Annual report of the Administrative Office of the Courts

              1CIAL DEPARTMENT
NORTH CAROLINA
ANNUAL REPORT
OF THE
IATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS
1972
THE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
ANNUAL REPORT
of the
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS
1972
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS
JUSTICE BUILDING
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
BERT M. MONTAGUE FRANK W. BULLOCK, JR.
Director Assistant Director
To The Honorable, The Chief Justice of
The Supreme Court of North Carolina
Submitted herewith is the Seventh Annual Report of the
Administrative Officer of the Courts. This Report, prepared pur-suant
to G.S. 7A-343, relates to the 1972 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 22
Superior Court Criminal Dockets 26
Criminal Cases Added and Disposed of
in the Superior Court 28
Criminal Cases Pending in the Superior Court 29
Distribution of Pending Criminal Cases
among the Counties 29
Ten Counties with Largest Criminal Dockets 29
Ten Counties with Greatest Proportion of Cases
Pending in Relation to Dispositions 30
Percent of Cases Tried in the District Court
Which Were Appealed to the
Superior Court for Trial De Novo 30
Percent of Superior Court Filings Which are
Cases Appealed from the
District Court for Trial De Novo 30
Criminal Cases Pending, Added, and
Disposed of in the Superior Court 31
Utilization of Criminal Superior Court Terms 39
The District Court Division 43
District Court Civil Dockets 43
Civil Cases Added and Disposed of
in the District Court 44
Civil Cases Pending in the District Court 44
Distribution of Pending Civil Cases
among the Counties 45
Ten Counties with Largest Civil Dockets 45
Civil Cases Pending, Added and
Disposed of in the District Court 46
District Court Criminal Dockets 54
Criminal Cases Added and Disposed of
in the District Court 55
Criminal Cases Pending in the District Court 55
Distribution of Pending Criminal Cases
among the Counties 55
Ten Counties with Largest Criminal Dockets 56
Criminal Cases Pending, Added,
and Disposed of in the District Court 57
Offenses and Conditions Alleged in Juvenile
Petitions and Number of Children
Before Court for First Time 65
Juvenile Proceedings — Adjudicatory
Hearings in the District Court 73
District Court Activity in Motor Vehicle
and Small Claim Cases 80
Days of Court Held at Each Seat
of the District Court 85
Fiscal Operations 89
Amounts of Fees, Fines and Forfeitures
Collected and Distributed 90
Representation of Indigents 94
Assigned Counsel - Cases and Expenditures 95
Tables
The Courts Commission 99
The Judicial Council : 99
Superior Court Judges 100
District Court Judges 101
District Attorneys and Assistants 103
Public Defenders and Assistants 105
Clerks of the Superior Court 106
6
FOREWORD
The court reorganization movement in North Carolina be-gan
in the mid nineteen-fifties and culminated in the adoption
of constitutional amendments in 1962 and 1965 and the enact-ment
of the "Judicial Department Act of 1965." Yet, North
Carolina's unified judicial system is still relatively young. The
year 1972 marks only the second year during which all divi-sions
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 Superior Court Division and a District Court Division. The
system is unified for purposes of jurisdiction, operation and
administration. 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 101 assistant
district attorneys, 2 public defenders and 7 assistant public de-fenders
(serving in the 12th and 18th judicial districts), 100
clerks of the superior court, approximately 520 magistrates, ap-proximately
125 juvenile counselors (serving in 13 judicial dis-tricts),
76 court reporters, and approximately 1,100 supporting
personnel (primarily assistants, deputies, secretarial and cleri-cal
personnel in the offices of clerks of the superior court)
.
The Administrative Officer of the Courts is required to
"submit an annual report on the work of the Judicial Depart-ment"
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 performance 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 eval-uations
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 thor-oughgoing
analysis of each county.
As explained in the foreword to last year's Annual Report,
most of the year-to-year comparisons in the narrative portion
of this report are based upon the 83 counties where the court
structure was constant throughout the period of comparison.
The 83 counties that have been within the system for four or
more years are referred to as "Group I" and the 17 counties,
that entered the system on December 7, 1970, are referred to
as "Group II."
As discussed at page 24 of the 1971 Annual Report, there
are a number of statistical indicators that may be used in eval-uating
court performance. There is no single barometer that
gives a weighted average of all factors. In the 1971 Annual
Report the superior and district court dockets were examined
in terms of what percent the number of cases pending at the
end of the year is of the total number of dispositions for the
year. This indicator has been given greater emphasis in this
year's report since the proportion of cases pending in relation
to dispositions suggests a measure of court congestion. The in-dicator
is calculated by dividing the cases pending by the cases
disposed of, and is called the "pending ratio."
The statistics contained herein are case flow statistics and
none are "backlog" or "delay" statistics. This report uses "cases
rending" 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 describ-ed
as "backlogged." Even if an agreed upon standard time-frame
with supporting data was available, such data could only pro-perly
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 col-lect
data on the length of time required for the disposition of
particular cases. This is a deficiency which will be corrected.
This office commissioned a special study which was conducted
during 1972 with the purpose of determining the amount of
time required to dispose of cases in the criminal division of
the Superior Court. The results of that study will be available
within the next few months. Additionally, this office is now
planning for the implementation of a revised and expanded sta-tistical
reporting system which will provide information on the
length of time it requires to dispose of cases. Both of these pro-jects
are being supported with LEAA funds administered by
the Governor's Committee on Law and Order.
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
8
time is the data stated? Cases pending, for example, are stated
as of December 31, 1972; 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 res-pect
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 sentenc-ing
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 geo-graphical
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 jus-tice
is administered to individuals.
April, 1973
1
TJ1
Q
<
i
>Q
«|
u
s
p
I
1
o
HK^
THE APPELLATE DIVISION
THE SUPREME COURT
One hundred and seventy-five opinions were filed by the
Supreme Court in 1972. Full opinions were rendered in 172 cases
and 3 opinions were per curiam. Of the total, 102 were criminal
and 73 were civil cases. Seventy-eight percent (80 opinions) of
the criminal appeals were affirmed and 4.7% (34 opinions) of the
civil appeals were affirmed. In the remaining cases, the Su-preme
Court modified the decision from which the appeal was
taken. As reported in the North Carolina Reports the court dis-posed
of 228 petitions for certiorari, 33 motions to dismiss, 6
motions to rehear, and 4 motions 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. Moore
Emergency Justices
William B. Rodman, Jr.
J. Will Pless, Jr.
11
THE COURT OF APPEALS
Seven hundred and seventy-three opinions were filed by the
Court of Appeals in 1972. Of these 773, 411 were criminal cases
and 362 were civil cases. The court determined and disposed of
341 motions and 427 petitions in 1972.
JUDGES OF THE COURT OF APPEALS
Chief Judge
Raymond B. Mallard
Associate Judges
Hugh B. Campbell Frank M. Parker
Walter E. Brock R. A. Hedrick
David M. Britt Earl W. Vaughn
Naomi E. Morris James M. Baley, Jr.
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 crimi-nal
dockets. Total filings increased by only 2.5% while disposi-tions
increased by 14.7%, resulting in an 8.3% reduction in the
number of cases pending. The number of days of court sche-duled
increased by 4.7% and was closely followed by an increase
of 3.2% in the number of days of court actually held. For all
100 counties the percentage of court utilization remained about
the same, dropping by less than 1%. Significantly, the total
number of cases pending is the lowest since court reorganiza-tion
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
this year, and that the ratio for the civil division dropped from
153.1 to 131.3. Extrapolating these ratios, it may be estimated
that it would require less than 5 months for the court to dis-pose
of its pending criminal cases and about one year and 4
months to dispose of its civil cases. The improvement over last
year is noteworthy, but these time-frames indicate that further
improvement is desirable.
TOTAL CASES ADDED AND DISPOSED OF
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
January 1, 1968 - December 31, 1972
Added oaaaBwammm Disposed of ^BEBraaBMB
1/1/68-12/31/68 I iiHiMiwiiiiiiiiiBiillii 70,115
VZZZZZZZEZEBZEBZ2ZZEEEZEZBEEEZZE2ZEZZBZL 82,879
1/1/69-12/31/69 BraHBBi 45,698
'///////////////////////////////////////A 54,148
1/1/70-12/31/70 ! — 50,590
v///;//;///;///,v///////;;//////77?, 48,259
1/1/71-12/31/71 iiMHiiiiiiiillllii ! 47,389
VBBBEZZZEZZEZEE2ZZBB& 47,214
1/1/72-12/31/72 Till! 48,542
BBBBBaBBB8Bg2BgBBBBa 51,395
I I I I I I I I I
(in thousands) 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
13
TOTAL CASES PENDING
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
December 31, 1968 - December 31, 1972
12/31/68 ^HHH^HHi^ 36,997
12/31/69 iMMffl i mi 11 miiiiii 28,631
12/31/70 mmmm———am 30,971
12/31/71 III Hill Ill ll lillB 31,146
12/31/72 mil MUM* "hhmim 28,293
I I I I I I
(in thousands) 9 18 27 36 45
UTILIZATION OF SCHEDULED COURT
January 1, 1968 - December 31, 1972
Days Scheduled Days Held Percentage
1/1/68-12/31/68 9,421 8,042 85.4
1/1/69-12/31/69 9,0611/a 7,118 78.5
1/1/70-12/31/70 8,9401/a 7,1781/2 80.3
1/1/71-12/31/71 8,792 7,2661/2 82.6
1/1/72-12/31/72 9,170 7,496 81.7
14
SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL DOCKETS
Court reorganization has had and continues to have a sig-nificant
effect on the civil dockets of the superior court, the tra-ditional
forum for the trial of civil litigation involving large
claims. In each of the past six years, dispositions have exceeded
filings and the number of cases pending at the end of the year
has shown a decrease from the prior year. These statistics are
in sharp contrast to the trend which existed prior to court re-organization.
In those years, filings continually exceeded dis-positions
and the number of pending cases was increasing an-nually.
This improvement would be more apparent than real if
it has resulted from a simple transfer of the superior court's
docket problems to the civil division of the district court. This
however, does not appear to be the case for the district court ap-pears
to be better able to keep abreast of its civil dockets than
does the superior court.
Nevertheless, it must be noted that the above is a compara-tive
analysis. Although the year to year improvement is un-deniable,
such an analysis cannot obscure the fact that there is
room for much improvement in the disposition of superior court
civil cases. As would be expected, the pending ratio for this divi-sion
is higher than for any other division of the General Court
of Justice. The 1972 ratio is 131.3, indicating that it would re-quire
approximately one year and four months for the superior
court to dispose of all cases pending. At a minimum, the num-ber
of cases pending at the end of the year should be reduced to
an amount not in excess of the year's dispositions.
As compared to 1971, civil filings increased by less than
1.0%, dispositions decreased by 5.9%, and the number pending
at the end of the year decreased by 5.8%. The number of days
of court scheduled decreased by 4.2% and the number of days
actually held decreased by 8.2%. The percentage of court utili-zation
decreased from 76.4% to 73.3% and the rate of disposi-tion
dropped from 116.7% to 108.8%.
Among all 100 counties, the 10 counties with the largest
civil dockets accounted for 48.1% of the total pending cases.
Seventy-two 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, 1968 - December 31, 1972
Added
1 1/68-12/31/68
Disposed of SHHMHHMHHIHIIIIIII
33 090
W///y/////^//////////////////////////////////////A 45,848
1/1/69-12/31/69 ON 11,880
'///////////////////////A 20,692
1/1/70-12/31/70 mmmm 13,589
'////////////////A 15,535
1/1/71-12/31/71 warn 8,251
'///////////A 10,064
1/1/72-12/31/72 mm
1 i i 1
•8,249
V///////A
! 1
8,871
(in thousands)
1
10 20
1
30 40
1
50
CIVIL CASES PENDING
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
December 31, 1968 - December 31, 1972
24,793
1Z/31/69 15,991
12/31/ fO 14,052
12/31/71 12,239
12/31/72 11,617
(in thousands)
i
i 1 1 1
8 16 24 32
1
40
IS
DISTRIBUTION OF PENDING CIVIL CASES
AMONG THE COUNTIES
Number of
Cases
Number of
Counties
1971
1972
Less than
50
50-100 101-200 201-500 Over
500
46 21 19 10 4
42 30 15 9 4
TEN COUNTIES WITH LARGEST CIVIL DOCKETS
County
Pending
1-1-72 Added Disposed of
Pending
12-31-72
of Filings
Disposed of
Mecklenburg 1,454 1,043 1,007 1,490 96.5
Wake 847 514 517 844 100.6
Guilford 587 518 412 693 79.5
Forsyth 589 486 499 576 102.7
Buncombe 437 282 312 407 110.6
Durham 427 212 265 374 125.0
Henderson 351 51 68 334 133.3
Gaston 419 230 322 327 140.0
Franklin 297 63 55 305 87.3
Cumberland 272 218 253 237 116.1
STATE MEAN 122 82 89 116 107.5
17
CIVIL CASES PENDING, ADDED, AND DISPOSED OF
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS
BY JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
January 1, 1972 — December 31, 1972
Pending Cases Cases Disposed of Pending Gain or
1/1/72 Filed Jury Judge Other rotal 12/31/72 Loss
1ST DISTRICT
1
Camden
ib 6 3 16 19 5 13
Chowan
I
9 5 9 9 18 26 — 13
Currituck 7 8 1 5 5 fy 14 — 3
Dare 35 21 2 11 7 20 36 + 1
Gates 1 9 1 1 3 4 16 — 3
Pasquotank 46 26 2 15 10 27 45 — 1
Perquimans 1 9 32 1 2 20 23 28 + 9
TOTAL 193 99 6 46 70 122 170 — 23
2ND DISTRICT
Beaufort oV 47 5 17 15 37 77 + 10
Hyde 8 5 2 2 11 + 3
Martin 28 31 7 13 9 29 30 + 2
Tyrrell z 6 1 4 5 3 + 1
Washington M 14 1 3 7 11 20 + 3
TOTAL 122 103 13 36 35 84 141 + 19
3RD DISTRICT \
Carteret 92 49 5 19 29 53 88 4
Craven 195 440 5 79 419 503 132 — 63
Pamlico 16 7 2 4 6 17 + 1
Pitt 120 78 5 51 17 73 125 + 5
TOTAL 423 574 15 151 469 635 362 — 61
4TH DISTRICT
Duplin 129 37 50 28 78 88 41
Jones 14 16 9 6 15 15 + 1
Onslow 159 75 32 49 81 153 — 6
Sampson 82 48 2 18 48 68 62 — 20
TOTAL 384 176 2 109 131 242 318 — 66
5TH DISTRICT
New Hanover 158 148 15 51 51 117 189 + 31
Pender 64 14 3 21 24 54 — 10
TOTAL 222 162 15 54 72 141 243 + 21
6TH DISTRICT
Bertie 33 16 7 12 19 30 3
Halifax 221 52 7 102 92 201 72 — 149
Hertford 35 23 3 11 14 28 30 — 5
Northampton 36 11 3 15 7 25 22 — 14
TOTAL 3 25 102 13 135 125 273 154 — 171
18
Pen ding
/72
Cases
Filed
Cases Disposed of Pending Ga
12/31/72 L
in or
1/1
7TH DISTRICT
Jury Judge Other Total OSS
Edgecombe
Nash 1
Wilson 1
TOTAL 3
22
64
44
118
68
230
2
7
4
13
21
44
25
90
24
52
53
129
47
103
82
232
19
137
150
306
+
3
15
14
2
8TH DISTRICT
Greene
Lenoir 2
Wayne 2
TOTAL 4
41
00
33
74
18
72
112
202
13
4
17
1
24
66
91
4
71
63
138
5
108
133
246
54
164
212
430
+ 13
36
21
44
9TH DISTRICT
55
25
20
51
12
163
Franklin 2
Granville
Person
Vance
Warren
TOTAL 5
97
22
73
20
63
32
29
62
11
197
11
4
1
1
17
17
8
6
11
3
45
27
13
13
40
8
101
305
55
31
91
72
554
+++
+
+
8
7
9
11
1
34
10TH DISTRICT !
