of the public defenders, but the numbers do reflect the high
level of activity in both of these offices
:
Court Appearances
12th District 18th District
District Court 644 1,221
Superior Court 454 493
Appellate Courts 14 : 58.
The total cost of providing counsel to indigents in the two
districts with public defenders was as follows: ~.
12th District 18th District
Public Defender $110,618 $119,421
Assigned Counsel 19,296 14,735
$129,914 $134,156
It is instructive to compare these costs with the cost of the
assigned counsel in other urban areas: 10th District (Wake)
$155,234; 14th District (Durham) $128,523; 21st District (For-syth)
$107,979; and 26th District (Mecklenburg) $254,207.
96
When private counsel or the public defender is assigned to
represent an indigent, the court sets the money value of services
rendered and enters judgment against the defendant for such
amount. Receipts from payments on these judgments rose from
$57,624.79 in 1971-72 to $86,104.84 in 1972-73. Receipts in 1972-
73 amounted to 3.3% of the total cost of the indigent defendant
program.
ASSIGNED COUNSEL
Cases and Expenditures
1ST DISTRICT
1971-72
Cases
1972-73
Percent
Increase 1971-72
Expenditures
Percent
1972-73 Increase
Camden
Chowan
Currituck
Dare
Gates
Pasquotank
Perquimans
8
20
9
15
9
59
10
4
26
19
3
7
51
12
(50.0)
30.0
111.1
(80.0)
(22.2)
(13.6)
20.0
2,199
3,760
820
1,570
905
6,255
1,285
650
3,149
2,637
970
535
6,110
3,804
(70.4)
(16.2)
221.6
(38.2)
(40.9)
( 2.3)
196.0
TOTAL 130 122 ( 6.2) 16,794 17,855 6.3
2ND DISTRICT
Beaufort
Hyde
Martin
Tyrrell
Washington
97
6
43
13
42
123
5
73
4
44
26.8
(16.7)
69.8
(69.2)
4.8
14,743
825
5,940
1,310
3,770
16,145
675
9,915
300
5,100
9.5
(18.2)
66.9
(77.1)
35.3
TOTAL 201 249 23.9 26,588 32,135 20.9
3RD DISTRICT
Carteret
Craven
Pamlico
Pitt
71
208
9
285
152
310
8
508
114.1
49.0
(11.1)
78.2
10,908
34,684
975
42,607
22,227
38,905
1,350
73,006
103.8
12.2
38.5
71.3
TOTAL 573 978 70.7 89,174 135,488 51.9
4TH DISTRICT
Duplin
Jones
Onslow
Sampson
90
21
166
104
121
46
384
203
34.4
119.0
131.3
95.2
12,546
2,430
17,925
15,231
14,112
4,485
45,124
21,790
12.5
84.6
151.7
43.1
TOTAL 381 754 97.9 48,132 85,511 77.7
5TH DISTRICT
New Hanover
Pender
205
14
343
40
67.3
185.7
34,370
1,775
66,837
13,915
94.5
683.9
TOTAL 219 383 74.9 36,145 80,752 123.4
6TH DISTRICT
Bertie
Halifax
Hertford
Northampton
34
108
34
41
55
154
71
33
61.8
42.6
108.8
(19.5)
4,950
10,750
3,679
6,255
4,950
13,890
6,135
5,748
29.2
66.8
( 8.1)
TOTAL 217 313 44.2 25,634 30,723 19.9
97
Cases
1971-72 1972-73
Percent
Increase
Expenditures
1971-72
TH DISTRICT
1972-73
Percent
Increase
Edgecombe 128 171 33.6 15,790 23,393 48.2
Nash 107 129 20.6 17,951 21,160 17.9
Wilson 167 206 23.4 20,234 30,530 50.9
TOTAL 402 506 25.9 53,975 75,083 39.1
XTH DISTRICT
Greene 12 37 208.3 1,860 4,860 161.3
Lenoir 93 200 115.1 12,185 29,750 144.2
Wayne 196 247 26.0 21,885 36,245 65.6
TOTAL 301 484 60.8 35,930 70,855 97.2
9TH DISTRICT
Franklin
Granville
Person
Vance
Warren
TOTAL
10TH DISTRICT
Wake
UTH DISTRICT
40
67
51
59
34
251
115
157
60
187.5
134.3
17.6
227 284.7
36 5.9
595 137.1
1,119 1,262 12.8
Harnett
Johnston
Lee
91
109
87
128
210
99
40.7
92.7
13.8
TOTAL 287 437 52.3
12TH DISTRICT
Cumberland
Hoke
37
10
54
6
45.9
(40.0)
TOTAL 47 60 27.7
13TH DISTRICT
Bladen
Brunswick
Columbus
80
34
69
83
59
171
3.8
73.5
147.8
TOTAL 183 313 71.0
UTH DISTRICT
Durham 606 802 32.3