Wake 847 514 19 233 265 517 844 — 3
11TH DISTRICT \
Harnett
Johnston
Lee
TOTAL
377
158
87
622
109
123
78
310
4
20
4
28
62
49
32
143
238
74
33
345
304
143
69
516
182
138
96
416
+
195
20
9
206
12TH DISTRICT 1
Cumberland
Hoke
TOTAL
272
23
295
218
4
222
15
2
17
53
53
185
14
199
253
16
269
237
11
248 —
35
12
47
13TH DISTRICT
Bladen
Brunswick
Columbus
TOTAL
22
147
123
292
12
37
44
93
3
4
4
11
7
3
41
51
10
21
22
53
20
28
67
115
14
156
100
270
+
8
9
23
22
14TH DISTRICT 1
Durham 427 212 21 12 232 265 374 — 53
15TH DISTRICT
Alamance
Chatham
Orange
TOTAL
151 116 13
48 48 2
111 180 3
310 344 18
20 86 119 148 — 3
25 17 44 52+4
11 74 88 203 + 92
56 177 251 403 + 93
19
]Pending
1/1/72
Cases
Filed
Cases Disposed of Pending Gai
12/31/72 L(
n or
16TH DISTRICT
Jury Judge Other rotal >ss
Robeson
Scotland
TOTAL
104
45
149
123
19
142
4
4
61
7
68
30
35
65
<95
42
137
132
22
154
+
+
28
23
5
17TH DISTRICT
Caswell
Rockingham
Stokes
Surry
TOTAL
37
120
27
99
283
7
91
20
113
231
17
2
12
31
2
45
7
8
62
32
44
11
64
151
34
106
20
84
244
10
105
27
128
270
+
27
15
29
13
18TH DISTRICT
Guilford—
Greensboro
High Point
TOTAL
468
119
587
406
112
518
51
13
64
129
39
168
133
47
180
313
99
412
561
132
693
+
+
+
93
13
106
19TH DISTRICT
Cabarrus
Montgomery
Randolph
Rowan
TOTAL
90
26
202
64
382
86
21
104
82
293
12
5
14
31
43
4
41
21
109
23
17
54
51
145
78
21
100
86
285
98
26
206
60
390
+
+
+
8
4
4
8
20TH DISTRICT
Anson
Moore
Richmond
Stanly
Union
TOTAL
36
87
85
21
61
290
32
60
66
31
48
237
3
1
12
4
12
32
15
36
34
3
22
110
14
11
15
20
51
111
32
48
61
27
85
253
36
99
90
25
24
274
++
+
12
5
4
37
16
21ST DISTRICT
Forsyth 589 486 55 271 173 499 576 — 13
22ND DISTRICT
Alexander 12 21 5 7 12 21 + 9
Davidson 124 117 5 49 41 95 146 + 22
Davie 33 20 2 12 14 28 25 8
Iredell 160 92 15 41 56 112 140 — 20
TOTAL 329 250 22 107 118 247 332 + 3
23RD DISTRICT
Alleghany 9742179 Ashe 11 15 7 6 13 13 + 2
Wilkes 65 81 5 19 42 66 80 + 15
Yadkin 52 58 5 15 24 44 66 + 14
TOTAL 137 161 14 43 73 130 168 + 31
20
Pending Cases Cases Disposed of Pending Gain or
1/1/^2 Filed Jury Judge Other Total 12/31/72 Loss
24TH DISTRICT \
Avery 31 16 2 4 11 17 30 — 1
Madison 17 44 1 9 25 35 26 + 9
Mitchell 23 16 1 7 17 25 14 — 9
Watauga 19 21 2 4 7 13 27 + 8
Yancey 38 13 3 39 42 9 — 29
TOTAL 128 110 6 27 99 132 106 — 22
25TH DISTRICT
Burke 106 111 50 25 37 112 105 1
Caldwell 103 82 7 115 122 63 — 40
Catawba 82 92 13 33 41 87 87 + 5
TOTAL 291 285 70 58 193 321 255 — 36
26TH DISTRICT
Mecklenburg 1,454 1,043 52 265 690 1,007 1,490 + 36
27TH DISTRICT
Cleveland 128 89 4 14 83 101 116 12
Gaston 419 230 42 131 149 322 327 — 92
Lincoln 50 38 2 23 13 38 50
TOTAL 597 357 48 168 245 461 493 — 104
28TH DISTRICT
Buncombe 437 282 22 235 55 312 407 — 30
29TH DISTRICT
Henderson 351 51 5 46 17 68 334 17
McDowell 32 20 3 3 21 27 25 — 7
Polk 19 12 2 3 5 26 + 7
Rutherford 95 58 5 47 31 83 70 — 25
Transylvania 27 8 1 12 2 15 20 — 7
TOTAL 524 149 14 110 74 198 475 — 49
30TH DISTRICT
Cherokee 21 9 1 14 15 15 6
Clay 8 4 4 1 5 7 — 1
Graham 21 6 9 3 12 15 — 6
Haywood 81 35 7 24 28 59 57 — 24
Jackson 43 44 2 13 14 29 58 + 15
Macon 83 35 11 13 7 31 87 + 4
Swain 41 32 1 10 11 62 + 21
TOTAL 298 165 21 64 77 162 301 + 3
Group I 10,671 7,032 591 2,614 4,448 7,653 10,050 _ 621
Percent 7.7 34.2 58.1 100.0
Group II 1,568 1,217 120 556 542 1,218 1,567 __ 1
Percent 9.9 45.6 44.5 100.0
GRAND
TOTAL 12,239 8,249 711 3,170 4,990 8,871 ]11,167 — 622
Percent 8.0 35.7 56.3 100.0
21
UTILIZATION OF CIVIL SUPERIOR COURT TERMS
BY JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
1972 Calendar Year
1ST DISTRICT
Days Scheduled Days Held Days Unused % Used
Camden
Chowan
Currituck
Dare
Gates
Pasquotank
Perquimans
TOTAL
5
10
10
10
19
9
63
31/2 TO
5 5
6 4
151/2 sy2
1 £
33 30
40.0
35.0
50.0
60.0
81.6
11.1
52.4
2ND DISTRICT
Beaufort
Hyde
Martin
Tyrrell
Washington
TOTAL
30
19
7
56
27 3
7 12
41/2 2y2
38i/
2 I71/2
90.0
36.8
64.3
68.8
3RD DISTRICT
Carteret
Craven
Pamlico
Pitt
TOTAL
35
33
4
30
102
20 15
2iy2 iiy2
1 3
22 8 uy2 ziy2
57.1
65.2
25.0
73.3
63.2
4TH DISTRICT
Duplin
Jones
Onslow
Sampson
TOTAL
30
10
20
13
73
26i/
2 31/2
4 6
11% 81/2
10 3
52 21
88.3
40.0
57.5
76.9
71.2
5TH DISTRICT
New Hanover
Pender
TOTAL
84
15
99
59y2
24i/
2
51/2 9i/
2
65 34
70.8
36.7
65.7
6TH DISTRICT
Bertie
Halifax
Hertford
Northampton
TOTAL
13
20
20
10
63
3i/2 91/2
14 6
11 9
5 5
33i/
2 291/2
26.9
70.0
55.0
50.0
53.2
7TH DISTRICT
Edgecombe
Nash
Wilson
TOTAL
20
44
35
99
12 8
25 19
ll!/2 23i/
2
48% 501/2
60.0
56.8
32.9
49.0
22
8TH DISTRICT
Greene
Lenoir
Wayne
TOTAL
9TH DISTRICT
Franklin
Granville
Person
Vance
Warren
TOTAL
10TH DISTRICT
Wake
11TH DISTRICT
Harnett
Johnston
Lee
TOTAL
>12TH DISTRICT
Cumberland
Hoke
TOTAL
13TH DISTRICT
Bladen
Brunswick
Columbus
TOTAL
14TH DISTRICT
Durham
15TH DISTRICT
Alamance
Chatham
Orange
TOTAL
16TH DISTRICT
Robeson
Scotland
TOTAL
17TH DISTRICT
Caswell
Rockingham
Stokes
Surry
TOTAL
Scheduled Days Held Days 1Jnused % Used
13 9 * 69.2
32 22 1 68.8
44 28 1) 63.6
89 59 30 66.3
25 24 L 96.0
20 17 3 85.0
15 6 ) 40.0
20 6 It 30.0
10 9 1 90.0
90 62 28 68.9
176
48
49
23
120
57
5
15
20
44
79
45
19
30
94
40
16
56
55
5
25
91
128i/
2
40
21
93
44
4
48
11
11
26
48
50
35
10%
27
72%
31
6
37
2
35%
4
14
55%
47%
18
31
73.0
83.3
65.3
91.3
77.5
77.2
80.0
77.4
73.3
55.0
59.1
60.8
84.7
77.8
55.3
90.0
77.1
77.5
37.5
66.1
33.3
64.5
80.0
56.0
61.0
23
18TH DISTRICT
Guilford
Days Scheduled Days Held
231 1751/2
Used
76.0
19TH DISTRICT
Cabarrus
Montgomery
Randolph
Rowan
TOTAL
20TH DISTRICT
Anson
Moore
Richmond
Stanly
Union
TOTAL
10
79
43
191
20
15
25
10
24
94
25i/
2
5
531/2
20
104
91/2
71/2
141/2
5
22
58i/
2
87
43.2
50.0
67.7
46.5
54.5
47.5
50.0
58.0
50.0
91.7
62.2
21ST DISTRICT
Forsyth
22ND DISTRICT
197 134 68.0
Alexander
Davidson
Davie
Iredell
TOTAL
2
83
10
43
138
2
541/2
71/2
351/2
99i/
2
28i/
2
2V2
VA
38i/
2
100.0
65.7
75.0
82.6
72.1
23RD DISTRICT
Alleghany
Ashe
Wilkes
Yadkin
TOTAL
7
6
45
13
71
5
41/2
39
IOI/2
59
2
V/2
6
21/2
12
71.4
75.0
86.7
80.8
83.1
24TH DISTRICT
;.:.
Avery
Madison
Mitchell
Watauga
Yancey
TOTAL
10
15
10
10
12
57
81/2
9i/
2
3
8
6V2
35i/
2
11/2
51/2
7
2
51/2
211/2
85.0
63.3
30.0
80.0
54.2
62.3
25TH DISTRICT
Burke
Caldwell
Catawba
TOTAL
44
35
24
103
351/2
26
151/2
77
31/2
9
81/2
26
80.7
74.3
64.6
74.8
26TH DISTRICT
Mecklenburg 391 363 28 92.8
24
27TH DISTRICT
Cleveland
Gaston
Lincoln
TOTAL
28TH DISTRICT
Buncombe
29TH DISTRICT
Henderson
McDowell
Polk
Rutherford
Transylvania
TOTAL
30TH DISTRICT
Cherokee
Clay
Graham
Haywood
Jackson
Macon
Swain
TOTAL
Group I
Group II
GRAND TOTAL
Days Scheduled Days Held Days Unused
40
1051/2
5
1501/2
209
331/2
921/2
4
130
186
20 13
10 5
30 231/2
15 6
114 75i/2
4 3
3 3
10 6
44 36
7 6
201/2 20
88i/2 74
2,806 2,056
700 504
3,506 2,560
Used
83.8
87.7
80.0
86.4
89.0
71.8
65.0
50.0
78.3
40.0
66.2
75.0
100.0
60.0
81.8
85.7
97.6
83.6
73.3
72.0
73.0
25
SUPERIOR COURT CRIMINAL DOCKETS
Nineteen hundred and seventy-two was a very good year
for the criminal division of the superior court. Every available
measure indicates marked improvement over performance of the
last few years. Filings increased by only 2.8%, whereas in each
of the last three years they had increased by 10% or more. Dis-positions
increased significantly by 20.5%, whereas the highest
increase in recent years had been less than 10%. Moreover, the
number of cases pending at the end of the year decreased by
9.9% compared to increases of 32.3% in 1970 and 28.3% in
1971. The number of days of court scheduled increased by 10.7%
and the number of days held increased by 9.8%. The percentage
of court utilization remained about the same, decreasing by less
than 1%. The rate of disposition (the percentage of filings
which were disposed of) exceeded 100% for the first time since
1965. The rate of disposition for 1972 was 104.7%, up from
89.8% in 1970 and 89.3% in 1971. Finally, the pending ratio
dropped from 50.9 to 40.5.
What accounts for this marked improvement? Many fac-tors
are probably involved, but several deserve mention. The
small increase in the number of filings is an obvious factor, and
this was caused primarily by a reduction in the number of mis-demeanor
cases being appealed from the district court for trial
de novo in the superior court. The number of these cases ac-tually
dropped by 4.1% while felony filings within the original
jurisdiction of the superior court rose by 10.4%. Equally ob-vious
is the fact that 30 additional assistant district attorneys
authorized by the 1971 General Assembly were at work through-out
the year. Also, the increased number of days of court held
in 1972 undoubtedly contributed to the increased dispositions.
Less obviously, the publicity given to the mounting caseloads of
this division may have engendered a greater awareness of the
problem among court officials and members of the bar and af-fected
greater diligence in finding solutions.
The impact of district court appeals on superior court doc-kets
has been recognized for some time and has been a topic of
discussion at meetings of various court officials. The tables
which appear on page 30 indicate that the relationship between
the two divisions may be viewed in terms of the percentage of
criminal cases tried in the district court which are appealed to
the superior court and the percentage of total superior court
filings which are cases appealed from the district court for trial
de novo.
It is evident that any minor change in appeal rates from the
district court (a high volume court) will have significant im-pact
upon the superior court (a low volume court). Using the
1972 statistics as an indicator, it is possible to project the im-pact
upon the superior court of any increase in the number of
26
cases appealed from the district court for trial de novo. An in-crease
of 1% in the number of cases appealed from the district
court would add 3,782 cases to superior court criminal filings,
an increase of almost 10%. This ratio between an increase in
cases appealed from the district court and the consequent in-crease
in superior court filings is one to ten. Therefore, if cases
appealed from the district court increased by 5%, superior court
filings would increase by 50% ; if cases appealed from the dis-trict
court increased by 10%, the caseload of the superior court
would increase by 100%.
The above analysis reveals the delicate balance that must be
achieved if the system is to perform effectively. An examina-tion
of appeal statistics since the district court was established
is revealing and especially encouraging for the future. The sta-tistics
clearly 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.
Apparently, after a period of adjustment and experience by
the courts, district attorneys and the defense bar, a balance is
reached and the appeal rate diminishes. For Group I counties,
the percentage of superior court filings which were appeals has
dropped from 57.4% (1970), to 52.1% (1971), to 48.6% (1972);
and the percent of district court cases which were appealed has
remained just below 5% for the same period. This trend is
aptly demonstrated by looking at the 1972 statistics in terms
of the number of years that the district court has been operat-ing
in the counties: for those 22 counties where the district
court has been in operation for six full years the appeal rate
from the district court is 4.5% and appeals are 44.6% of super-ior
court filings; for the 61 counties in the system for four
years the figures are 5.0% and 49.6% ; and for those 17 coun-ties
which entered the system in December of 1970, the figures
are 9.1% and 67.0%. It therefore seems reasonable to project
that the percentages for the counties that entered the system
in December of 1968 and 1970 will decrease to percentages com-parable
to those for the counties where the district court has
operated for more than six years.
The above analysis is based upon totals for groups of coun-ties,
but the percentages in fact vary widely from county to
county. In some counties the percentage of cases being appeal-ed
is in excess of 20% and misdemeanor cases constitute more
than 70% of superior court filings.
Among all 100 counties, the 10 counties with the largest cri-minal
dockets accounted for 41.7% of the total cases pending
at the end of the year. Fifty-one counties had 100 or fewer
cases pending at the end of the year, and only 7 counties had
more than 500 cases pending. In 1971, 11 counties had more
than 500 cases pending.
27
In the order named, Wake, Guilford, Mecklenburg, Forsyth
and Cumberland had the largest number of cases filed in 1972.
Among the counties that exceeded the statewide average for
filings, the following counties had the largest percentage in-creases
in filings between 1971 and 1972: Stanly (71.2%), Car-teret
(65.0%), Columbus (65.0%), Catawba (51.1%), and Vance
(45.3%).
Wake County disposed of the most cases in 1972, followed
in order by Mecklenburg, Guilford, Forsyth, and New Hanover.
Among the counties that exceeded the statewide average for dis-positions,
the following counties made the most significant in-creases
over 1971: Stanly (222.7%), Orange (210.4%), Bun-combe
(92.4%), Union (51.8%), and New Hanover (50.6%).
The highest number of jury trials, 326, was held in Wake
in 1972 ; Mecklenburg held 324, Guilford held 175, Durham held
167, and Cumberland held 155. As would be expected, Mecklen-burg
led the State in the number of days of criminal court held
(444), followed by Wake (367), Guilford (211), Buncombe (191),
and Cumberland (188).
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 1972 is 40.5, suggesting that it
would require about 5 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. A new table ap-pears
at page 30 and it lists the 10 counties with the highest
pending ratios.
CRIMINAL CASES ADDED AND DISPOSED OF
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
January 1, 1968 - December 31, 1972
Added BBHHDI Disposed of mmmzmM*
1/1/68-12/31/68 wiiiimiiiiimimi mil mini 37,095
mmEE^EE^mszzzmzzBZBBm 37,031
1/1/69-12/31/69 mi milMil ill mihiiw 33,818
wamBsm^mBZEma^amk 33,456
1/1/70-12/31/70 wmmil !I «im! 37,001
wzBmzmmzzBZBZBmzEBm 32,724
1/1/71-12/31/71 —ami i iiimiiii in m 39,138
mZZBBMZSZEm^EEBMBZZZBmi 37,150
1/1/72-12/31/72 —^^^1^—
—
40,293
VEZZZZEZBEEZ&Z22Z2ZZSZZEZZBZZE&2ZZZZZBZZ& 42,524
(in thousands) 10 20 30
28
i
CRIMINAL CASES PENDING
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
December 31, 1968 - December 31, 1972
12/31/68 HHHHBHB
12/31/69
12/31/70
12/31/71
12/31/72
(in thousands)
12,204
12,640
16,919
18,907
16,676
12 16 20
DISTRIBUTION OF PENDING CRIMINAL CASES
AMONG THE COUNTIES
Number of
Cases
Number of
Counties
1971
1972
Less than
50
50-100 101-200 201-500 Over
500
28 26 18 17 11
28 23 27 15 7
TEN COUNTIES WITH LARGEST CRIMINAL DOCKETS
County
Pending
1-1-72 Added Disposed of
Pending
12-31-72
Wake 1,544 2,406 2,439 1,511
Alamance 633 735 605 763
Forsyth 846 1,647 1,773 720
Mecklenburg 875 2,155 2,354 676
Pitt 467 1,068 864 671
Gaston 447 964 819 592
Guilford 602 2,280 2,321 561
New Hanover 881 1,369 1,761 489
Rowan 575 683 770 488
Cumberland 363 1,608 1,485 486
STATE MEAN 189 403 425 167
Percent
of Filings
Disposed of
101.4
82.3
107.7
109.2
80.9
85.0
101.8
128.6
112.7
92.4
105.5
29
TEN COUNTIES WITH GREATEST PROPORTION OF
CASES PENDING IN RELATION TO DISPOSITIONS1
Disposed of
in 1972
Pending
12/31/72 Ratio
Alamance 605 763 126.1
Union 460 475 103.3
Johnston 288 262 91.0
Pitt 864 671 77.7
Carteret 458 349 76.2
Gaston 819 592 72.3
Brunswick 258 176 68.2
Lee 278 188 67.6
Rowan 770 488 63.4
Wake 2,439 1,511 62.0
STATE MEAN 425 167 39.2
1—Excluding counties with less than the statewide average of 167 cases pending on
December 31, 1972.
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 378,284
(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 20,899
Percent of cases tried in the District Court which were
appealed to the Superior Court for trial de novo 5.52%
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 19,394
Total number of cases filed in Superior Court upon appeal
from District Court for trial de novo 20,899
Total number of cases filed in Superior Court 40,293
Percent of Superior Court Filings consisting of cases
appealed from District Court for trial de novo 51.9%
30
Oi <N LO LO rH CO (N t" HC0HC5HH C©
o +|+|+++|
LOO CD O COpH
+ 1+ I I
fl»2 CO CO 00 t>CN CD t> co
g V. CO CD LO LO CO rH <n 05
*3
CO
<oN Tf CTIOO W t-^cogj
p
w
CO o
CO HU
i
* Q
J5
2
Q
EOh
CQ W
CQ
rS
H
is
CM
CO
u
I
CM
a ^Si8 S? uu uu ^ ?| S CN CN CN ©
i-l O CO rH CD Tj< CO l> (NHOlNOHh
rH rH CO
CDCDCOCDiH|>t*«0
rH o CO CD CN LO CN CM
t^LOCDCDt>OOOOi
rHrHCO CNrH,H
_C0 00O ;
M CC
-t oo oa cd o •» Lft
OOC-i
to
l>COCNO0CO ^rHCO iH
3 LO rH OS tH cN O rH ©
3 co cd t> lo 10 cn rf eo
4) rH rH CN t*
a
I-Eh
1
CO
8 d
-a s.-a ffl «al^
fl £ t! 2 S °^ ^H
OOOQOChChH
31
CO CD 00 CO t> b«
oococ^qopio
CDlO^t>CDC0
CDrH"tf cNLO
CDI>CDCNCDt*
Tf rH CD rH Tf 00
r-^ CN
rH Tt 00 T}< LO CN
|> rH rHrH
00 l> Tf< CO Tfl CD
t>CDCDO^ W
CO * COg|
rHrH 00 COO'
LOCN05CNTt<i
t^ CO COO CO CD
_© iH CD rH ^ gl
I
"ONE ££
£ 5
oa
*
• 5 •a o
* E
1 1
o
4-> g
I
1a
-a 4)
i—
<
1 1a
s CO
i C
9 5
!a
G
5 1
< <
O COC£>Tf t^
CD(N ©"*
rH (Nil
+ |+++
<N(N lOOO iH
+++ | +
<n*oi*
CT>rH|*.
co co
l+l
t-HTfCOH
I++++
UN
C P OS CDt- r-ICO
COCN ©*!
oot>woO
^.-©.Ogj
©£•© C0tf5t> 00 CO
rHlOCOCO'
73
*j ^3 oo©
e of
Tf rHCOiOeO
v <NCD<N<NC0
j= CN(N CO00 w
o o
0
0>
(A
OA
COr}< rH CDT»<
.3
Q 3 (NCO ^ ©
ca E
V
3
w
y-t^axnao
fc
coos ©j*
cn
2
-**©r}<<N©
©CNOi-ieo
rH lOCO©
r-n-it>co£J
CO Tj< ^ CO ^
iH (Nt-H
i-l (NHlO
© WCOCO^J
rH OCD00
^hcoos
t>rHO>
oo io^
CD t*
CO©<0 © o
TtCOtN © 1H
a>rHcocDe*i
CO©©CT>CD
(Nt-h \a
TflOCOOW
(NHCCIWN
CNWCDCOCO
COIOIOCOI^
rH<NrHrHCP
73 s
i
Is
00 CD O 00 <N
COtfiCDt^
LOIO ©1-H
COOCNOOTf
r-ICN COt^
^(M 00 00 CM
00 CO <N coco
COCO CD"*
©©rHf-tp
OOrfCNCDN
(NCO Tf *H
OUChChH
CD <N Cft tT i-l ©CO (N CD CO
CM lOCN©
o©ooo>eo
COrHOXNt-rH
(NrHlfl
CD CO t-H lOI
t^r-ICOCOl
COICOOO©
CO 00©»H
0*
C7iCO(N
cot*-
CO
QbOt»h
Tt< i-i CD ©T-l©
tMint*
m
|1S
£ChH
CDOi rHCftCD
CNrH «3
NONHW CO CD ^coF-
©(NCO 00'
COCOIO©'
CNlOCOCO'^'
g
,*SS t
9 *£%<
"-S !tn 5- *» Lrf
a) rt a og
o
18 8
S 1
i*
f n1
1
il
a •
§• i
32
os^cot-i-
l iH
I l+l
rH©O>00
tH i-H
+ 1 I I
OS H 00 f- »H ^ CN^CO HO
1 1 1 l + l
IS
*2
rH i-l eo ^HCOIO
00 00 00'
CD lO CO i
COiOCDl
COOiCOl
OS CD 00'
cot-t*
00 t-h CO CD CN i>OHinioo
CO CO CO ^ »-t co
CN
lOOt- CO
OSCDCNt- ih co oo un co eo t-r-
1 00 OS OS lfl(NHO^t CO
CNCNU9 t-htH^hcN CD 00
CD CO CO CN
i>osi-hS lO i-l i-l 00
i-KNTfOO CO^t-ot>
t>coo<
CN iH H CN i-l I
oscDi>e>3 oooooco
THf-t-CD t«- © i-l 00 W iH HH(NH f-
OS T}< tJ< t—
«>^Cd3«
iHrf CO 00
CO t— OS OS
iHrHCNIO
t^OSOOtH
OCDOOCO
i-l lO CD CO
OS CD CD iH
COtNiHOO
tNCOW
irit>cocDt>oo
t* CD t> t* CO OS COCNCN^wrp
00t-£-COTt<
r-* CN
<N
£ s
fl
t:
3 8
00OHI
i-HTf OS'
CMCNCOi
WCOCN©
CD^f t>00
COCO t*
coooscm
coi-iino
<NT^t*
t£tJ<COCN<
CN»-liHrH
a
1 H
iili *-> H >*;
feOpt,
9C1C1co
ill
1*
3 I
3 5
M
S
t/i
3a 9o
a j
o
© in CM Op
CO<N 00
bX) CM
- CO
CO <N 00 CO ©cdoo w HINHlfl
—
oH
Tf 00 00©
Tf 00 I> rH
CM <N CM 00
si
HC5 00 00 (HMHOHOPC5O
©CMt-©
OlTf CO©
i-i i-i CO
CO t> CO CO
CO CO coo
CO © Tf CMrH©
+ 1 +
©CO©
00 Tf CM
Tf IC
<NLOt>
00 00
©t>©
in w
m oo co
in co ©
MOON i-h ©t>
+ I++
T©f CDO O t> IOCS
i"H(NCOt>
m©©©
+ 111
CO 1—I CM O coot- CO
t> rH rH O
»nt>t>© © © ©?D
CDcNOOt^
t> IO CO 00
55 ^ cm co cohcdh
CO CM 00 CO I> IO© rHO
lO CM rH© t^ ©©CM©
rH CM CO m «H CMW
CM ©CMTf COCM©U3
Tf CO IO CM
LOCO © 00 ©rH 00©
CM Tf CM 00
CO©Tf CO rH©T> CM
rH CM rH lO
©Tf COt> HHC0
CM t>©m
Tf CO 00©
00O1©
©COTf
CD rH 1>
IO LO©
I©> l>W rH
COl>©
CO lO ©
10 in
co cm in
CD©CM
CO Tf
J>CO © ©
oomrH-m
rHCMTf «
© Tf rHrH 00H1OW
rHCMTf
rHCJiOOOO
©CO CD©
rH rHi-HTf
00©'
lO CM©©
COCO rH 00
L>CMlOTf
t>rHTf CM HCOHCD
inrH ©
o*
t
» 5o
CM OOrHLnTf rHO©CM T3 ©
CM CMrHinOO
IO
g
£
•c c
in CO©©© *>
co co in ih .52 Tj
CO ©rHioeo •o O
Eh o
i
En
3
gltg
Eh
GO
CO
•* L - si j S
«eJs S
34
Eh
1
a s
£ n
d B J
< <
8 w
00 COM
oo oo
l+l
©©©<NM COlOrf l> ©
+++++
MC5H
r-t <N^
1 1 1
MM
IS
*2
t>co©
COt>lH
iH M
00 T* 00Tt*"St COCOO^ lO
rH r-l rH -^ £3S
3
g
, lO^Oi OCOO^N
1,814
507
1><N© HCDHCON 2,321
r-T
o
h
o
co©co
t>©eo
rH CSI
rH©T|<©©
Tj<rH rH 00©
cn eo
rHIO©
©00 00
00 rH©
•d s
to o
s
to
i
£
©©© COOOtH
TfrH©
©rH©rH00
IXNlOrHlO 885 275
1,160
>>
©tj<©
rH iH
©©©"*© •^ ^ ^ CO
oot>w
rH rH
Tf 00 CO
co ^r
+ 1 I
©©c©o moo© ooooo
CO r-i<N TfrH
rH <N t- O © HTf O0t>rH
rH<N Tt<|>©
rH C<f
lOI>xt<CDM 00©©COCi
rf CNCO©
i-H> lO LO00
CO lO CO 00 ©
lOrH (NCO00
IO00 00©© ©rHTf rfrH
CN
©CO©©©
IO CO U0 rHTf Ht»H^^t
©©© 00t>«3
COHlfl
00©00
CO©<N
<N CO
iOJ>Cn
spa
©CO rH ©CH0N1O
OO^OOCNN
cooo©r>©
(N00©
£S8
rH <N
o©i>
(NtNrHCOOO lOrH©
©CO 00 00© ©rH©
i—1 C— NH U0(NQ0
©COM
«5g
t>Tj«rHC0 U3 ©CO© 00 |> IXNTtCDrH
©©0©0©©rTHf ©© (NCO©
i>ooio©©
t> ^ 00 CD t>
©rH<MC0"tf
Tf<rHrHlCrH
COrH©t>Cq
C- rH CN LO ©
O
t
£ -o
£s Eh h
o O O
N»H >»N -N
P 9 05
bs Eh
g
El
CO CO CO
*-H *N
CO
*1
Robeson Scotland
TOTAL
Caswell
Rocking]
Stokes
Surry
TOTAL
00
P a
III
fSSg
I
4>
1§ a co U^KKH
< <
35
a i
1-1 co oo '"t t> co
ICOO lOOCOO
i-l t—I Ud
MINI I I l+l I
Mm
£>
ft, M
CO t> lO OOlOOO
t>00COWt^N
CNi-l"* ©
CN tfit>COt*
i-l <N»0
CO OS CN"*** i-H HU5INO
OOHxf CDOOS
CO OS OS CN C£) CO
co co co to rj< cn
esf
<N CO 00 <N r*< fN coot^coooo
i-l <N t-I CN CN OS
cooo wooioos
cocooirf ihoo HHHCOtNO
CO I> i-H CO i-H 00 TfHW^ Tf CO
t>OOCO<NCOCO
T-tocomtNco
CN CO CO *f *f t~
CO "tf i-H C- CO tH
LO 00 t> CO CO l-H
l-H rH i-W CN 00
H^fimoow
CO CN CO 00 OS CN HHHNHOS
. Tf O CO CN CN iH
CN l> Oi CO i-l CO
cn 1-t cs co in io
i M-i
m P i
<£Kw2H
g
3
Io
to^Thj<oCOolOwCN CN00CNON
COCNOOi^
OOOCOrHtO
iHCN C0t»
OO^CNCOt*
csocotji t»
lOi-ICOCO
COOOTfCO^
CNi-lTf OS
IXNCNiOCO
oj co os co oo Ht>HQ0O5
OOOCOOOCN
rHcNi-HtMOO
CN CN^
i>^cot-2
oHoIcOoHtC>OoW©
CNI>i-<C0C0
COt)<00I>JO
CN COt*
tJ o
II IIS
CMCNIOCOU5
COCOCNOSrH
CO U5
T^COcqiOt* IHOS^W
iH <N
i-igscqioi
cqcoo^!
co *ft
oC
4>
OSCO i-iCOOS
-^co40^
E
O Uo
> <H o
OHCOt^H c
i-IU5lOCOiP V I
i-i tN -0 o
« +J
s
u 1w
OS CHNi0n0wOSe0o0 3 s
iH <N
1o
CD
5
o
a
t £
osoocotj*^ i «
Shi-<CO<NW 3 •d
IH 3 o
ft
a to
i o
l-H
(0 a
0>
Pt *e
&
§ £
3 §
36
i-l <N CO t* t* ^*
COr-liH i-4»H
jl
»'3
I+I++I
^tf" 00 t*- ©
CO CO CO CO
++++
HlflHM
cs^odi
l+l +
2S
ocnt>ot>£5
CN «£> H © rH 00
i-HD CO i mcO©' lOfNOOJrt
Tf CT>O0CV|
cooocoint>©
OOCOOOOfH© m CD r-l Tji i-l ©
©<M©©t*iH
© CO CO i—I © Ift
tHtHi-I to
NOOffiHi
00 rH COOt*'
« ©©CO©<N©
ti "* CO r-t CO CO fH
O N
3
fa
Bis
<N^I>©©tN
^tt>rHCNCOO>
»Ht^05DCO«*
-rwio ©
©©CO©
<NC0C*
i-lt"-t»l«
©rHl>C©
HO00 05 © WCN©
rHTj< ©
ss
co cow
TtCOTH
©CO.©
in ""
00^
t^oocst- ©cowoo
iHcom
CWOH©0W0iNH rHCS^QO
~s§i
s
CO
m Oir-im
CDrHlQCO
co oo cow
co^©£ CMint*^
ihco m
CO t* ©©
oo co m n
i-lCOCNt*
OiCOCN
in<N<N
cNooor*
t>COI>00
CNtXNiH
rHinr-100
©t>©eN
<£>«<# 00©
rH-^rHOO
O
>oc
oo
§ ^
©^
rH
(0
5
o s > c*.
©
a -4->
S3 « 3 ©
1-4
o
CO *->
5 i
(H E
m 5 t3
8
3O
6
E
00 I5
i
T3 m S •
0)
5
O
a
Ej
fl
1 ST.
C
^* fl
(0
0) a *»
I 9
a
o 0)
CO V)
0) I
J3
S
w
CO CO
CJ
O _, p«
9 <
3
PQ r4 CN
.5 o
5
J
CO NHIfi
1+ I+++
COOH(NI>COOON
8 |
+ I I I l+l I I I
cu~
MN00OH00
CO CM (NOW© rH i—I CO
^rH CO iH (NNMM
Tf Tf CO i-l iH CO
lO CM Tt« rH C5 CM
tH<N CM t»
CiCOCO WOCO
CO O rH [* T}< rH
CO
00 00 CM t> 00 CO
rf <DNOH©
rH CM
t>C0lOO5C0b-iHCO
CMCO"**
OI>O00CMC0
73 — loiococoogo
3 rHCM (NHt*
oH
O 00 CO CM y-4 rt*
CM CM CM CM l> «D
tHi-I tH "«*
OCOOC(ONOHrHH«OHS
rH rH CO
rH oi mcoooo
Da oo co i>cm©
CO
£ o
2
k£i
S© t> OS T* iO rt< rH *D cOrHiocnomi>co
rH NH l>
$ rH © rH [> f- O CO OCCHNN
rH CM
rHtoOOOCDCDCiO
OJrHlOOOlOCOCO^
rH ''V
t> O rH CO CM rH CO £ rH rH CO
Oi l> CO CM CO rH O <<*
TtrHlOlOO5iO00rH
rH CM t*
CM CO I> CO CO CO© 1 O "tf rHO0CMt>
t> O rH CJ lO CO Ci 00
"<* rHCOrHCMrH«C
i-i CM
CO O lO Oi rH CO O rH
CO rH CO lO CO CM CM rH
rH CO
•73
1 p § § s§
rCr2 §« ^^ ^O
38
CO O rH o "* O
£.S jfeS |8 H r»rH C^rH
CO
&P SI
Sri So «
o
O ©CO
co _:
co
«© S*a £5co ^ ^ g^
C0t}h S"5 Nq
Is 8^ cm©
i
0
<o© i>o coo
Stoo COrH 5* t*rH p©rH
—1
!
CO <*
O>oa
8
rHTf COO ^rH s
C0.J
c^oC«O> 25 CO •0
3o
WO -^O ©©
§od §i> 2h R,^ S«o ^io
«o ih r^
00 CM O
lO CO ©
CO
>-<^ HH Q
Z §
3p <y a§
O f-i O U
1j U <b O
OCl, OCh oo.
S I
1 5 o
o
+> ao
•I
£
1 T5
0>
1 a.
B <a
I o
rt 5
1 1 s 8
§ 8
to
i
CO «
o o
< 5
UTILIZATION OF CRIMINAL SUPERIOR COURT TERMS
BY JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
1ST DISTRICT
Camden
Chowan
Currituck
Dare
Gates
Pasquotank
Perquimans
TOTAL
2ND DISTRICT
Beaufort
Hyde
Martin
Tyrrell
Washington
TOTAL
3RD DISTRICT
Carteret
Craven
Pamlico
Pitt
TOTAL
4TH DISTRICT
Duplin
Jones
Onslow
Sampson
TOTAL
5TH DISTRICT
New Hanover
Pender
TOTAL
6TH DISTRICT
Bertie
Halifax
Hertford
Northampton
TOTAL
7TH DISTRICT
Edgecombe
Nash
Wilson
TOTAL
1972 Calendar Year
Days Scheduled Days Held Days Unused
9 5
29 26
15 ioy2
53 43
15 7
40 32i/
2
15 11
176 135
59 55
10 ey2
20 17
10 3V2
17 13y2
116 951/2
50 431/2
89 83
11 5
109 97i/
2
259 229
40 251/2
9 2
83 77
45 39
177 1431/2
190 1671/2
60 52
250 2191/2
20 17
30 271/2
20 I61/2
20 13
90 74
40 30
46 391/2
70 67
156 13614
221/2
8
% Used
55.6
89.7
70.0
81.1
46.7
81.3
73.3
76.7
93.2
65.0
85.0
35.0
79.4
82.3
87.0
93.3
45.5
89.4
88.4
63.8
22.2
92.8
86.7
81.1
88.2
86.7
87.8
85.0
91.7
82.5
65.0
82.2
75.0
85.9
95.7
87.5
39
Days Scheduled Days Held Days Unused % Used
STH DISTRICT
1
Greene 19 151/2 31/2 81.6
Lenoir 75 66i/
2
8I/2 88.7
Wayne 90 77i/
2
12i/
2 86.1
TOTAL 184 1591/2 24i/
2 86.7
9TH DISTRICT
Franklin 29 28 1 96.6
Granville 20 18% 1 V2 92.5
Person 35 31 4 88.6
Vance 28 25 89.3
Warren 19 16 84.2
TOTAL 131 118i/
2 121/2 90.5
10TH DISTRICT
Wake 402 366i/
2 35y2 91.2
11TH DISTRICT
Harnett
Johnston
Lee
TOTAL
45
53
39
137
3914
471/2
36i/
2
1231/2
5i/
2
51/2
2i/
2
131/2
87.8
89.6
93.6
90.1
12TH DISTRICT
Cumberland
Hoke
TOTAL
218
40
258
188
36
224
30
4
34
86.2
90.0
86.8
13TH DISTRICT
Bladen
Brunswick
Columbus
TOTAL
20
20
42
82
171/2
I6I/2
35
69
21/2
31/2
7
13
87.5
82.5
83.3
84.1
14TH DISTRICT
Durham 180 1751/2 4i/
2 97.5
J5TH DISTRICT
Alamance
Chatham
Orange
TOTAL
77
26
73
176
78i/
2
25
65
I681/2
1
8
9
101.9
96.2
89.0
95.7
16TH DISTRICT
Robeson
Scotland
TOTAL
109
29
138
99
28
127
10
J
90.8
96.6
92.0
17TH DISTRICT
Caswell
Rockingham
Stokes
Surry
TOTAL
18
68
15
45
146
17
6II/2
HV2
31
121
1
61/2
31/2
14
25
94.4
90.4
76.7
68.9
82.9
40
18TH DISTRICT
Days Scheduled Days Held Days Unused % Used
Guilford 252 2101/2 411/2 83.5
19TH DISTRICT
Cabarrus
Montgomery
Randolph
Rowan
TOTAL
70
19
68
59
216
54
14
54
45
167
16
14
14
77.1
73.7
79.4
76.3
77.3
20TH DISTRICT /
Anson
Moore
Richmond
Stanly
Union
TOTAL
35
34
37
48
45
199
29
31
321/2
42
41
1751/2
6
3
41/2
6
4
23i/
2
82.9
91.2
87.8
87.5
91.1
88.2
21ST DISTRICT
Forsyth
22ND DISTRICT
Alexander
Davidson
Davie
Iredell
TOTAL
23RD DISTRICT
Alleghany
Ashe
Wilkes
Yadkin
TOTAL
24TH DISTRICT
Avery
Madison
Mitchell
Watauga
Yancey
TOTAL
25TH DISTRICT
Burke
Caldwell
Catawba
TOTAL
26TH DISTRICT
Mecklenburg
205 182
18 151/2
70 6iy*
20 161/2
73 681/2
181 162
13 91/2
17 12
40 37
20 15
90 73i/
2
10 9
25 191/2
8 7
15 14
11 7
69 56i/
2
67 58
59 53
103 88
229 199
23
2%
81/2
31/2
41/2
19
1
51/2
1
1
4
I21/2
458 444
30
14
88.8
86.1
87.9
82.5
93.8
89.5
73.1
70.6
92.5
75.0
81.7
90.0
78.0
87.5
93.3
63.6
81.9
86.6
89.8
85.4
86.9
96.9
41
27TH DISTRICT
Days Scheduled Days Held Days Unused % Used
Cleveland
Gaston
Lincoln
TOTAL
28TH DISTRICT
Buncombe
29TH DISTRICT
1441/2
28
23614
219
60
124
241/2
2O814
191
2oy2
28
28
93.8
85.8
87.5
88.2
87.2
Henderson 25 18 7 72.0
McDowell 39 35 4 89.7
Polk 5 31/2 iy2 70.0
Rutherford 45 36i/
2 81/2 81.1
Transylvania 15 11 4 73.3
TOTAL 129 104 25 80.6
30TH DISTRICT
Cherokee 15 9 6 60.0
Clay 7 iy2 51/2 21.4
Graham 9 4 5 44.4
Haywood 23 19 4 82.6
Jackson 49 32 17 65.3
Macon 9y2 6 m 63.2
Swain 10 5 50.0
TOTAL 1221/2 76i/
2 62.4
Group I 4,812 4,2211/2 592 87.7
Group II 852 7141/2 1371/2 83.9
GRAND TOTAL 5,664 4,936 7291/2 87.1
42
THE DISTRICT COURT DIVISION
The district court system has now been operational in all
100 counties for a full two year period. It has operated in 83
counties for 4 years and in 22 counties for 6 years. All of the
statistical measures continue to be encouraging about the per-formance
of this high-volume trial division. Although both civil
and criminal filings increased, there was a corresponding in-crease
in dispositions. The total of civil and criminal cases pend-ing
at the end of the year decreased (civil cases pending decreas-ed
by 9.4% while criminal cases pending increased by 2.6%).
The ratios between cases pending at the end of the year and dis-positions
for the year are especially encouraging. The ratio for
criminal cases is 8.5; the ratio for civil cases is 28.3. In other
words, it would require about one month for the district court to
dispose of its criminal docket and about three and one-half
months to dispose of its civil docket.
^^There was a significant reduction in the number of days of
court held in this division in 1972, primarily because of a change
in the definition of what constitutes a day of court. In fact, the
district court was probably in session about the same number of
days in 1972 as it was in 1971. The statewide statistics indicate
that 5,404% days of civil court and 10,852 1/2 days of criminal
court were held in 1972. Upon assignment by the Chief Justice,
district judges held 248 days of court in judicial districts other
than their own.
The tables relating to juvenile proceedings are found on
pages 65 and 73. There were fewer new cases opened (children
before the court for the first time) in 1972 than in 1971, the
number decreasing from 13,583 to 13,341 or 1.8%. The number
of adjudicatory hearings increased from 20,087 to 23,796 or
18.5%. The composition of the caseload remained about the
same: delinquency accounted for 61.3%, undisciplined for 21.0%,
dependency for 7.7%, and neglect for 10.0%. The bulk of delin-quency
charges were for misdemeanors (69.1%), 16.4% were
for felonies, 14.2% were for violations of probation and .3%
were for capital felonies. Almost one-half (46.1%) of undisci-plined
charges were for truancy.
DISTRICT COURT CIVIL DOCKETS
Civil filings increased by 9.5% but dispositions increased by
12.1%, allowing for a 9.4% reduction in the number of cases
pending at the end of the year. The rate of disposition was
103.0% (more cases were disposed of than were filed).
Among all 100 counties, the 10 counties with the largest
civil dockets accounted for 46.3% of the total civil cases pend-ing.
Fifty-eight counties had 300 or fewer cases pending at the
end of the year and only 7 counties had more than 1,000 pend-ing.
As stated above, the ratio of pending cases to the year's dis-
43
positions is 28.3, indicating that the docket could be disposed of
in about three and one-half months.
Of the 148,739 cases filed in all 100 counties in 1972, 63.9%
were small claims, 14.1% were domestic cases, and 22.0% were
regular civil actions in which a hearing before a district court
judge was requested. Of the 152,289 cases which were disposed
of, 20.9% were handled by a judge without a jury, a jury was
impaneled in 1.9% of the cases, magistrates disposed of 59.2%,
and the remaining 18.0% 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 1972, magistrates
disposed of 95.6% of such claims.