15TH DISTRICT
Alamance
Chatham
Orange
121
46
122
287
58
188
137.2
26.1
54.1
TOTAL 289 533 84.4
16TH DISTRICT
Robeson
Scotland
223
105
211
125
( 5.4)
19.0
TOTAL 328 336 2.4
6,730
8,648
8,435
8,964
6,560
39,337
146,492
11,685
1'8,565
13,375
43,625
12,160
1,775
13,935
11,114
5,340
13,181
29,635
95,664
26,818
6,475
23,653
56,946
37,663
11,585
49,248
18,396
20,785
8,455
29,700
4,585
81,921
44,694
8,310
37,455
90,459
173.3
140.3
.2
231.3
(30.1)
108.3
155,234 6.0
16,425 40.6
32,945 77.5
16,650 24.5
66,020 51.3
17,746 45.9
1,550 (12.7)
19,296 38.5
9,820 (11.6)
6,425 20.3
23,192 76.0
39,437 33.1
128,523 34.3
66.7
28.3
58.4
58.9
40,012 6.2
19,010 64.1
59,022 19.8
98
17TH DISTRICT
1971-72
Cases
1972-73
Percent
Increase
F
1971-72
Expenditures
Percent
1972-73 Increase
Caswell
Rockingham
Stokes
Surry
TOTAL
38
149
21
88
296
39
266
45
117
467
2.6
78.5
114.3
33.0
57.8
5,927
25,184
3,875
13,425
48,411
5,235
45,107
6,127
26,885
83,354
(11.7)
79.1
58.1
100.3
72.2
18TH DISTRICT
Guilford 39 64 64.1 10,008 14,735 47.2
J9TH DISTRICT
Cabarrus
Montgomery
Randolph
Rowan
TOTAL
222
88
119
215
644
377
144
191
272
984
69.8
63.6
60.5
26.5
52.8
27,345
12,000
16,785
21,570
77,700
39,840
11,725
21,260
32,534
105,359
45.7
( 2.3)
26.7
50.8
35.6
20TH DISTRICT
Anson
Moore
Richmond
Stanly
Union
TOTAL
58
101
138
110
100
507
79
115
154
134
142
624
36.2
13.9
11.6
21.8
42.0
23.1
11,275
11,365
15,680
17,463
14,165
69,948
8,885
14,045
21,600
22,057
23,450
90,037
(21.2)
23.6
37.8
26.3
65.5
28.7
21ST DISTRICT
Forsyth 368 621 68.8 70,416 107,979 53.3
22ND DISTRICT
Alexander
Davidson
Davie
Iredell
TOTAL
47
155
34
126
362
50
262
34
183
529
6.4
69.0
45.2
46.1
5,600
32,939
4,350
22,903
65,792
4,675
33,519
4,000
23,565
65,759
(16.5)
1.8
( 8.0)
2.9
( .1)
23RD DISTRICT
Allegany
Ashe
Wilkes
Yadkin
TOTAL
7
20
83
12
122
10
5'8
70
31
169
42.9
190.0
(15.7)
158.3
38.5
1,350
3,925
10,525
2,050
17,850
1,275
6,740
13,010
3,910
24,935
( 5.6)
71.7
23.6
90.7
39.7
24TH DISTRICT
Avery
Madison
Mitchell
Watauga
Yancey
TOTAL
15
27
13
63
9
127
26
36
4
62
17
145
73.3
33.3
(69.2)
( 1.6)
88.9
14.2
1,515
2,925
1,255
5,917
1,150
12,762
3,780
5,463
675
8,029
2,867
20,814
149.5
86.8
(46.2)
35.7
149.3
63.1
25TH DISTRICT
Burke
Caldwell
Catawba
TOTAL
126
121
175
422
138
186
228
552
9.5
53.7
30.3
30.8
20,030
20,540
27,000
67,570
14,955
21,060
33,735
69,750
(25.3)
2.5
24.9
3.2
99
26TH DISTRICT
1971-72
Cases
1972-73
Percent
Increase 1971-72
Expenditures
1972-73
Percent
Increase
Mecklenburg 1,355 1,931 42.5 210,743 254,207 20.6
27TH DISTRICT
Cleveland
Gaston
Lincoln
149
264
66
179
418
110
20.1
58.3
66.7
22,810
51,852
8,480
24,458
89,941
17,436
7.2
73.5
105.6
TOTAL 479 707 47.6 83,142 131,835 58.6
28TH DISTRICT
Buncombe 616 796 29.2 64,720 75,694 17.0
29TH DISTRICT
Henderson
McDowell
Polk
Rutherford
Transylvania
74
37
13
61
25
101
92
29
110
26
36.5
148.6
123.1
80.3
4.0
10,155
4,735
2,618
7,426
3,285
11,605
11,640
3,584
13,112
3,375
14.3
145.8
37.0
76.6
2.7
TOTAL 210 358 70.5 28,219 43,316 53.5
30TH DISTRICT
Cherokee
Clay
Graham
Haywood
Jackson
Macon
Swain
57
6
59
36
21
18
70
10
7
77
27
29
10
22.8
66.7
*3a5
(25.0)
38.1
(44.4)
5,975
320
7,105
4,272
2,105
1,525
5,960
1,150
1,369
6,355
4,439
2,887
1,620
( .3)
259.4
(10.6)
3.9
37.1
6.2
TOTAL 197 230 16.8 21,302 23,780 11.6
GRAND TOTAL 11,278 16,304 44.6 $1,655,837 $2,279,868 37.7
100
TABLE I
THE COURTS COMMISSION
1973
Mr. J. Ruffin Bailey—Chmn.