CIVIL CASES ADDED AND DISPOSED OF
IN THE DISTRICT COURT1
January 1, 1969 - December 31, 1972
Added wm^msasamm Disposed of wzzzzzszzzzzszsm
1/1/69-12/31/69 IJ^WMWl 101,099
w/mwm 93,734
1/1/70-12/31/70 mil H iiwmflWtwni 121,688
fa222ZZZZZZZZZ2ZZZZZZ22ZZZZ2Z& 115,714
1/1/71-12/31/71 iliuwili iiiwimi 117,124
WZ2ZZZZZZ2ZZZZZZ2ZZZZZZE&2Z& 117,868
1/1/72-12/31/72 II miHllllli^—1hb— 128,278
mZZ2Z^2ZZZ2ZZZZZZZZZZZZ2ZZ2ZZZ2ZZZZm 132,172
I I I I I I
(in thousands) 80 90 100 110 120 130
CIVIL CASES PENDING IN THE DISTRICT COURT*
December 31, 1969 - December 31, 1972
12/31/69 l llilllMMIMBBIHHIMffWlHW 36,082
12/31/70 HonsH»ffliHKKiB» 42,069
12/31/71 ill h in g—
—
m 41,325
12/31/72 BBHBHBHD 37,431
(in thousands) 10 20 30 40 50
1—Includes the 83 counties where the district court has been operational for four or
more years. The 17 counties (Alexander, Alleghany, Ashe, Buncombe, Cabarrus,
Caswell, Davidson, Davie, Iredell, Montgomery, Randolph, Rockingham, Rowan,
Stokes, Surry, Wilkes and Yadkin) which were activated in December, 1970, are
excluded.
44
DISTRIBUTION OF PENDING CIVIL CASES
AMONG THE COUNTIES
Number of
Cases
Number of
Counties
1971
1972
Less than
100
101-300 301-500 501-1000 Over
1000
32 21 17 20 10
30 28 18 17 7
TEN COUNTIES WITH LARGEST CIVIL DOCKETS
County
Pending
1-1-72 Added Disposed of
Pending
12-31-72
Percent
of Filings
Disposed of
Mecklenburg 3,925 15,884 14,823 4,986 93.3
Guilford 3,941 13,111 13,562 3,490 103.4
Wake 2,823 10,362 9,925 3,260 95.8
Surry 1,051 2,726 2,117 1,660 77.7
Cumberland 2,355 6,431 7,223 1,563 112.3
Gaston 1,078 4,116 3,792 1,402 92.1
New Hanover 1,248 2,701 2,730 1,219 101.1
Person 782 938 728 992 77.6
Forsyth 853 6,184 6,105 932 98.7
Robeson 1,671 2,703 3,520 854 130.2
STATE MEAN 475 149 152 440 102.4
45
Bo
o
wH 13"^
ti £S
5
ou
3
H S
bHH
tf S hs -g
cc o O
3h 2 "8
•0 £
THE SPOS
2 w>
>»
CO
U -0
3
GO 2
pfi
i
>>
hi
5 O g
Q
>>
Oh <J
22S
pa
Q o 1 Q£ CM
"3
K< H
«w »H
DED,
CAS
iH
1« SO
ft g. g < o
£E Ha
8 1
i
5^
oQ
w 5 1]
cu
H CC~
CO
ft
CUB
15 < 1^ u fc^
(J
H—
£>
3
-«* 1C lO CO O CO CM O rHrHrHCOCOOCOtO
I++I++I+
TftNOOtNOcO rH
CM CO CO ^f CM C5 <N 05
rf cotNocit-
CM COrHTf CO
++I
I
Tt< W CO tH tH l> ,-| i©00
i-l <N CM <N tN 05si
HOH00OO
Gi i-l r-t i-l Tf t^
CM tN lO
<NCO00lOtO©
00 CO CO lO COO
i-l CO COCO
CM
l> t- l> U5 i-l tO t>
rH CO ^* rH CM 05 CM
CN
rfint^cNtot-cNCO
<N CT> lO lO ^ r> ^ OS
rH r-l tH r-< rH t> rH O
O CO CM t* Tt< t> CO CO
i-H IC) rH CO CM O rH W iH CM
co "tf r><
CO I> l"- CM rH O
CO "** CO >tf CO CO
CO iC tNt»
CM t> £: OS Ci ^ CSrHtO CO
CO
CO oo°s^s t>OtOOTftT
CM rH <<*
OOHWHO®^ ^ o co to co en *a rH
i-l CO <N i-l CM O «H CO
rH C>f
CM CO l> t> tO O CO i
i-l CO CO tN CO CO <N
O O "tf lO CO CO <o tH
tH rH tN iH CM rH tH
rH CM
ooi>ohmnow HH00Ht>C0<NW
rHtNrHrHrHCOrHt-
~coi> ia co cm t> *o <
CO "^ r-l t^ Oi 0^ «3 I
J» CM O IQ t- M >xoi oo<ot-oo-ocoh|*
w
Tf tOr-4t>lOi
T^COCOCOOCO
lOr-lt- COt-rH
CM
OaCOtOONH Tt< ia io H jo
CO »C CM**
lOtDOiCOOlt- HHt> COO
CO rH <©
6 C
pM
^ 2
p i3
OUOQOCHrHH
46
1
CO
3 a ^ g
W s
o2 I
I5
I
O CO o
OtNOO
+ 1 I++
lO<N^ CNCO
iH -* «fi
I I I I
o m©
++
t*cn ^ oco
+++ 1 +
|5
fc2
ooooow
t> OCOOO©
coo t>oo
<NOt"-00l>
OOO©OOCOtNNOCOO m cs©
S!
OrHCOlO
C0lOrH<NC0
rHCN
CNcOi-lrHO
©CNCO ©© rH^ TfrH
rHrfcNIOOlO
rHcO COOO
U5H t> t>©
CDCNTfOrH
t> O Tf lO Tf
C^y-i lO rH CN
r-T pqi-Tia
own 00 CN
CN HHW5
OHO©NW
CNCO W
o- ooooco
ooot>
O5 00 t>l>iH
lO lO© © ©
CM T^rHOO
<NrH|>©©
CN rH -<*
oqoo©
CDlOrH
CO coo
rH »H
OWN
CO © ©
00 oo
(NU0O
CO ©
O rH rH CD t>
T}< Tf t> OCO
rH TT CO <N rH
©rHCMOCN
rH CN
00 00 rH CO CO ^OrHcNOO
OOrHOOCO
moiOootN
COCO(N<NCO
CO(Nt>CO W
Tf CO CD 00 *0
©TfCOCNI'
rH(MrHrH'
©©©CO© S cooococp
CM IOOCO © CHrH rH rH ©
rHlO© Tf CO©CN W +->
3 —rv: ;
Ort*Tt< ocoLooioo
to rHlT5 CO w 0)
m"
oH
rH (NTf rH CNrHTt <N W rH N
h ©00 COO© tr rH m cm ia 1
Xt<OrHin00
OOCOrH OOrHCNJOrH 1-4
a> CO 00 CO CM 00
rHCO Tt<CN
TtCOOO CNrHrJirtCN o <
•a g CN HHIfl ICrH© rH rH rH Tj< t^
« O rH IS iA
S d
1
o ©00 00©^ COCO rHCO
co©c^©oo Tt<OrH
COlO©
©rHO©^* •2 2
n ^ Oi^OO rH COO CD © 01
T3
0) Q rH CO CO 00 rH ^Hh CO © (N ^ 0)
a
o
Q . 8u
1
3
OT OO^Orpifl
(NCOOCOCO
CO© CO lO CO © ic* ©rHt>(M© A n
!
CO O 00 CO CO rH lOO CD O rH Ci CO t
s
COTf rHTj^CO 00 rjj 00 tN iqcooo CO t>C0CNt> to
09 rHCN rH CO rH rH rH CO
s
be
a r1
©OCNrHrH OCOOJOOO 00 fH ©__ too OCO^* CDt> ICO© .S
..Sr.SSaj.
—-~ tMO© O00 OCNrH
rHCO (NCN©^ £•2 ^2
S ^ rH rH rH rH rH rH *^bo c &*- t«2
«2S
^
Eh Eh Eh Eh
q
O O O o OT <0
5a *H >-H Ks Eo
IQ
8 P 05 M
>
ft? c «^
Eh ^ Eh Eh O «c TJ
£ S3 &0 o CO
srtie
alifax
ertford
orthampt
OTAL
«? W
*H *H *N A k4 <u £ !
55
arteret
raven
amlico
itt
OTAL
Duplin
Jones
Onslow
Sampson
TOTAL
q
£ a so
q
£
il a
§
(••a OOPhChH ^ »o ^cSh CO ffiKKZH i-J CS)
47
u
e
t/1
en
5
CO OSOSfH
CO (N CD CO ohw»
rH rHiH
"3 J
1 1 1 1 + 1 1 1
9^
£2
CN mot*
t}< -^ ton
CN CO CO OS
CO Tf CM OS
rH|> lOCO
»-l CO 00 «
FH
a
o
H
Tf rHOST*
cqc^wco
©CNiOt*
osoo ot-rHCNCD
©
CNCNIO
©
•a
14
O
4>
+->
s
OS CO rH CO CDOCOCO
rH(N<N«D
32
475 717
1,224
o
Q
tn
0)
C/3
"Ed
s
ffl
coosous
ooooot*
COOCOC)
134
1,388 1,157 2,679
79 a be
s
ooc»i>cn
CD (NIC to
<N-<*CO©
CM t> CO 00
CO CD©
03
*H rH
>> uS
•-S
t»
(NffitNO
ocoTf t*
_- H(NOC0
S 00 CD CN I>
g r-TrHCNW
icosco t*
cm cd com
CO<NCN00
3 rH(M^>H/
"S 00l>CDrH
» rHCOCMOO
s
o
Q
09 ICrHCOCN
a OCOCMCP
J9 co^o t> o
5 THrHrHTf
in rf os oo
i>t>i-icp
- -CNCO xf ©
WOHbOOrOt CNrHlOOS
CNCN-*
CNCNCOOO
IO00C0
CO 00 cow
cn woo
osoiOTf
CD CD CO CO
i-HCOrHC©
C0lOt> 10
!>00 WiH
TfOS w
ffl
1 J
gfjg is||
COOOOCO IO00
CD CN rH IC CN I
s-
CNCO W
+ 1++ 1 +
CD OCNCDTfOO
OSOOOSCOCNCN
^f rH OS t> CN CO
CN
i> a oo Tf <<* cn
lO OS CN OS CD *t
lOt>t>rHC0«0
rH eo
WOCOOOHii
CO
cocd woscnoo
CO rHlOOSOS t* CN00t>CO^«D
rH rH -*
TfCOtDCNcOn!
r-i CO
lOrH00l>OS©
CNt-C0T}<C0 CM
CDI>OSlOCON
IXNCOO t-OS
rf CDlOrHCNOS
rH rHT* t*
CO 00 r}< OS CN CO
OSOOrHrHlCCp
WHH00OU5
00CNl>rHCOlfl
CO CDt>rHCN vH
OOOOCNCOOSO
CNOOOOOrftft
-«t CNOCOCN©
sal lie
foOCH>>H
CO
oo
CN
% 3
rH N
•s o
oil g
Is S
w'3
48
COrHIO©
©COrf © (NWHO>
I I I l + l
tXNOOcO
Tt<©CDrH
+ 1 I I
cooow HCOCOO
CNCNCO00
I I I
COrHTf
CO00t}«
lOrHf*
WOH» OCOOOiH
<N(NlO©
<NWO00
rH CsfrHlft
CO Ol CO iH
©t>CO»H
rH©t>"*
T*COrHtN
00O00 t^
Tj«CN|OJC0
lO 00 00 rH ^ ^T CO CO
HO0005
cooeo
<NrHC0
<MC0lO
00 CO rH 00O©
THrH *i
<N CM
OO5©
CDTHt*.
00 CO
W 00'
00© lOrH©
rHHCC^COHOr©H
00 to CO t>
i-fef
Sgg
00 rH Tl« CO <NrH<N©
CO CO CD M5
COrHOOW
CO © CD 00
r-lTFOlA
lOi-KNOO
i>CNcoe^
CsfrHrHIO
rH 00 COO*
OOt^OOfH
©Tj«OqUi
COtXNCO
t>©©W
t>r>i>co
lOrHCN©
t*COC5CO
lOrHCO©
CD © 00 CO
r-Ti-TrH V
©lfJt>W rH©©l>
COlOrH©
CDCNJO' OSHO'
rHt>00
C0<Ntf5
rf COt>^
to" ©
rHCOt*
<Ml>©
00 rH©
rH©rH
CO CO
CO CO
w
©Tj<CO|> ©©cot*
rH <NrJ<
©COt>©
C^Ol©©
rHrHCO
00^©W coio©oo
of *rf
©©rH© CDIXN©
<N COCO
<tfrH©T!< 05HHN
lOrHCM©
1 i
a £
<MCO©U5
00(NI>|> coco©©
II IB
^ >* © 00
00 CD lO© ©OTF00
r-T ©f
^s CH O Nn «N 3 05
Eh Eh
CO CO
K| f*H
Q a q
to
03 M
^> 3 Eh
fi
10
*"1
9 _
Ijgg
.2.220 <UOH
«S a
as 5
I5
Sh* 21
m£ n
•OS ^
3ft 3
C « C
49
© </>
.2 °
5
tH>C©5CHO
oo ©
+ + |++
COCNtH
<Nl>W
+ 1
oo m © i-hi-h
00 tH LCKNiH
l+l+l
S3 ^ Tt lOOi
in i>cN
O0t-(©
OHrl
3 cn cow
inoow
eH
ed rf
4> t>j>Tt<
x; cq t>o
+->
O
COHU5
o
ri
"O >-
0)
.if; 05005
© i> wcn
a t> in co
.2
Q
to
r-T of
pq
3 t>co©
w Tt^OOCO
3 CO Tp
>"5 r-1 T-T
>>
PQ
>>
-* l>i-lO0
*9
CD CNC0
>>
CI
co in oo
r. " -' O CO CO
t- t>T^
<N CO"
|H cqint^
0) mom
•a £ JXM05
3
fa
£ T*©CO
COCDCN © "^
t>00 CO CDO
in COTp
i-Tof
CO CO CO t> 05 CDHHHO
CO 00 CO i-l OS
CQ'*
coco in too
inos t>(N w
CN COt^
i-ICDt^COtJ<
oo in cm 05 in (NOrfiOM
i-i" iHCO
©rHCOCNW NrfHCOW ^rH l-ll>
OOt^CO©
<N i-<t}<
00 CO CD CO CO
r-4 in co cm co
t^ co m t>i«
iH cnio
O5CO00^l>
cm co in co ih
CO <NI>
i-H OCD iHOO mooocNm
COrH <n [>.
©^^
co~ eo~
i©>CwD<©n
clinic
cTweo
COC0O5 (NOW
TfCOfc^
05005
in ©^
COW 00
cocn©
in© w
i-i co oo
<N Of
in oo co
t-coi-n
oicoeo
rH |>Q0
Tf © CO ©coco
rH Of
©00 l>
Tf I>CN! COCO©
r-T C>f
C0t>©C0cN
in t* cn oo^
co into©
inject© in© oooco
i—i co cn ©^r
eC rHi-nin
cothcn m© ©"<* CN oo "t
00 NHM
ot>©©eo tH05© O© COCNCO©00
rHCN
r-l©00 00CO ©in in co oo
Tji COCOrH
5DOOHN
rf r-iin©
t> © i> in oo
COOCNJCNCM ©^ CN t> W
r-T i-TtHIO
CNCO OOtF t-t>
r-l t>CNO0
^i-HrHCN©
OOCMHfO
in iHCDcN
rf co-^cq
COl>(Nr-IOO Tf CN© in©i>©oo -g CO©©Tf CO
CO i-J <tf CN ©^
00COT}< Tf ©COTf<TH £
rHint> © CN t> © rH H
0)
03
y-i G$*4 ©"cNOO r-T rHW 72
0)
oij HCOCNHO CM©1H i-HCNCOtNCO — « O
cq ^ co in in
inr-t©^t>
r-TiH
. COOTji rf ©00 CD w 11 -M
co" CO ®3 9
£h c^
o
a
-4-»
CJ
g Id
CO
to
o
T3
cd
-£2
CO
1
CO
Cabarrus
Montgome
Randolph
Rowan
TOTAL
w©
3 s
CQ
Caswell
Rocking!
Stokes
Surry
TOTAL
00
T3
'5
Green;
High OTAL
c^
l-H C3 >—<
H tH CN
50
00 CO CO I> t> CD © co in ih © © CN CO CO Tf © TJ
© M Tt<C> T^O OH t> (NC0OCT5 COCNr-iCN <U
— v* H (NH tH r-ICN to
+ 1 I+++ + + 1+1 1 ++ |+ +
9
o
bpSS CM ©[>l> t> © CM CNr}< t> 00 tH m tf t>^t< © to
a s, 00 00 l>"tf "* CO CO IOO5 00 CO CM COOOt^OO CO
is H (N CO CO lO t^ © CO CM© cOr-iin A
(3 v»
£2
TH J*-
1
&
i>commcD© m ©© CO in © CO CO (N CO © 'cO
73 00 rj< CO xf< 00 ©
rt< t> O i-i 03 CO
o ^00 rH COCO
"<r ocm coth
© mcDcoin 2u
i—
i
CN CN HCO © c]> f i-Tr-T H# ©~ CN CNin i-T rH 5
T3
Tt< CD r}< Tf OS J> © CO CO CN iH © CM rH r-l CM© CO
j3 <NU0t>Or-lt> CO CO CM r-l OCD coco t> m co .—
.
rH CM CM CM 00 tH ^ cot* rf in CN
o y^ ©
©
4
CN
TJ fa t> V to cm©i>©©:2;
O5t>COtD00 00
CM l> OiCO t—I o TpooeNTHin ©CO©©-"*
r-i r-l r* CN GO
o Tt r-l O t> CO CJiiH W
s
C0C0inl>m©
CM co"
CO 05 r-l in CD
r-Teo*
> d
S to
c
09
0)
ffl t3
a lOt>00 t>CDC0 t> COiO^ ©T* ©mcocN© o
u •d CDOCOCDCD^ t> ©in m rf cd ©00 CD l> 00 CO
s NH HHt* co t-ico "<#cm CN "* H
r-T lH 0)
BO O
>»
**
fa ©©©mmCM l> COCMtFt^CO oxt^cDooin t*-i
€ r-llO tH 05 t> COr-iTf © CN "* o
s
CD
o
m©CMCMCOCM 3
r-i
CM^Tf*©© in ©** t^CM "to
CO I> ©JN©-f4
^m©"oo cn r-i m mcDTt<oo tj ©©COTf©
rf © CM tH 00 CM CM rW CO© 3
a
St
H HH^t © r-l CNC* r-l tH
fa ^Tt<cN©coeo ^ t^m m r-i co
00 C0©©©rH howoo I>CDCMt}<©
H
4) CO tf m ?h © ih 0) <
•a
CNr-lCNCN© CN ©r-l CM "<* Tf © t>
o r-T TH CO CO
E
ft
'G d
10
0) o cN©cocot>in m O0©©Tf CN in r-i i> co©
>>
cO CO l>CNCN ©00© m © ©© co mm©eo Pi
T3 U 0) CNHHCO ^ COTj< r-l CO tB
a
o
Q
rH 43
<1)
fa 6
a
'C
a
-a
1
"to ©©1>©C0"^ r-l rH00 00©C?0 ©mTt<co© 10
a
1
cO
HfHOOSH © HON 00 CO Oiooico"* £
a ^comoot>© T}< CO© r-lin©^ rHinCMCD a
QQ csT co" t-4 fHfitf rH (A s 3o
Si in
C rt<c}©©©eo
CO lO CM c- ^ CN
r-rco m cm co ©
CO ©©©I>lH
T}< rH in COiH
ccoo©^mc©^^©<^ si
c
3 ^ in ^
00 in ti<ih
rH
ad
C
£ H faj 2 fa
Eh Eh Eh
«2S CJ
O
>-< fan
co <3
So
ir.
w CS « g- c 5
Eh E^ Eh o^ -
O rJ ,g
2
Alexander
Davidson
Davie Iredell TOTAL
CO
Alleghany
Ashe
Wilkes Yadkin TOTAL
3 CO
-
3
©
CM
Anson
Moore
Richm Stanly
Union TOTA
CM
MO
CM
CM
CO
CM
11
uc
PI
51
.i
Is
00 CO CO CD CO 00 (NHINCOH
ooocoin
lOCD^t^
CO CN
I ++ 1 + +1 + 1
t-Tf 00©
lOCMCD©
CO tH
+ 1 +
toM
3 r-iCNO0l>C<l
r-l LO co O iTi
CM
r-l r* r-l 00 i£> ©
CD 00 "tf © CD©
CO r-l CN rt< 00 ^
CM
r-l OS <0 © Tt< OS iCiH^coin©
r-l CO
C0cN©C0©©
lOCqCOCDcori
Cm
LOOM©©
CO I> lOrH
CO CM CD CO
©to 00-^
C0C0OI>
lOCNCD 1 CMrHT*^©
(NHOOH
tr©CM©
r-T tff
©©r-lOS
tnr~i>©
CO CM *0 CM
CD CM Oi t*»
C75 ©00QO
00 CM CD©
C0 05^© COO CD W
r-rco" tO
CM CM CM
©rHOO©
CO coo
CO ^ CO
iHCN
§ s
C0©iHC0
r-l m CM ©CD"^ 5 t>00©
CO'tfCM
rtC0l>^
CM© CO
CO r-l l> ^ CM O
-«tf to CO CO t> CO
r-l H(NHt»
©OOrHOS
OOCDlO©
r-<CN©CO
HHCHDtO^OOW
OOrHlOUS
i-Trf ©
I
COCO©CM©0
CD CM t>00l> rH
CO
CDOWCOCO©
CO r-l CN to rf t»
IOCOI> ITS
lOiO t>00
CMCO"tf©
CO 00 00© ^ t>CM
CO ID© CO
cDoo©eo
COrf ©CM
rH"<tf r-lO
Tf CM CD CM
IClOr-lCM
S ?; s a
-<? CD CO C5 © eq
"<* rHT^CO lO© CMl> ©U5
00©©00
10©00 03
CM*
rH©CO© ©
05 rHIC© © CMCDCOCM CN
<N^*© CMO^
r^cNx^eo.©^
*0©COiH
>. co « p <d<;
isirllS
1
t/2
PQUOH
CO
Eh C-. o o N^ »-s
cq a
El CN
OQ 3 CO
•--i -O >N
Q PI q
?! fc
^ 0) ^
s CM
I §13
J1j|
pq
52
©©©iCoMhiO<N© i> n
CM
++ |+++
NiOCOtDOJOOO 5|i
CO © © tOHlfl ©
CM H 00
+ I++++ i 7 + 1
MM
IS
ft<s
CM©©[>©©
CO rH CO iO «> l-H
COrH H(N05
^ <N CO 00 ^ 1H
'©J "i^H 05 0CD0C0O0 ©CO
00 Tf tJ^IOOfH CM©(Nl>©©
*H CO
H©cNMco©^r?H©i©H
©owowo r-l 00 CO CO CO OS
CM NHC
©©©©rHCM
rH rHCM©
co t» oo © cst> oo © ih oo C)HHH005iOh> CO ©
CMrH © ^ IC
I> ©~
CO
oo^cNaicOTfooift no t*
o
<©N m m o o co oo ?o t-,-; ^ rH©CMr-l -- 38 38
CO r-l IO CD r-t O © © ©© Hf» O CNCDCD^r^g £^ ©^
H co^ s
Tt» 00 CO CD O CD © CD ©© CO rj<
© CM <<* 00 »H CD © 05 CM CD © ©
<N ©CM©<N^CO © d ©^
TO r^CN _*CM
NOOffiHNHlfl o© tr©
CM CO t* •. P^i<N
ng N©rH
©o
5
».iO
CO
l>©
I
CO00i-ICO©iH
73 ^©OOt-lON
5 -
H
---© ><r— "00"Tj«ift
i_i ©rH©05CM©
V ©© i-IOOf-
•0 5 CM rH "^
1
n „
0)
a
« ©©^•©CM"^ •*» ©CO CO CO 1-1 fH
u
a
NH NHt*
!
09
WJ ©!>©©CMrH
COt>C0»-H©C0
.3 cm cm © cm ©^
3 »H
h ©CMOTCMrH© -
—
3 s
c^
*
^ En
O O
KN la 3 s
s .2 Eh
3 <*3
3
£
Hendersi
McDowe
Polk
Rutherfo
Transylv
TOTAL
Q
£
2> O
CO
© © '"t IO CM ^ 00 © 00© tH©
05 IO 00 t> t-h © Ci iH t^ ,-: ©<-:
CM ©<NrH 10 N§ t£§
rH ©*rH ©"rH
CM CM
r©HrCHMr^Ht©>0©©©rlH>0t5» ©©IO ©CM _J lO^
r-lr-l © SS iH ^
t* ©
©rH©©lOt>rHCM ©CM ©©
©«rH©rHl>©© «© "*© ©^©^©©^ ^ jg^
a a
©<N©©«t>©© © "^ © rH © T* 05 « T* CS CJ rH
CM »-< r» CO CM
5 •
©O
§ s
8"
©rH
©^
CM
°g-co© ©©
s1s - o o a 3
a HH +j W ^J *j
- 1 ? 1 o s^ &« &s 5^ s
rSra 2 CC «
« ^o 2 g 2 s K o s
rH
S5 S
SI
IS
2 w>
53
DISTRICT COURT CRIMINAL DOCKETS
In the 83 counties where the district court has operated for
four years, filings increased by 6.4% over 1971, dispositions in-creased
5.2% over 1971, and the number of cases pending at the
end of the year increased by 2.6% as compared with 1971.
The data from all 100 counties indicates that filings have
exceeded one million cases (1,000,893) for the first time. Among
these counties, only 17 had more than 1,000 cases pending at the
end of the year and 45 counties had 300 or fewer pending. The
10 counties with the largest criminal dockets accounted for
52.6% of the total number of criminal cases pending. The rate
of disposition for all 100 counties was 99.8%.
From year to year, the percentage breakdown for the types
of cases handled and the manner of dispositions remains fairly
constant. In 1972, 64.3% (643,870) of all criminal cases filed
were for violations of the traffic laws. Other criminal offenses
made up the remaining 35.7% (357,023). Only 10.7% of the
cases disposed of were contested, requiring a full-fledged trial
before a district court judge. A judge or magistrate disposed of
27.2% upon a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, and 44.8% were
disposed of by a written appearance waiving trail and pleading
guilty before a magistrate or clerk. Preliminary hearings con-stituted
1.9% of the criminal docket and the remaining 15.4%
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 con-tains
detailed instructions on the use of the waiver procedure.
In 1970, 63.0% of motor vehicle cases were disposed of by waiv-er;
in 1971, 65.7% and in 1972, 69.4%. This improvement is en-couraging,
but there are still a few counties where this proce-dure
is still not fully utilized ; greater use of the waiver in those
counties would tend to alleviate 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 8.5. This ratio indicates that
it would require about one month for the court to dispose of its
criminal docket. This ratio for the majority of counties in fact
falls below 8.5. There are only two counties in the State with
ratios higher than 15.6; even in those counties it would require
only about three months to dispose of all criminal cases pending.
54
CRIMINAL CASES ADDED AND DISPOSED OF
IN THE DISTRICT COURT1
January 1, 1969 - December 31, 1972
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
(in thousands)
xsmzmzm
Disposed of w/w/M/////Kvm
742,373
728,463
7ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
v/;;;;;;;;;;;/;;;;///;;;;;/;/;;;;/77<
v/////////////////////////////s//////////m
793,643
779,422
803,354
811,201
855,055
853,187
600 700 800 900
CRIMINAL CASES PENDING IN THE DISTRICT COURT1
December 31, 1969 - December 31, 1972
12/31/69 PiHMWni^lll 'l ^yriHhJIiTifiH-faHffBI
12/31/70
12/31/71
12/31/72
64,332
78,506
70,659
72,527
(in thousands) 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
DISTRIBUTION OF PENDING CRIMINAL CASES
AMONG THE COUNTIES
Number of
Cases
Number of
Counties
1971
1972
1—Includes the 83 counties where the district court has been operational for four or
more years. The 17 counties (Alexander, Alleghany, Ashe, Buncombe, Cabarrus,
Caswell, Davidson, Davie, Iredell, Montgomery, Randolph, Rockingham, Rowan,
Stokes, Surry, Wilkes and Yadkin) which were activated in December, 1970, are
excluded.
Less than
100
101-300 301-500 501-1000 Over
1000
15 28 13 25 19
14 31 11 27 17
55
TEN COUNTIES WITH LARGEST CRIMINAL DOCKETS
County
Pending
1-1-72 Added Disposed of
Pending
12-31-72
of Filings
Disposed of
Guilford 9,850 72,871 71,545 11,176 98.2
Wake 8,640 74,056 71,843 10,853 97.0
Mecklenburg 6,313 83,967 82,343 7,937 98.1
Cumberland 4,050 38,406 39,339 3,117 102.4
Gaston 3,981 26,996 28,549 2,428 105.8
Union 888 8,949 7,893 1,944 88.2
Buncombe 1,665 25,745 25,643 1,767 99.6
Forsyth 691 50,557 49,485 1,763 97.9
Davidson 1,639 15,918 16,089 1,468 101.1
New Hanover 1,948 20,525 21,092 1,381 102.8
STATE MEAN 809 10,009 9,984 834 99.7
56
I
po
u
g
5|
gH
2
B«3
O©
rwr HwI
il
P
Sfc
w
to
u
ft
CO
g
Q
©in
3 n
3
8
I
fa
_ ©
if,
t>
M
il
u
O o
tMO <N t> 00 CO CO ift
T* <Nr-HO
I+++++ | +
CO CN rH CO CO in Tf t^ (N(HNOHHOHOTftOPS rH t^
Tf l> CO CO T}< Tt< l> W lOI>OOOt>^<N«0
lO Ci » 0> »H O Oi ^ rHi-Tr-Ti-TcO iH
CO © lO CN CO CO CO t*
CNrHcorHco co
cot>eNcoco©co©
COCOTfrHCO CO
COCNCNCiCOCEiiO©
T*COrHCOincOCOCO
co oo co co t> rf 10 a
© O t> Tt< rH t- 00 «© 0<NHO^COl>M
rH m -<* m rH l> rH CO
el
cooot>corHcoooeo mco©co ©co i-hcn
rH rH rH rH CN rH ©
O CN lO CO CN I> rH O in CO CO m CO CO rH CO
05 05000H005 lO HHHHC0 iH
CDTMOCOO0COO500
CO O CN TflO 5S © CO t>CNCO<N©rH©
eo"
3! CO © © Tt< Tf CN CN
00 t> CO rH CN CN rH ©
Tt< <N CD CO © rH I> rl<
rHrHrH CN CO
©t>©CDCOCN©CN
- CO © © CO OCM t> t^
C e °
III»-, O <y cr ctPh
rt^: 3 a ea ej oO
OUOOOChPhH
t> CO (30 tJ< rH »ft cd o © lO rHCO ^IK Ji
s«« "fi
o 1 ce
++I+I+
an
4-> CO 3
imn©icNoOcHo ©NcHo ns: j XJ 3 lO <N CO 5B9b Q o ceA
S ° a
co t> m m m co
03
s"S 8
i
CO
CO CO <M CN Ci t*
t> CD ©^m o © S3<
U5 I© dC^V
c
agd cococoocot^ 8
00 CO CO CN rH Tf
t> O (NH cy in
•h cn wo*'*"
CP (0.
CO
w -2 « o
•o
CO © CN iH CN CO
co m Tfoo
T3©S o
-<->
CN CO CO .M
1X3
5
CO CO CO t> CO co
Tt^COOOrHCO >•
CO CN in <N <N CN s
CO" CN rHt"" fl
« »H M
tx
©i>co © coift tj> 9 Hcoo5 co © © a g <NrHl>rHCN© o
rH CN tx ^«C A
+i
3 <u S
•3
o a C tx c
-o o
CO
«H «*-! C W 1—
1
Tj< rHO5COC0m o o«'S 2
CO COCOCM (NO « ft b
Tj* CN W rH CO t"^
(0 Ssa -^
1H
Pi as*5'
a-a |
CO CO <U > >>o
CO ©l>©Tt<C0
COC- CDCN CO rH
o
CO
a ft3 «
CO CO O^m O^rH 3 3^^ a>
in ^f cn*^ 0)
-a
3
S as
a3 c8j o«
c
3
CO
"* o <n in Tt< m »-s >"9 CO
CO mmrf cno^co •*j tJOfl
CN <N CO^ rH o^eo 3
CN rH rHin o a
-t-> O rt «£§
i33ft
W CO
a G
c0n<oNmr(tN*O©Qo^p 5
CO
CO^ CO CO^tJ* © l>
CO CO CO 5 M w 3
(0 coiig
con
a2
E (•l)"l^H X ? rt
CO I> rH Tf rH TH o Sfil 3 mrHCOrHCOCO 8 W T)< M **• J2 XJ^O) S^
•o •3 * \r.
3a
57
o c^.c^
» t>: > £
w
> 3-3
7;
_ 1 ey
"3 O w
•—' CO CO
CJ
3 CJ
1-
"8 3
eo O i-,
!g o
<N W tH Wt-lOCNTt
©
l+l+l
t> lO Wtf©
w <x> COCO
l+l I
CMi-HcMl>CM
3
ffl COrH t> © WiOr^qin
© cooTi-Tioe^
H tHcO
0)
1
(4
l> © (NMfl
CHOOLOW C^Ot©^
V r-Tr-T <N"Tjf d«a O
b
e« *» oot>t> wio
.S-S
2 *
i-l >o coo
iH
£ B
Ch^
» W©©lO © > LO © 00 CO l>
"3 rt iouoi>eo
£
t»
CQ
0)
4>
(NOO^W
t--< © tF © tH
CM HLO WW s <NCO" W~i-T
>» iH
pa
H CNH>t^O0tH
4) (DOMtO®
cdcmcmc-cq
OTtHOW
tj< on co as W-CDCM© CO
CM © H CD GO
CM CO O^IO
COCD^t CO
cnTco" coco
t-i t-i rococo
(NOT 00 WW
^fio ©"©*
cm
© CM "^ rH CO
CO WCM W W
tHCN
Eh O
E
gq
OUfcPnH
£ = 8
0) a ^r
CM CD oo t> CO
© HiH CO W
iH Off
a> co co co co ©© wt>eM
CM Tfi OS 00 ©
go~thoo~i>©
tH CO
Tt< OOTf ©© WCDOOtHtH
l> CM CM^ t>^
©<N WCM© Wi-lW
tot>THcor-
' CO OS CM Tj^
CO OS WW
T-TrjT
3
lO COOOSCM
CHMTQfOOOtCDM^CM
©t-T©~I>©
tH W
O"^ t-I CDiH
l> 00xt< CMCM
l> "tf Tt^CD^W
CM OO'cm"
1^
mow ocm coo^wq©
U3Ho"U5H
tH CM
CDi-KDtH^
CM W CM WW OOrH r-tOOOS
*H CM
C -I
tH©1>
00 COH
W^f CO
OS wtp
Ot>co
s
OS t-i ©
CMWJO
CM ION
<N <N
©OcOsWw
o rl
CM CM
W CD OS
|> ^ i-H
I> SO W
OOrHO
C0OO00H
rfi 00 |>CNCM conn
t- CO tH
1-4 t>rHTH tHCM
rWfW©©W CMCM^
W©^
CM t>©
WOO"**
COt^CM
©l>!>
t>os l>
©
58
CO
Ct>MOwC£0J
t> © ©
rHCM"^
©CO CM
tH CM
oi
© so
£PhH
CM CO ^ O W ca o A
Tf< WW CMI> _«*H CM c<« S
o « a
I++I + 3"^
<D c O
-t-> CQ
Tt< ©C©D©© tH© i> 3 14
tH CD tH ©^ 2 h o
i-T Mcj o
lO W © ©l>
W"00"W"'CM*
,
I>'
l>t> tHO-CM
Tf ©Tf t>N
HlfllOCOW
iH CM"
lOCM©00W
rH^tioCM W
tH CM
© © © ©CO
rH CM © CO CM
tH ©^LO © W
ofCMrH l>
tH l> © lO CM
cci>© as w
TflO©00©
w" w
IOtHCMCM© © © © tH ©
CM WrHCMCM
lO© lOCMCM
tH l>© t> ift
i&O PT^FOD
w"©"w"CMI>
©lO©© N
LO COCO 00© ©CD©00 W
COiH tO
L©O uo© © m CO © oo rf
CN Lo"cm"t-TiH
CD W LOr-llO
THfCWO©H © ©l>
o
a
•J3 S3 -*3 ^3 Cj
m CO CD OO
rt w"« cu
,~a h.• o Otfl
IflB^ CO
8.8*,
SS -2
tj o d cu
II °.«
a~"o £
U C53
.11? I
OSJififi
d bfl d ca
TJ O
rt C3 OT 2* -M
ftt3 .S
c« ca a; >
>>« •£
d di « g
fflBS 3 3CJO 0)
*-s >-s ca o,
ca ca^g^
in t*+i ca •*
o o w d
4) CO ^> P S
ca caS d 2 cj cj a-s +3
to W w «1
0) CD«h (j; CU
TJ "d O W TJ
S 3 g dcu
u
.5 o
to lo coco (NHHlfl
i-t rHCN
++++
©r>©co
CO CM t> CO
0HiH
1-T
13 •
OH
(MC5 00 0)
oo ih oT©
rH co
0) "tf©CO©
CO CM CO CM
r-Tr-Tr-T^
53
p
CMrt<00T!<
"#Wr-lrH HHINW
s>
©©© CO
cocqooo
CO CD us uT
pa
9
s
tea
M
C- rf rf CO
cocdc^os
cnco cit*
bX)
-3
5
©CM r-l©
©Tt< CO©
00 00 CO CO
csT
£
3*»
o
H
©io co©
oTefoTg
-i
00 CO CM CO
IO"* CM CM
CO © r-l iH
toMco*©*
©CDt>CM
co^co t>c©
laoocoeT
CM
be HNNO
0)
S
o
En
CO
Tt 00 00©
OTFCO
++++
r-ICOrH LO
OiOOOt»
I>©1>
(NCMCOi-H
r-lr-ICO
T^^CO'*
WOO CD©
COC-CSlH
00 CM CO CO HHINW
©©rt<©
tJ^OOO©
CN CNCNCO
HincoV
t>l>CO©
r-lrf OiCO
C- r-l r-l ©^
©rMr-ieM
CO CO 00"*
<NrHO5C0
(N 00 00 00
I- CD 00 CM
lOCOt-©^
<NCNfcD~tNf
r-lrHCO
C35rHO© IOOCO©
t> lO CO^©
Tt< Tt< ©
CO t> 00 00
rHCDlOCO Q0HH iH
t-Too"cnTcn
rH CM
c-iocoio
00©COr-( woow
MIS
LOCOCM©CM©
Tf iH tH iH
l+l+l I
'tf CO r-l l> CO 00
CO CD lO Tf rf CO
CM Tf CM tJ< r-l LO
r-ll>©10 00©
t>CM lO © t> M*
t? wo»c»©^o6
CM
©t>CM©©-«*
0<Nt>"^ CO 00
<N lO lO CO CO CM
tH CO*"
© tF r-l LO LO IO t>©t>Cil>©
CM CO
rt< t> CD *0 t}< CD
00 CM (M t>OiH
t> CO^CM COCO CO
ofofofco i-Tcf
CO 00 LO r-l t> t^ CO©CO© LO«N
•HC^CD iHOJ ©^
iHi-liHrH tQ
lO tH LO LO CM 00
t- t> LO © tH ©
CM CO CO CN CO©
O00l>O00CSI HlOCOOWt»
©^"^tNO^O^CD
Lo"io'
>
'«cf t>ofrf
iH 00 O^ CO C7i © ©co txjiair*
rH LO^CO^t^©©
i-T r-Tr-T CM r-Tt«r
00©00l>©cN
LOCMLO ©LO©
00©00CM00t^
CO" CO^ of rfr-T CO
©CM CO CM CO©
r-l CO t> LO CO CO
I> CO (N CM r-l l>
fliJ
r5bj - C>^
'j *
©
00
CM
©" Q
Tl< CJ
Pi © O * S
CO xj
oo"
T3
i
si
Bo
3!r bol'
wJ2
°o < cc
2 2^
s >>
ill
3 o^
t-n->
to >><U C
O s C s
a bo c
>rj o
I |5f
K KBoC
IH
o2c
i!3 ft
.2
Q
i
—
< a
°£%
•a +*
<u <u -
Ig|
w ^' >
OlM O
s c
r-< as V
o H
g S3
a 3 &
w 3 43
5 S
s
59
- o
is
CUrH
5 23
Sal
cv »*
+ I++
OtOWH
COrHf-0^
rH^-T CO
00 CN CO CO
rH rH CO
oococo
CO^tH iHOI
rH c>f rHlo"
ICrHOO^
OOCO'-tf©
rH rH CO
rHrJ<l>OI
T^co'co""^
rH rHCDOi
CO l> 0^©„
rfwrHcf
•2, l> CO CO CO
ft ©CNLOt^ ^ rHCNTfOO
3 Of Of
t>©0>©
i>ooooti<
rH l ij rjr
rH rf t>CO*
3
H rHrH CO
•2 ©©l>©
*« COOHOTf
5a
(NHHlfl
r*Lo"co"of
£ o-c rH
a u
u *> OH(NO
°0 rH LOCO O
©CO^COCft «2 coaTrfo
Ol
«2 OINON —m oo th oo OO^LOt*
tH Of
a,-
CO CDOl
COCNLO
C5rHO
I I I
c-coco
rHCM^
rH rHOJ
CO CO
© LO"rt<
CO CD© ncoq
©"co"oo
co ^r
©t>©
rH rH CO
I>Tt TH
of ©"
CO rH CO
loi>oi
LO ©
CO (MOO
CO<N LO
Nt;0»
rf rHlfl
rHrHtO
LO rH©
COCO©^
ofrHCO"
rHrH CO
00T)<OI TfH»
of of
COC5 LO
00"co"rH
CO ^
©COrH
COrt<O0
coco©
COOi©
OrHOI
Tfof»
CM Ol
OWN LO LO©
ooico
-2 0)2 to
OOOIlOlfl
LO rH COCO
LO CM CO rH
I I I I
t>C0I>l> olooco
"^ LOt>I>
©t>00T}<
oooot> to
CO LOLOLO
t^CO"©H"-N**
OOrHOOt*
C0t>LOtO
C0C0©»O
OiLOTfOO
rH CO ^T
CO CO t> CO O LOOOTt1
co"ofco"of
rHt>00©
CO CO CO 00
CD©^T^W
Of i-T^" CO
cocoTt<oo ©©COCO
rHLOCO©
CO l>HH oowoi^
©"©"©"co"
rHCSI
cot- coco © CO © CO O0O3COW
rHofrfCO
©00©l>
<M COCO 00 ©^CO©
lo"^"lo"^
LO LOCO CO CO©l>l> ©t>©00
tH rHOf
Eh o
E
r* r» ^
3 us I
t>C0t>CO
OJLO©00
l+l I
©C0x*£.