Raleigh
Rep. R. Lane Brown, III
Albemarle
Rep. Laurence A. Cobb
Charlotte
Rep. Herschel S. Harkins
Asheville
Senator J. J. Harrington
Lewiston
Rep. L. Sneed High
Fayetteville
Rep. Herbert L. Hyde
Asheville
Mr. Wilbur M. Jolly
Louisburg
Senator J. Russell Kirby
Wilson
Senator H. Edward Knox
Charlotte
Dean J. D. Phillips
School of Law
University of North Carolina
Chapel Hill
Rep. H. Horton Rountree
Greenville
Senator Kenneth C. Royall, Jr.
Durham
Mr. W. Marcus Short
Greensboro
Mr. Lindsay C. Warren, Jr.
Goldsboro
Ex Officio Members:
Mr. Bert M. Montague—Director
Administrative Office of the Courts
Raleigh
Mr. C. W. Teague
North Carolina State Bar
Raleigh
Mr. Herbert H. Taylor, Jr.
North Carolina Bar Association
Tarboro
TABLE II
THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL
1973
Justice J. Frank Huskins—Chmn,
Raleigh
Mr. W. Douglas Albright
Greensboro
Mr. W. Marion Allen
Elkin
Judge Julius L. Banzet
Warrenton
Rep. David Blackwell
Reidsville
Judge David M. Brttt
Raleigh
Senator Luther J. Britt, Jr.
Lumberton
Mr. Leon Corbett
Burgaw
Judge Sam J. Ervin, III
Morganton
Mr. William C. Grdtfin, Jr.
WilHamston
Rep. Robert L. Farmer
Raleigh
Senator Lamar Gudger
Asheville
Mr. Kyle Hayes
North Wilkesboro
Judge Henry A. McKinnon, Jr.
Lumberton
Mr. W. D. Sabiston, Jr.
Carthage
Mr. Robert G. Sanders
Charlotte
Mr. Claud R. Wheatly, Jr.
Beaufort
Mr. R. Bruce White, Jr.
Deputy Attorney General of N. C.
Raleigh
Mr. Franklin E. Freeman, Jr.
Assistant Director of the
Administrative Office of the Courts
and
Executive Secretary of
Judicial Council
101
TABLE HI
Trial Judges of the General Court of Justice
District
Superior Court Division *
Judge City
Elizabeth City
Williamston
Farmville
Beulaville
Wilmington
Maple Hill
Rich Square
Tarboro
Kinston
Louisburg
Raleigh
Cary
Benson
Fayetteville
Fayetteville
Elizabethtown
Durham
Burlington
Lumberton
Yanceyville
High Point
Greensboro
Greensboro
Troy
Spencer
Southern Pines
Winston-Salem
Winston-Salem
Statesville
North Wilkesboro
Burnsville
Morganton
Charlotte
Charlotte
Charlotte
Shelby
Lincolnton
Asheville
Asheville
Hendersonville
Webster
* In districts with more than one judge, the senior resident judge is listed first.
1 Devvev W. Wells
2 Elbert S. Peel, Jr.
3 Robert D. Rouse, Jr.
4 Russell J. Lanier
5 Bradford Tillery
Joshua S. James
6 Perry Martin
7 George M. Fountain
8 Albert W. Cowper
9 Hamilton H. Hobgood
10 James H. Pou Bailey
Donald L. Smith
11 Harry E. Canaday
12 E. Maurice Braswell
Coy E. Brewer
13 Edward B. Clark
14 Clarence W. Hall
15 D. Marsh McLelland
16 Henry A. McKinnon, Jr
17 James M. Long
1'8 Walter E. Crissman
James G. Exum, Jr.
Charles T. Kivett
19 Frank M. Armstrong
Thomas W. Seay, Jr.
20 John D. MeConnell
21 Harvey A. Lupton
William Z. Wood
22 Robert A. Collier, Jr.
23 Julius A. Rousseau, Jr.
24 W. E. Anglin
25 Sam J. Ervin, III
26 Fred H. Hasty
William T. Grist
Frank W. Snepp, Jr.
27 B. T. Falls, Jr.
John R. Friday
28 W. K. McLean
Harry C. Martin
29 J. W. Jackson
30 Lacy H. Thornburg
Special Judges, Superi