O5C0 LOt-
OlCOrt t>
rHLOOO^
COLOLO^ © LO^CO 8V
|>LO Ol rH
rH CO
©©©Ol
CO rH 00 00
tou-jco©^
Of rHlff
lo©t*©
L0rH0l»0
O>©C0©
C0?0O5©
CO © rH »
I>OfTfTf
LOCO TfrH
©r^*tLfOc^o©©
CO"rHrH©
co©ooco CO© toco LOLO©rH
co" iS
-«*l>rH01 ©©LO©
©^cocooo
t>LO©" rH
rH CO
rf COLO©
!>MI>CO
LOrHCOOS
Oj©rt<©
COCO^t©^
rH M
t> rHrH OS
rH CO COLO
©OltO 00
<UOH
o a «
0)0 o
is- ^
boa) o
is So 5
4> in
Wrj*©- CS
ga° 2
•o o d a>
Sfol
in
„ J 5 -o
o a Ǥ c
•rt O
«J « w d *
co rt 4) >
o oa « >
S S? »+, g
3 3 CJ y
»"9 ^ CO
oo>,S d
lilll
a> a) 2 x >
o o w d „
a> 4) 4) - «
ft) a> r^l5 «2
cj o?sS
co o>«h cj 4>
3 3 g 3a>
60
©"©Sh
iH CM
CO rH^
toi>co
OCO^OH
<N rH
l+l+l
OCON05C5
(N^-n-it-eo
rH CM
© tO© m©
Tf ©1>©CM
©<NCO<M©
c6c6c6a6t>
pH CM
ooot>t^
lOi-HCOlOT^
T}< l> CO rH ©
r-T rH©
CO©CS
+++
CMTf©
o>oot^ HO^H
I>O0lH
CO(N in
<N©~r-T
©rH©
^rtHco©o©o
©~rH|>
-HtHCOOCO Ncomo
co i-H i-t ©
I++++
CM ^ CO 00 t»
t>tD©l>©
©in©co©
t-OOrHrHOl HHc^m ©^
co"mco'~co'lft
,
to t> to to in
CvlOOOCT)©
Tf<© ©© rH
iH rHrH©"
o co
co~
bSo
E3
-1
si
^cot^
(Nhco
lOHh
co^b-
©rH©
CMt>©
ooo>t>« ©lO©
©CO© rH©rH
©"©"tH
rH cm
NHM <£>©"<*
rH i-l CO^
CO~<N00
NCOW
©ooob
©~<NCM
COtOtN ^88
lid q
©©©r-©
CO £- rj< rH f» © t^
©COrf tO ©
©<Nrt<Cft©
©^COWCMCS
rH©"^CO*" CM
COtOrHCMCM
©i-H>cOt* © l> rH ^©
CO*rHC<fl>
cocm^co in ©oooo© to
CO CM T^CO^t
©©x}< ict>
tDC^tO"*©
t>CMCO©|>
cm"©"©"©"^
•"tfiHCMOf
Ht(ON©OCOMC©0© © l> © ION
i-Too ofio co
©to to©©
cooo co^t io ©© rH|>©
i-T cvf
83 PL- &
rH,_|CM T*rH©
©<NrH
l>Tt<CM
efdn CMrH©
toco©
T^OOCvJ
t>T^Cq
©*©~©
rH CM
©Tteo
r-l<NTl< t^<N©
C<f r-TCO
©tC>M©rH t^
03rt<©
co©"c<f
COOCM
(N(NW
lOCMt^
svsf
toco©
©tOrH
P0^(NiH
lOCM~GO
©rH<3<
I>CO© ©Oi©
rH tO©
to'©"©*
if*
-2 • &»<
p
lO^rHCMCM
00 t> tO CftrH (NrHrHCM©
©ot-©©
to t> .coco "^1
CcTCM©'
,
|>eO*
>
CM
(N»OlOlOl>
CO©(N rH©
Nt" ^"t 00^
CO" WtNOf
©©©CO© O5H(NO5C0
lOlOrHTf t*
© tO CM tO©
to© lO tOCft
rHIOCO tO©
w o id oO
-a o d
Sg°
ill
aS o^-£«m
+» a c S
C fcXJ C
13 o
CO CO CO & 1 «S1
ft ft^'
rt
evo
rt co o
o oS X
ft 0,3 •
3 3W)^
CO IO CO CO Ift O
•0 _ O CO
rH l-Hr-l^
3 3oS 1-3 •-J CO ©COrH©"** «i
I>rHI>CO0p t3
© tjo c <n © in ^
Tf(N©, TfTf O
IH O
©COrH CO©
4J
s
» o"3 ^^ §
fi-ge,
10 cs C5CT)©CO© CO ^(N(NH CM Q co ©©"©"in X? 3
rH CO CO co^g
4)2'>< C b"fi «
CO CO © © ^* O S2 C
l> COrH CM'* CD «S? l> CO t> © "«• £ •°>2 s
CI
B
<y cu 4> _
BBS!
coS c;
- 6 «
8 £&;* S
41 Vm cu
T3 O to
1-. ao
•a .
23 O CO
61
o
a
U
CD t-h ,_i r* CD ©
E*- CD CD W H
t» <N <N ©„00
WH l> rf 05
<N t>00 1H1H
i-H i-lr-1 cN
CM CD 05 T* tH
CMOOCOTT (N
co 3 a>
Q
+ I++++ + + | |+ | +++++
© CD Ci 00 ^r 00
cm co S: t> o\eo
CD CO Oi^OVtO
O^OO^rt* CD °0,00
^ D— CD~© t> CO
CO
00 rH ,-h CO N tO
CO o CO t- 00 CN
l> N O t* ® ^
C- t>i-i t> l>05
00 Oi Oi i-l tM *H
H(NH<NCJ
CD CD cOi-I^O^
£$£OlC0O3©
t> CO CD O r
"i °0^ N rf CN Tj?^t"
iHC^i-Tr-ToO
o© IOH
OS
t>©
C0I> "" cN
"J, © l> Tt< T}< CM CO
& rHl>©10CMt>
-O lO^t rHCM©C0
&
CMtO"* COOiCO
— t> tH lO 00 Tf |>
Ti 03«L*eJOU4U9
H CO
co ai t> rfi co ©
t>l>Tf CO IO00
l>tO"tfCM©©
iHCfOQCCCiTiH
O5CDI>a5C0'* ©co ©r»<aioo
rH lO CO CD Ol ©
coV"<tf •<* coef
cjn i-hioi>gooo©
SC" -g>C tOr-4-€0-©r 2j OJr-U> IO00 Ifl
85 iH CO
tr-io
W
©~
to
t>oo too©
CD CD 00 t> © (Nt^hOCO
COOOC- t>©
aoo^iHOOOJ
iPcoOii-ngo
t> tH rt1 O CO
i-T oCtjT
COOHTJ(H
<N00CDI>5!
r-i l-H^r
iO(M(Nt> CO
COail>t>l>
CD^CO OO^CD^IO
'-^oo'csio'oo''
CO 00 00005
CM CM CO iH
to to »H
CDCDOCOW
l> t>CMCM©
Oi OCOOOtH
co" coao
©00 CO©©
CD iH 00 00 tO ©©©poi>
©Cioctfi-o*
tH 1-lCO
l><NC5C0tH
CT5 CD 00 CD *H © lOrf CifH
r-Trf CM~©
COCD^CDOi
COlOOiCN CO
00 CO Tf<G}CO
iHtHCOOOJS
iH CM
l-HCOCO F- ©
i-T ci
T3
o ^
o ox c.2h
8 °.^_g So
Eh
Eh O
E9
X q
k2
>—
.
CM
es l-H CN
1-4 Tt» CO ^ CM TH<NCOOt-l>
t>(N05lO
rHCD^CNfiH
CDCOOqt>00
co os i-i moi
CNlOCMO
iH W
CDCi<NOCD
COlO U0»O
(WNtOJChOh(OMH©
<n to co to©
©OiOiCO l> HOX00C5
CO CD<N tOl>^
i-ICO^COtH O^CDOH tH(N© tO 05
C0OCM00C0
CO i—I © Tf C5
i> co <» ©^oo
^©"co'tH
t>r-4CDt>TH
tH COOiCO 00
CN tOCMOi©
of ^r
©©CDtHM
i-HCM ©©iH tO(N©©00
t-TTjrCM|>
goojco©c5
tHC0CD©I>
Ttl-ICO
62
a c« it .^ o
rt^3
•^^
Ad
So t
05 if
HssW<l> B I,
"o Sd
ugs°
a)
T30C
fl 55
!*«
»i ? o
eSl
-a o
o og-n
id d o
fl ti±; cj
O oSX
ft &s ffl
- 3 o o
•-5 Hj (3
•a t3
O O >,C
-t-» -po'S
S Hz*
M M w 3
cu a; ^ x
°.2 fl
73 T3 "**
•a Sfi'S
<n w ^ fe-at
CU " >
10 to**
co cufl d
CJ CJ S-F-co
co co O 0)mh CU
T3 73 O CO
a ^cog
8 . 3o
s
-J
»°
rt bo
11
1
03
£
^t *h cm © t> co
++ 1 l 1
1
<NOt>OOOI>
(NCOTfOCDW
MiHt-fCQfHvN
©lOTt<rHCi©
00©©CD©rH
CO iO ©00 JgJ
OCMtJ*CD00O
t^©rH LOCO 00 WtHI>05CO^
tJi-4 tHfH«©
CD CO T* CO
OOrfCO co
rH tMrHlO
^t WOO)
00 IQ 00 00
~ © CO rH 00 on S
ai © rH [*- CO lO 1
So CD Tf rH © CD i
O CDCNCOrHrH
<NlO<NrH<NcN ©00 CO rH
"3 '--^ooS-'^cqJH
© CNflHTHCO""*HTH
I> CO i-l l> CD ^ CN LO CD CO rf lO CDCOlO©lO©
co
*,« lO CN rH "«< CO 00 Ow HOrfHjOW
*»;g 00iO©lO<N©
§« rHrH MiHGO
«2 oo©©©io<
S rHrH ^i-M
fcilffi
En o
8
CO
1 1
1
+ +1 + 1
I> CD lOOO
iooootF
t>CDCOt^
i-Tef
lOrHCOtN
lOr-lt>^»
IOOCOOO OHOM rHrHtM^
©00 <N©
TfCDCDt*
t-iHi>ce
CNrHCO"**
OJCOON
OCNCOCD
rHCOCOt^
rHOOCOcN
00©CO rH
Tt<©t> CO
rfTtI>CO
^©rfC©
COtNrHCO
r-rrft>eo*'
<N<NI>rH
OOOCOtN
t> ©©„»
CO
CD
©00CN© t>
CDCDrf t^ CD
cococo-ej.
©*©*©*' *h
rHrHCNTt< S3
OOCDCOt* CO CDtXNCO lO
0501>t» CD
CO t}«00«D
r©H©trNH©rNH
Tf IOIOIO
CDCDjHg
CO
coooo^
CD(Nl> CO ©^CNt^
i-Tesf co*
rt<a>a5CN
MOOlOfD
i-tCN ^
OHCOh
CD T* 00 00
rH 00 00 00
U3 CO
r>o©t*
<N CO 00 CO
iocs co© tXNOOO
CO CO © co^
CO~©~rH00
CD©CDrH
CO<NCO©
rH CO CO rH
TOCTrH^
COOHN
3<<N00tJ<
OOCDlO©
(NO^COCO
rH^OVCO^
cocoioio
rHtN "*
lOCWCO
CO©00 rH ^o*hV
CO © © rH
T^CNCOrH
-QffiTl^Cfl —__CO^
r-TrH^t CD
(NrHOCO
00 00©»O
(N© CO
CO" ^
+
COrft^t* lO t>o©t» CO 1>©^CN lO
oo*
>
co"'co''oo co" H N rH
63
En O
*s
bo
H g
3 00
hO Nn
9 Q
»
0) Ex
s
Eh o
a
Eh
^
0) o o> > -£ UH to
I1.SO
UOrJH
h
oo
c ~ (0
o>5 3
lb
toa>
WD* «8
•H ^
3-1
elS M
I s^ -
o si's c
C M C CO
T3 O
O ° St &
ftTJ ^<
co co cy >
>»cy -S
ft ft3«
3 3^ g
W) M ftC
N "§
s §
IOC fgt
o o>,E c
iilli
QD. C,
ill ^
<» ii fi r- co
M k! > £ 4) 4> >» > J2
s «s fl 1
ww OT
" co
4) CJch cy D
—1 ti co a> — -2
Li 00 *H CD i-H CO t" coiocM-^asixNoi 00 © Tf
2
upon
a
n
traffic
or
Magis-
</i HMWt-mw CNCNOSIXNO^CO © CO ©
So
5
J
HCO r-l CO
1 1 l+l 1
1-i J-i
I++++ I++
00,
+
©
+
LO
cm" +
Sgsv TlfOCoO oLOoti^NMmHN o©oTfloCOioCOoiLOcCoOcLo^a-srtHo s C0O0 1©-H a2553 tg
SS Tj<NHtDH» CM CN CM rH rH rH CN LO 00 ^
CkrH
rH IH
S3
©"
s
t^ t> CO ©OS© as©Lot>cooo©to £© NO © o
3 iiSt
t> 00 t> H CM fc
CO 00 "rf <N CO CV|
LO LO CM CM rj< eft 00 00
coTposcoioooocN 2© §o Sfi
o 50 ^f r-T t> ofof of ©"ofi-Tof©" CO rH
*-©
LOrH oo"S
<W
H CM TH LO
00
Tt
t4
©©
^ b • o
1SgWoo
Si* o
4)
(A Tt< OJ <N t> r-l CO OSHOOrfH^OS ^ I> »Ot}< ©Tt
<N OS WON o
asasi-nooioo
T* O lOOOrHCD
LO OOLOCOCO© «s w Soto
cf of s ©
tH
CO
LO
IH TH
<—
O
T3
a
1/3
o
a
!3w as po o rt* o ih
(N OSeOrHrHOO ©as ©rH toas
5-9 HCDHMCOW
rHrH rH «^
cOoqrlH:
©
TH
co"
tOoq_rJH
©"
^^ O 3 55
a h. "BH n
Q 0) oo as co lo i> cm GO CO OI rH CO rH l> 00 §3 tH CO rH CO « 03^ *
7i > OS I> rH CO c^o t>Tt< as cocoes rHC5
« o^co^as t> as ** co <m rt © oo as "tf 3* 43 © «i?
e«
>>
co"of of © rH CM" tD © ^ © r>
u l-H
CO
t* 3
03
oi co oo coo oo to I>rHrHOt>COaSrH ss^ ss ©OI
CP CD t> 00 "** CO po
t>00r-l00l>^
OS OS rH © rH I> GO 00 N^ 00 r-: a b-"S «
l-H CM CM t> t> CM rH^ CO co s« 5S 3 (i«> --1
rH rH Ift rH rH-rf © CM 1-H 3) >»d) a a
>» CO CO t» ii'ti a) _
pq CM CM o a«>B c
fl to fl CO
TJ O
(H «H fl tft 1—
1
60
OCOOOr^cOOO
t> COrHOCOOO lo lo (n as io io lo c© 00 rH coco **!> O og-£ eg
rH rH OJ l> t> © Tj< LO Is ts Is - -, r„ ft ±3
•a "^^CMOCOtJ* rHiHCNCOCOCOrHO <u o> rt S
5 <N CO i-T ©
oo
©rH s
£ rH CO CO o >
n >>o -a
OS COOrHCOOl
LO CO T* CO l> CM
COLOI>rHLOrH(Nl>
cot>i-HOi>ascNTH
LOO Wo CO©
cox
CO©
05 ©
3
o
CO^OHLOOH^
Of tH CO" Of rH Of© *8 LOH
«8
LOrH
oo 3=;
©rH
3 3 W^ 0>
ft) cuTT X C
H CM rH LO
00
th"
•a
si
11
I>OOOrHCOOS rH 00 l> Ol Ol 00 00 © CO CO ©oo cot>
iii!
S 53» ?
a lOCOO^t coos HCDtJ"^OCO
(NH WrHOO
CO rH LO t> CO 00 CO OS
©rH
CO
^©co LO
CO
s
7)
8
OS rH TjH OS^rH lO rH 05
rHrH rftO
w
^.2 CMCOCNOCOCO ioi>oascocoTfi-i CNI> CO CM ©CO
o"3 ©©CO^tTFCM r> lo co oi Tf o lo oi
co co lo th ^oa as © ^co
s
%<co © °°cS 5 5 * d rt si
s2
•h as^©^as^ cm cm
Tf ofrHC0~rH CO*
iH lH © s
CN Tf rH CO LO 00 t>OTfiOOt^
LO CO rH Tj< CM ©^
rHOC000TfOt>C0 © t>
i
.2 fl _
cooa^iooii>cooo LO "*
CM rH rH r—i Ol vH ©
rH
CO CM
©" ©"
00
Eh E-s EE^I 3
O o 43 «
*-i Kl <2 S^^ 22
£ s os-a +3
OQ
bs lid
rri^ ° 3 SO
CQ WW WW
OS
Eh o
CO
1 J|38.fi£
rC-5 2 « J* ^O I- CU
OCh
s 5 O u
U Oj
OPh OHfn
0) 0)<H oi Of
TJ "3 O w T)
3 3 „ £3 3 ei
a»iJ rt h3 hC-A<<*o-i £3£2
64
ft) «H <V
>H O C
<D+jH
0Oh
-e aa
5
£ 11
5
St O
< c
(A
a
o
a
3
OJ
o
Q)
i—
be
S
^ a o w^ u a
Etf ft)
ft HH S
W fe
CM
Q
3
13
oH
W fe ^ j3 iH
CO 1
I
0)
O
*8 aP
1 QW 3
M
Wtf Q H OO
Wfo 1 3 iJW 1 to
A)
Jffl CM 1
H
8
o
go
.2 °
•—1 M ft)
I
e o
£^ § i§
Ofa ^ og • 9
i!
^M I
C*3£? p. w5 ctf U ££
Jz; w
fe
fe o
- tfi CO in «o "tf in to "*
<NrH<NrHCO t^
IOU5COWH©0«
CM CM C<l rH rH iH jH
rH CI
ONoOhWWt*
OOt-(NONOH
rHCOl>OOCNr-lgJ
OWHOOOO,*
HO^OONSH^S
Tf O <M CO Tjt Oi Tf ©
CMrHCM Ci «D
OOoOOHINOJ
^^CM^g^co1
OOiflHOQOHW
OOoOOOOO
**s
flea
ouoPOeueuH
65
in cat>in ©o hi t> rH<£> coco
O w T" O
•«-> P*
x"3 gt*
4) 3
u>,2 5c
ft) o o o a«"c* .3 ss
I><N<N©<7>© c 2
.2 8 s
C
"S CMrHCO coo
rH CM 3
=2 C +J-I-)
Si 3 i>©mcM CD© °oJ
<n r-i in TJ ft .2
T3 O C ft)
OHWOHOO 4) O CO — u
i- c re §3 «
a ^
o C s
C O
l> CM rH ^ CM ©
CM CO © ^2 <U£ ft)^
o£
©©t-©©C0 ^©2 b®
a, C CO
o
ft)
ftj^j
ft) 8
?i
•o rHCM-^Tf CM CO
CM rH «<f<
8U.3 7! SJ
g°-o C«
S t. <y • a
3S
C0 05000 CM
t> CO CO ^ 03§
rH
S ft)
ftT"S »^ £.2
S3^
in"
©rHrHOTfO 3 2 2 In
y-< rH fl«* ^ £
r-l 52 >> £.2
rt^S ctt
"8
S"s Sc »-> 4)
©oooo©co w *J 3 ft)"c8 ^ ^2-2
o).a a)
^> ex
in cm cmth
rH 30
rt « 4)^5^
OOrHOCOlH
TH
©oooo©
tJ O o>
C MJ W
co a i—i CO
4) "Jo <y
<M . C
ft) tOT" mcb
2i°l.lS
S^o 2fc" ~££ ^^« 3^_ * 55 £F« -o ^
g s
« ft) ft) 4)
lis S^s O ft)w IH
a § £4*
"£ r1t B
o i 5
COWg
d 3 O °£ft)
o COTJ *-> x
-t-l a w W o*'
Beaufort
Hyde
Martin
Tyrrell
Washing
TOTAL
4) tfl ft)
H ft) o
~« 4)
2^.2
•
Ill
i
r
OH
Q
00 00O lO»H
l>CO(NLOOi
00<X>Tt<COiH
OtDO^O
HHOCOW
iH <NCO
OOIXNOiCO
<NCO 00*O
tp co©co©
Tp HINMO
i-Hi-l CO©
I>0iCDI>O
CO OOt>
<n eo
HOOHOHiOt>"CtO
i-l C0t-HO
<NC0r>O5iH
rH CD ©
i-icntpco©
t-4 i-l CO
CJ©00iO<N
<N Tpi-lCi
00©COC0t^
r-« <N -*
i-IOCNKNlO
i-l CNrHTP
MOW OOCOi-H
CO ^
S3£ I> 00
333
OOOW
cn eo
i-H^tlO © ©
CO ^P
cooco
CD CD
©00 COOHO
COCNi-HOCO
r-i C<1
^OCMlOCN
<N CO
<N00<N<N£
HQOHH
l> © CO ^P CO
<N i-HO
tNOCO©]*
i-l CM
•oo^oiog
&
•23
&>
si
©<N<Nt>©
"*P COOHOC5
r-l <N"<*
COlOOLOi
t>i-H<MC0C0
<NO<N<N t*
rH <NC0
OiCDOOOCO
iH CO
©0©iHiH
00OOOC0
lO CI ooco
rH CO
<N©<N©»
CDiOlO© 1
©©OOi-HOO
CO
HOWOW
OHH ©OCNt©N
t>©t*
co co
COiH-^t
**9
©©© Tpi-llO
©©©
"*P TP OS l> Tf
CO CO i-l CO CN
<N00©©©
OHHUJt*
CN©iHCOCO
CNiOOOCNtr
©©©©©
En En &H En o O O cj
Kj •*( »»H >»H a S s u 05
^H Bs En > En
GQ cq CQ o
i
CQ
n«< •-^
Duplin
Jones
Onslow
Sampson
TOTAL
>-H <N
C5
Carteret
Craven
Pamlico
Pitt
TOTAL
En
New
Ha
Pender TOTAL
3
CO
ao
SB,
'X3 !t* >H 5* b
S a <u oO
66
u o a 5*1
tt)4.H
jcqlcos^o -oporto »> to o ;<* cp oo cn
COOCNCO LOIOLOO oo
B O
3
art
OH
3 *
15O «^ 13
A
a
oo co oo os
l>t> CO rH
rHiHCNC©
o>t*looo
i-li-ICO
OOO^N
COCOr-lOO
coco co
in co <NO
<N<N»ft
cot>Tj< ooocn
OS CiOJ r-l O
rH «tf
<N 00 00 LO CM to
Tt*OS^» ©tNlOt" 00C005OC0C0
i-ICN"^ CNCN r-l r-l ^T <N
i-l rH XO
co m .- © tH rH i-ftf
Gi O ^ CO
C0Tt< lOV
tH(N<NCC
coi>eoc©
<Ni-itJ<
l>t>CO©
tHi-H<N©
73
OH
i-HOCito
COTfCNlO
©©LO"*
TTOOCO
OCOOlDHCJ
i-HtHcNCO oo
00
3
OOiCOtN
t>co oo ©
u
5
lOOOOCO
CNr-tr-HO
rH 00 rH©
rH<N^
TjH>cOOiiHb-tH
CO o
r-l
05COC01H
rH co<©
•**
O
H
H
COr-©CN
CMrH io
OOcN^Tt*
(NCO©
COO^T^COO^ 00
CO
r-lCOt>lH
LOCOrf CO
73
OH
COCiOCN
r-l <N^
TFlOtNiH
CM CO 00 l>
CNiH"^
C0Ot>O<NCN
tJ< t>Tj<CO CM <N
CO
cot><N ic
t> LOCO CO
rHrH CO
3*
.2©
5 *
1HOOCM1H
(NtH ^i
lOI>© W C0 05 0010OW
CN
i-H •^* i—l 00 CO
rH CO rH CO
II
t>OC0©
OOCDOLO
i-ieq
OHicOoWloWo CNrHCO
COC0t>©©CO
CO CO rH 1ft CO
TH
1ft ©iOtj<©
lO<N©C©
r-l CN
if
coioioto
CM rH CI CO
O 00 00 CO t^OOtNLOCN'*
<N<N CO
cnihoco
r-l <NCO
3 OttOH OtJ*0"* OOOOOO iH oooo
1o
Hie 8 2 ^
67
^ g s s
IS g 1 J*g
•a
© cot-
L.OCN00
i> t*
Q0CO<N00 0Q
HN i-H
CMCMrf 00
r-lTf T-ICO
CM rHCO CO1-1-*
OH
C0l>tft
(NOO©
^00 lO^
i—< CO
co co cot* t>co©
lOr-lt-
2 *>
5 *>
5 «
O 13 u a
ft
rHrHCM O O
CM CM
CO (NO
<N ^K
3^3
CM CM
CO ©
S^SS
oot>t*
©CO CM©
co©£-*
CO CM l> CM
1-H Tf ©
£
oscor>CM
t* iH©
CMO00U5
CO 00
c3i2S§
CMW©<
(NOTf«0
COi-H -*
3^5
CMt~©
COCit-
CO cot*
CO CM©
ICCMOO
S£S
s
1)
3
o
H
•2.2
is
o o
CO 00-*
9 th 3 C0lO©lfl
CO
00
r-lCMOO-H
lOCOt-©
CO -*
00©00
OOCOiH
CMr-l-*
c
©CM CM
t> t»
-*©00l>
CM CM
CO CO©CMK3
CO CO
CM©00
*Oi-(©
Q
228
00 00
CO© t-W
CMlOCM© CO
i
COCM©to
IOCO©-*
CM 00
CM©-H
-* CO CO
coco©
-* -* ++%$ CM
CO
CO©©-* ©IDiH
COCM»H
©£
!
tH©t-I i-t©©iH © t-©ot- CO O CO
i
uffih
1^
sl-ig
CQCQOH
a « ^5
,2,2 2b <OOH
68
(H O Q
«fa.S
tj fa
a
u
II
cuoinoo
CM rH^
CO i-H""*
r-^eji©
*4 (M^r.
05 in in t> t~ >-:t^r-i«£>co^
»-H rHCM© i—
<
r-l ^
t> lO t>COCM
mCOt> CD©
(N rHCOOO
Tf CO ©CO© rH
lOCN©C0C0CM
rH i—I i—I »-l ©
rH©rH<N©
CMl> CMCM O H oo oo © coco HQOH r-i 05 rH 00 t> ©
CMCNrHt^
5 I
i i
v a
B
p.
W\ a
00 Ol r-l CO i-l
•<* ©
rHin WtNCO
oonp
CO
CO r-l H 00 ©
iH r}<«D
§ ©in©rH
co ^r © co
CM
O^ONO© rH rHCM
00©COt><N©
<NCO tXNCNOO
CO in© WC*
i-l CO cocsji-i cn^co
COrf 00 in CO
CM i-l rt* 05
i-i 05 co in co rj<
i-l <N rHtO
lOOOi t>*H
CO i-l <N 00 C5 CO^ 2# (NI> lOOO
CO CO CM Tf CO
t>©t*-CM©W
i-iCOTfCN CM
S Si
5 *
<°8S§.
©£-©©©
cm eo
CO C0C5 ©t>©
00 rH©
Tt< rH©
CN C*
C0©<NCN1>
t-CMrHTf'f
rH HH^i
mtNcoTft^
T* CM Tjl
lOrf IOCO o©
CNJ O CO t> 05 CO
CO
cm moooo oqin
r-l i-l Tf
si
©£
in co cm co co
00 i-l CO CO
*H00COt>(
"tf T* ©
gC5W
cm cm
© oo m © ih
T*<1-I©©l>
rH rH CO
© © 1—I © ©
rHCM
cxjoo©-*in©
<n Tf co co t> eo
CM
rH © CD Tf CO Tf
rH rH i-H*
©CM©©CM (NoN ©©©©© OHHOON
Ba
A
9 8 o ^£
cs o R 3 O
s c
III
ft <DJ35
O H
69
0)
Eh
U^KKH
»- V J CD 00 Ol 00 rH
CO t- HMO CM <NCO
CO CO CO CO lO Tf t* t> C75 00 CN|
Ofc 1
aoS2 nor1
"d
a
rHCNOiCOCD
rH CN
^COrHCOCNCO
II 1
rH^JCOCTi©
COOOtNT-lCft
<N COCO
CO t~T}<C0t*
rH CM lOTf CO
<N CO
C7> 00 t> CO 00 W3
CDCOrHiOCN©
CN
OH
•a
u
lO©<N<N© (NHCOO CN rH CO rHf
rHOO CJ
l> rH <N t> "tf *H
1 S
I!
0)
$ O05TMO00 rH tN 00 CO ^t »nin©<Ncou5
Q
3OH
OS
T-l
(NOrHCOOO
tHIH) 00*O
rHi-H<NC0l>
CO © © <N GO <N t> OJ
rHrH r* ^*
a
o
c
'3 O
00
<N
rH
005i-nr>t^
i-l cow
rHOOOtNjH IXMtMCOlfJtN
p >> 9
S
3
H
CO
CO
(NOOOIH HTf «*© °^5^§ C0©COCDCNt*
09 V
(A
a
O
3oH
CO
r-l
-^co coco
i-l HW
THioOrf ©
CN r-l^
Oi CO rH CO 05
rH 05 CO Tj<
1H
©Ot>(N©
rH ,-t
l>©t-<NTf © COrH COrH©
©C0©rH©<«<
rH tH
CS
iQ
hi
is
CO
CO ^ OS <N GO ^2 2g
05rHT}<COt»
rHt-COCN
g«>t>£c>co
CO Ot^OON
CO CO
©<N©iHC0 <M©©COU5C0
Ofa
"a
o ooooo ooooo ©©©©©©
3
CD rj
3*5 <u^5<
CU r-^T3 5T R » £ ^ P
SrtS
M-SliS
70
a ° a
co i>co<
CO©00< $ cooeo
. lO CD©
i-lCO U3
ooo5 t-o r-iin
lO CO CM CO CD©
.-I CO
OH
5 fe
"2 fl
u a
©I> IOtH
COCNl>t*
i-HCMCN©
cWocoog COCO
HOOOft
"3!©©£!
CO CONOCO
HHINW
CNi-ITt<t*
CM [> CO CM
E^rj<00© (tN>O(ONHONO
tFO0©iH
r-tiOi-l©
rHi-tTf © r*0) ©
©www
r-l CM
CM W©©
Tj<CM t^
CO CD CO W
rH CM rH©
.00
LOTfT^^*CDC0
l> MNO COO
CO i-i t^
(N CD Tf CO 00 CO
CO iH CO
COOCO rHIOCXI
Tt< CO CN Tj< CM © ©i-i i—1 1—i m
ti-lHi-H © to CO ^CO
COIXNCOCOCO
CD CO
oH
.2°
OS
en rt
ii
rHTfCDiH ©tHCC*
iHtHCO
©t>Tj<©
CM CM©
OS©tJ<©
coco cm rg
co ih co 53 iH i-lCO
©©©©
s
CN
CM^OOTf
©cMior*
tHIO t*
U0CMCO©
CNCO ©
i-HlO©lO
COHrJt CM
rH^t ©
©t>©©
t> CO
©O©©
CDOiOHHM
OS Tf tJ< CO ^H
iH i-l ^<
© co © co "^ ©
t> lO CO
wcomioooo
CO CM CO
CM
©CO
i-l^©C0t>lO
co 5*
©©©©©©
5s En Eh O O O
ts *n •-H « a; 05
Bh En
bo
Eh
CO CO 3 CO N *s Si »-h T3
3
Burke
Caldwell
Catawba
TOTAL
CO
CM
o
CM
Clevelan
Gaston
Lincoln TOTAL
il
« 5
KSi
71
IMII gig
*£ O O? CO © Tf| 00 Cfc *-<
cs
CO
I 3J
•d-j
a ~
S S?
I *
o >o
oo o a> M< as «* oo w uj kq
CO <N io <£> CO <N »£ £j ©^
* s CI "
OHOOJWHOg CO o
OOOOHOHN J> t>
<n o o io io tj* cm 25 J2 t$ P
(Nooooor-ico $o oi
** ^ 3 co
o
H
= c
.2®
2 ««
OS
1
1
II
tD0i0iO00 05iO50 OkOM NHIO^INH OS <g$>rH 1-1 *1 2 to
CO zi
000(NOOOM C& <N
i> a a os (n i> »o oo w «h HHiO(NMH » W cS
<3iOOOi<X>CqOCO JH^
oooooooo £ CO
CO
1
2
b-5
S8ga »J S ** **
72
o
CO
s
a
Og
O
<
s
gSw
wu
o
Pu,
w
s
CM
CO
!
CM
OS
bo
1
3oH
•d
ft>
ft) V)
S3
-a
4)
a
in
5 Q
& -a
o ft>
I
c 3
U «
iO IQ 00 CD Tf <N Ci Oi
CNCNCOrH© rH
rH <N
- © <N O O I> ^ lO 00
Ci <N 0> CO I> eo
CNrHt> COCO
r-4 CN
t^-OiOCN 00 CM
ONOOt'NWO
OOlXNOCNOiH
S°SHB?
OHtDOHCO
hwcooo^ow tH <N
oooooooo
tXNrHTfCNO
CN CO CO
COrHCOCNOCS
rH i-H C*
Tf rH lO t* j> CN ^* l>
CNrHCO 00 CO
CM r-" CO XO l>CN iH "^
CN CO t-
U3C5t>OCOt^
r> <n cnco
COCOrHOCOCO
CN i-l r-4lO
IOU0 CO oco
CNi-KNOO -^
rHCO t>CN
CN CO © <N O
rHCN COl>
OOOOONON WOlOHOH CO lO O H CN
COtHo^OO
CN COW
OOIOOCOOS
i-l coio
oooooooo OOOOOO OOCNOOO
i-l CN
OOt>CNOCNOiH OHCOOHOO O CO O CO O
tH i-i cnco
i-jt-oooo2£ ^t> i>o
i—l CO
(NCOTf Tf CO
rHrH CO CO
HCNCDOO^OeO "tf rH 00 CN CN l> Oi rH rf ^ 00
rH <N rH rH CO CNCO tT CO
rHCN
^WlO>H0C0 TOf HCO
CN IO00
COOOCNOCO
CNlCr-iO^OO
O-ZSO2)B
« c
CNOOC35OOC0C0 CN CO CO O O rH 00 05 CO ^ |>
CN lO O *0 rH rHQO CN rf r£ CN
»T3X3.
a a $%B
Eh
5 cd •*•<
SSkJ ^ o.sn
a as « q st ^ £ cu cr ctPh kJ
UUUQOPhPhH ^
1
1
S cus <<
a in cc.tiw
OUChCmH
73
r-t i~l CD t>t^
rH (Mi-HlO
N ©CN
t> 00
t>TfOrf to
tornco in to
CN CO
CD 00 t>rH
CO rH rf CO
rHCNCNCD
CO O Oi CO
CO CNCD
CO CO CO (NtH
rH tJ< i-l t^ CO T-llO
lOt> rf CO
i-HCN^
Tf CNOiCDH
CN
OCDCMO00 CNTfCNOO OTf toCi
G>rHTt<CD©
CO to
1-1 Tt U5
COrH<<*
HOC0W 00t>CO00 toCOOt^
CN CN rHCN rHrHCO
l> CNOOCJ5
rH rHrHCO
l>LOCN
<N CO
rH to©rHl> CO<Ntj<05
COCNto
©CNCO to
CNCN
OHTf Ttf 05 ©toto CO©rH to OHOH ©©"**
OrHCOCO©
rH CO
r>Ot" OINOON COt-HT^X OCNC51H
CN CN i-i iH CNCN'* tH
OOMTfh;
CO H/C0©
rOHrHCON toCDrt<Tt © rHCO to
OiCNCOTft 00CDCN CD
CNH/CN© CO00CN
•^OCi 00 iH
rHCO
Tf O H/ CN05Tt<HCC COCiCOto O tH to CO
rH tH CN
CO©TfCO CO
CN C0rH|>
I>tHO0 © © C0t>©COC0
rHCN h^
COCO©©
CN CNCN CO
oo tot>©
COt- CM
CD toCOrHlfl
to H1><HNWto OHH CD CO
OCDH/ CD CO
Tf co cN Tf ^ tH cm
h/coiocn
CNCO 00 Hh HHH^t
©©00 t^
CN"* COCO
CNrHTf
©iH to to©
rH H/|>Tt<
CDOCO
00rHO5
rHOl> CD "Hi
iOrHiHOO
00 rH lO"*
rHCOCNt^
00 t> 00 CO
t>H/C0
t>Tf 00 CD to
CO N^rH
rH CN
tM>tH
tH CN
to to
©COI>©<N
cooo COCO
CDCNO00 OOCDCO
rH iH rHCO
HCNMCNNOO^ rHrHCO
c- CN CN CN CN o o O O O
>N >»N Nh >«"H >-H « 05 <D Cn c
o
05 05
CN CH > CN CN CN Oi
CO
Ns
-4-> CO
Edgecombe
Nash
Wilson TOTAL 8TH
DIS
q
Duplin
Jones
Onslow
Sampson
TOTAL
Q
New
Ha
Pender TOTAL
Q ^ a j Q
Greene Lenoir Wayne TOTAL
CN
to
EQ
CO
Bertie Halifa: Hertfo Norths
TOTA
74
H 2
lO i-l Tf 00 t> kO
l> ©©© 3 th eo
<N00 t>k> ©rf iO©
co(N(Nao
Oi oo t^
C^-COrH © © c^©4'
tUD
d
OH
(H Tt
ca 0>
aj </>
in
to
0)
i
.9 Q
a d
CJ (D
08
3
5
'ci
©CO 00 lOHf
<m »-h i-< m
© ©CN OHCO
©CO©lO©T*
(NH ^
t>co©©coesi
rH rH Tj<
© © io ©cox
t>C0r}<©©T)<
t> QOOCOHflS
OH^fCOHflS
t>t>©©©© HrHCO t>
lO CO ©T)<
CMCOrHt^
3
HO® S
T}«C0©b-
CMOiin©
(NH ^
©© CO GO H M
©CN©C<I
lOTt rH©
IXNOi
CN <N
CO © CO
<^>tr>rH©
lH lOt-
3 <N©
8 "3
©WrH
I> 00
m© ao©
rH COLO
©o©©
©
Tf
CO CO CN 00
rH rH
©rHt*
©rH]H
cn cq
©O^Tj<
rH rH
.00
rH
HHC5H
COCDCNW
rH N CO ^T
cm cq
cooolo©
rH O^i-H
CN
y0*0©H©HH© 00 CM©
id © CNCNrHLft
rHrH
rH ©TfrH
rH 00©
c
oH
0
a> a>
s c/i
> § «n
a> Q
a
a
Q §
rHt>l>©<Nt>
COCNrf © ©
LO©3<rHCNCN
rHCO Lft
(©NiH>HcIoO©©loTH
rt<ini>© CNCO©©
rH rH Tf © t>Tt«T> io
CO Tt* CO © 10 05 ©rH
rHCO
CO GO©
©rHrH
CM CO
lO©rH © rH
CO (NIC OirH©
rH ^
©©©T*
CO I
CO LOCO rH
COtFtFCN
^ > g oj 0)<J
Eh Eh Eh Eh O O O O h- ia fcN
cq s 8 cc ^ Eh ^H T3 ^
5s9 CO » | CO J4 -. *H ffl s ri «
r«H
ea
to Harnett Johnston
Lee
TOTAL
CM
r-«
Cumberl
Hoke
TOTAL Eh
CO
Bladen
Brunswi< Columbu
TOTAL
75
oq
CO lOt-OS
co co in ^»
l> (NO
COOCD
CO i-iift
3^8
WOW
^-imairHcp
Tt CD©05 0>
<N -*
00<NiO(NI>
WWHINW
ot>i
©coco
i-lrHCq
<NO0>
Tt«CO'
OCOOiCSI
CO -*
CO t* *4* O "^
T-ICDrHCqiH
COCO©
CO©*0
eoococg
co co
O5HC0 |>rHOTfCN
CO *j« 83*co
CN -*©©"* CO o CO OHQOH COi-Hh-
1H1-HCSI
&
fl
©©CO£j
(N CO
COCOTfp
O0rH(NCq
C5HO
CO(NCD
l>lOCN
t>COT-(
t-OO^H
CO TT
Hoanow »H T^ CO <N »H
CNCOIO
t>coo
805 0J ©U3
CNtHtJ*
B S
ICH t>CO
0>0<HNHt>Ot*
lO.OOOiCJ
t>COi-HCO
CO r-lU3
CO CD "^ CO
CO cot*
CNtNWOi ^cooog
<NW
rHrHW
OlOHO
-rt 00 (N -<* 00
OJ^CNCO
COCOiH
CD (NO)
COCO©
t>CO©
1H
r-imooio©
iHCOCOCM©
1H
©C^-CO
r-lr-100
!>©t*
l>CO©
tH^HCO
lOtNiOOCN
iH N
t-lOCN
1>CD-*
1OC0©
co©eo
rHCOCO
r-lT^COCD-*
CN tH^<
"tfCO©
t»r>ift
cogstN ©oo©
^tN<©
^ Fh o o
B s
^ h
C^Q co Nn
q a Q
ft
a
ft
Es
fa K * n io
5 c3 con
<CUOH
o cw
KcoH
76
|
Otfcod2H
S .9
i S s
If
OTfOlOOl
WmmHcHoIt>OcHo
OH0500
HN
<NrHt>OS©
cmco
rHco in co oo©
r-H fH i-( rHCO
rH "«* W C5 © 00
rH rHrHrH©
38
CD
in
in m Tf mos
in© co cooi
ON CNCD
MO0tJ<|>H COHxtO
t>©C0C0C>»
co co
iHt-CNiHTfin T|* rHOOCOCM'** hohso°s
00©CM'-lrH
rHrHT*l>
©i>cooowca cm rH©rHintr mrH©rHco
iHtH Tf Tf COrHr*00 rH© i-l
in t> cm cms©
iH COCO
© co <<j< cm co cq
iH rHCO °$rs3 iHCNjincoiH
CM CO
©©©coco
*nf-CNO5C0
rHinCDT^CO
w©rt< ^q*S rH tH CO
oo © © cn go
CM TfOO
©iHin©coe*
©CM©<Nt- §
ooco ommoo «*
rH co co
©COrHrHlO
in CO (N rH rH t* © COTt<CMt>«©
CMCMcOCOCMOO rf rHin C-«*
©©COrH^tf
©©©©© rHCM<N<Nh-
CM rHCO CM CM
rHcomcocM
co i>
mrHCNICN© ©rHCO©©
rHCS
COCOIXNOO
t* t-co© in
t>inincocDos m ooco©m«© i-icmi>coco
rHCMCDCMrH<«tf rH in COW m CO
Tj< rH CO O^ t*
t- CO © © © inoorf rHinco
cMoomi>oocM
CO
©rHt-OOO
rtf t^>rt<m© rH ^
© CO CO CD I
i-ioca <
torHrHOS © <NrHCNWl-l
©©CM©rH
T)<<Nt>Tf 00
rH rHCO
t>00COCDrHW
CM COt*
©©00 CM©
CM^rHrt CM
00©rHin'*0Q CM ©rHOSoOOO
tH tO JO CD in ^ 00 CNCOCMOOO
Cq (N rH hN
rHin^fOO 5°°S
rHc7S0000 ooooT^fo0o0 CO
CO CM©
3
Eh
CO
o£ ij
11 II
Eh
T3
OS
CO
CO
Anson
Moore
Richmon
Stanly
Union
TOTAL
CO
CSJ
|o
c
bO <u
i>rC
<<
77
3s
if
\a tj< i> co <m ^ CD CO r-l Tt ^ CO
Tt lOCNt^CO^
<Nr-i W
TtCNOrHOt*
OCOcN CDCDt^
CNrH •<*
(MOOING S
HCOOOO^
hcdo(N^ n
<NI>©OS
r-l rH<JJrH
CO <N <M00
CO r}<00 *rt
OS T}<"<*
CO CD O
i r-ico
00 COiH
tNO^CO^J
CNr-lrHUb
COOitN'*
OJOHO
CD CD
CN-<tf
rH>g<
-<t OS CO CO
r-HOCNOS
OrHTf UJ
TfCOOSlH
r-l UOrH OS
rHT* tO
OCOtNW
i-tcDuoesj
a
u
c
OH
Tj
3 0)
0) 73
B to
•a a
0) (/I
1 Q
a -a
C9 w
S c
-3
rt HP
8)
Tf OS t> OS r-l ©
CD r-l tHtH
CD CO CNrH COW
<N CO
oocomoocow
COrH |>
OOHO
COpOlOi ©
CN
iOOSCO©
CM -*
woio© lOCD^©
UO 00 CO OS
lOOSCNt^
tJ<CNH>CO
rHCDOS © ICOOtH W3
UO rHOOOOrHCO
lO t> t}< CN CO t*
CnI
© tJ< t* CO U3 OS
lO HHQO
t>U0 00©
COOt>CN
rH H H Tfl
^COCOiH
(.•OHHiO
Ost>rf<©
rHCO
CO 00 00 OS
00 WIOOS
rH<N T}«
WCDCN'*
OOOtFCN
CM cs com
rH»H CO
Itif is p"e3 rtO
78
s 03
,0 *«<
3 Q
s o H3
Ss
s CM
73
11.95
OOiJH
B
3
oH
©CO ©<M(N<
OSCOCS miO<
CO rH (
COlOiOOOCO"^
CO rHC©
O^(i-lNt^> CHOICONCOHCHO heo «o kO OS &n
rH CI «> O
«s o
QHONHHOW W k0 05
ocoocooo a Hooiooootc £j -<t
co ^
CN ^ 01HOI>HHOft CO CD
CO OS rH CO 05 *0 ^ CO
COCSOOOlO
<N CO
OOOONON^ £2 fc^ ^
t^ © «>
rH O
OOOOOOHH OS OS
[>©rH CO OS©
iH CO OOOONOHCO CO i-l
3.8
CNJtMOOOOOS
rH rH rH rH H5
CO I> O OS O <N O *H
CO W
58«
l>rH GO
CN O lO .00 CO CO
"V rH t»
HfOOOOOOtO
<N CO
NOOHONOW
to CO
9« <N
CO
N00 05C0ON OCO CNCNOS
CN rH CO
t> co j>cq o co rH co
CNrHTj<COCNrH!-HC5 s^2
^2
<N CO CD CO OS CO
toCO CN W
©CSCOOrHtO
to OHO rH rH CN
CO rH CO lO l> rH CO Tf
rH lO 05
<N 05 t- CO <N lO OS
<N CO rHrH OS
T»< OS
CO rH
.9
6 a |
OOOK-?S*fr- HIS
<- -
£ s s
< o o
K (D D O Ph rH
79
DISTRICT COURT ACTIVITY IN MOTOR VEHICLE
AND SMALL CLAIM CASES*
January 1, 1972 — December 31, 1972
Percent of Motor Vehicle Cases
Disposed of by Waiver1
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
Disposed Disposed
of by of by
Magistrate Magistrate
1ST DISTRICT
Camden
Chowan
Currituck
Dare
Gates
Pasquotank
Perquimans
TOTAL
484
1,278
1,660
1,310
924
2,124
712
8,492
346
832
1,012
889
756
1,469
565
5,869
71.5
65.1
61.0
67.9
81.8
69.2
79.4
69.1
118
217
180
111
177
832
120
1,755
124
195
157
152
146
777
142
1,693
105.1
89.9
87.2
136.9
82.5
93.4
118.3
96.5
2ND DISTRICT
Beaufort
Hyde
Martin
Tyrrell
Washington
TOTAL
3,609
420
3,325
404
990
8,748
3,046
266
2,503
207
1,216
7,238
84.4
63.3
75.3
51.2
122.8
82.7
890
43
556
50
212
1,751
883
47
537
42
221
1,730
99.2
109.3
96.6
84.0
104.2
98.8
3RD DISTRICT
Carteret
Craven
Pamlico
Pitt
TOTAL
4,218
5,915
870
9,334
20,337
2,453
3,599
589
5,735
12,376
58.2
60.8
67.7
61.4
60.9
328
464
109
1,434
2,335
334
567
111
1,293
2,305
101.8
122.2
101.8
90.2
98.7
4TH DISTRICT
Duplin
Jones
Onslow
Sampson
TOTAL
5,355
1,004
10,559
5,003
21,921
3,865
638
5,862
4,183
14,548
72.2
63.5
55.5
83.6
66.4
833
79
1,486
835
3,233
892
84
2,004
801
3,781
107.1
106.3
134.9
95.9
117.0
5TH DISTRICT
New Hanover
Pender
TOTAL
11,727
2,905
14,632
8,773
1,546
10,319
74.8
53.2
70.5
1,519
355
1,874
1,396
325
1,721
91.9
91.5
91.8
In some counties, the percent of cases disposed of exceeds one hundred percent
because cases pending on January 1, 1972 are not included in the "filed" column.
The figures in both the "filed" and "disposed of" columns are for the calendar
year 1972. Some of the cases filed in 1972 will not be disposed of until 1973 and
some of the cases disposed of in 1972 were filed in 1971. 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.
80
Percent of Motor Vehicle Cases
Disposed of by Waiver1
Motor Cases Percent
Vehicle Disposed of Disposed of
Cases Filed by Waiver by Waiver
Percent of Small Claim Cases
Disposed of by Magistrate1
Percent
Small Disposed Disposed
Claims of by of by
Filed Magistrate Magistrate
6TH DISTRICT
Bertie 2,365
Halifax 5,385
Hertford 2,209
Northampton 1,586
TOTAL 11,545
2,119
2,920
1,509
980
7,528
89.6
54.2
68.3
61.8
65.2
360
791
317
292
1,760
350
697
291
288
1,626
97.2
88.1
91.8
98.6
92.4
7TH DISTRICT
Edgecombe 5,691
Nash 8,362
Wilson 6,774
TOTAL 20,827
3,966
6,420
5,400
15,786
69.7
76.8
79.7
75.8
1,305
1,031
1,726
4,062
1,386
1,009
1,680
4,075
106.2
97.9
97.3
100.3
8TH DISTRICT
Greene 1,813
Lenoir 8,167
Wayne 12,158
TOTAL 22,138
1,249
5,286
8,274
14,809
68.9
64.7
68.1
66.9
169
1,360
1,135
2,664
134
1,388
1,157
2,679
79.3
102.1
101.9
100.6
9TH DISTRICT
Franklin 3,858
Granville 3,920
Person 2,858
Vance 4,207
Warren 1,859
TOTAL 16,702
2,784
2,627
2,226
3,375
1,304
12,316
72.2
67.0
77.9
80.2
70.1
73.7
385
621
771
1,118
260
3,155
375
615
594
955
285
2,824
97.4
99.0
77.0
85.4
109.6
89.5
10TH DISTRICT
Wake 46,289 35,769 77.3 6,651 6,457 97.1
11TH DISTRICT
Harnett 6,917
Johnston 9,651
Lee 4,332
TOTAL 20,900
4,771
6,484
3,497
14,752
69.0
67.2
80.7
70.6
880
902
821
2,603
841
1,066
817
2,724
95.6
118.2
99.5
104.6
12TH DISTRICT
Cumberland 24,067
Hoke 2,197
TOTAL 26,264
14,236
1,722
15,958
59.2
78.4
60.8
4,279
151
4,430
3,600
149
3,749
84.1
98.7
84.6
In some counties, the percent of cases disposed of exceeds one hundred percent
because cases pending on January 1, 1972 are not included in the "filed" column
The figures in both the "filed" and "disposed of" columns are for the calendar
year 1972. Some of the cases filed in 1972 will not be disposed of until 1973 and
some of the cases disposed of in 1972 were filed in 1971. Assuming a fairly con-stant
rate of filing and disposition, the percentages are relatively accurate.
81
Percent of Motor Vehicle Cases
Disposed of by Waiver1
Percent of Small Claim Cases
Disposed of by Magistrate1
Motor
Vehicle
Cases Filed
Cases Percent
Disposed of Disposed of
by Waiver by Waiver
Percent
Small Disposed Disposed
Claims oi by of by
Filed Magistrate Magistrate
13TH DISTRICT
Bladen 5,029 3,408 67.8 682 628 92.1
Brunswick 4,038 2,653 65.7 323 311 96.3
Columbus 5,820 3,487 59.9 670 624 93.1
TOTAL 14,887 9,548 64.1 1,675 1,563 93.3
14TH DISTRICT
Durham 17,302 8,744 50.5 4,763 4,241 89.0
15TH DISTRICT
Alamance 11,262
Chatham 4,220
Orange 6,494
TOTAL 21,976
7,229
2,888
4,492
14,609
64.2
68.4
69.2
66.5
1,684
764
450
2,898
1,639
574
422
2,635
97.3
75.1
93.8
90.9
16TH DISTRICT
Robeson 9,992
Scotland 2,853
TOTAL 12,845
5,503
1,745
7,248
55.1
61.2
56.4
1,907
511
2,418
1,779
550
2,329
93.3
107.6
96.3
17TH DISTRICT
Caswell 1,961
Rockingham 8,752
Stokes 2,020
Surry 5,550
TOTAL 18,283
1,605
5,823
1,344
3,296
12,068
81.8
66.5
66.5
59.4
66.0
338
1,107
402
2,241
4,088
281
1,056
424
1,593
3,354
83.1
95.4
105.5
71.1
82.0
18TH DISTRICT
Guilford—
Greensboro 35,856
High Point 12,263
TOTAL 48,119
22,789
10,452
33,241
63.6
85.2
69.1
6,184
2,562
8,746
6,259
2,490
8,749
101.2
97.2
100.0
19TH DISTRICT
Cabarrus 8,499
Montgomery 3,293
Randolph 10,281
Rowan 9,136
TOTAL 31,209
6,629
2,710
6,817
7,320
23,476
78.0
82.3
66.3
80.1
75.2
1,045
296
737
1,040
3,118
810
297
696
1,000
2,803
77.5
100.3
94.4
96.2
89.9
In some counties, the percent of cases disposed of exceeds one hundred percent
because cases pending on January 1, 1972 are not included in the "filed" column.
The figures in both the "filed" and "disposed of" columns are for the calendar
year 1972. Some of the cases filed in 1972 will not be disposed of until 1973 and
some of the cases disposed of in 1972 were filed in 1971. Assuming a fairly con-stant
rate of filing and disposition, the percentages are relatively accurate.
82
Percent of Motor Vehicle Cases
Disposed of by Waiver1
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
20TH DISTRICT
Anson 3,199
Moore 4,536
Richmond 4,307
Stanly 4,649
Union 6,293
TOTAL 22,984
2,716
4,366
2,626
4,031
4,125
17,864
84.9
96.3
61.0
86.7
65.5
77.7
419
376
517
809
793
2,914
392
370
567
769
586
2,684
93.6
98.4
109.7
95.1
73.9
92.1
21ST DISTRICT
Forsyth 37,079 27,903 75.3 3,491 3,412 97.7
22ND DISTRICT
Alexander 1,863
Davidson 11,356
Davie 3,494
Iredell 8,926
TOTAL 25,639
1,635
8,392
2,872
5,677
18,576
87.8
73.9
82.2
63.6
72.5
311
1,008
128
1,586
3,033
307
979
133
1,591
3,010
98.7
97.1
103.9
100.3
99.2
23RD DISTRICT
Alleghany 516
Ashe 1,229
Wilkes 4,006
Yadkin 2,061
TOTAL 7,812
252
540
2,316
1,502
4,610
48.8
43.9
57.8
72.9
59.0
99
185
554
208
1,046
104
138
402
201
845
105.1
74.6
72.6
96.6
80.8
24TH DISTRICT
Avery 1,815
Madison 1,502
Mitchell 941
Watauga 2,514
Yancey 1,286
TOTAL 8,058
1,370
1,102
714
1,956
1,338
6,480
75.5
73.4
75.9
77.8
104.0
80.4
44
16
43
139
50
292
51
19
46
139
54
309
115.9
118.8
107.0
100.0
108.0
105.8
25TH DISTRICT
Burke 6,401
Caldwell 6,592
Catawba 11,519
TOTAL 24,512
4,481
4,098
7,733
16,312
70.0
62.2
67.1
66.5
582
907
896
2,385
472
1,191
828
2,491
81.1
131.3
92.4
104.4
In some counties, the percent of cases disposed of exceeds one hundred percent
because cases pending on January 1, 1972 are not included in the "filed" column.
The figures in both the "filed" and "disposed of" columns are for the calendar
year 1972. Some of the cases filed in 1972 will not be disposed of until 1973 and
some of the cases disposed of in 1972 were filed in 1971. Assuming a fairlv con-stant
rate of filing and disposition, the percentages are relatively accurate.
83
Percent of Motor Vehicle Cases
Disposed of by Waiver1
Motor Cases Percent
Vehicle Disposed of Disposed of
Cases Filed by Waiver by Waiver
Percent of Small Claim Cases
Disposed of by Magistrate1
Percent
Small Disposed Disposed
Claims of by of by
Filed Magistrate Magistrate
26TH DISTRICT
Mecklenburg 46,314 32,203 69.5 10,221 9,051 88.6
27TH DISTRICT
Cleveland
Gaston
Lincoln
TOTAL
8,776
16,004
3,497
28,277
6,075
10,329
1,976
18,380
69.2
64.5
56.5
65.0
1,291
2,616
353
4,260
1,330
2,461
308
4,099
103.0
94.1
87.3
96.2
28TH DISTRICT
Buncombe 16,535 11,401 69.0 1,299 1,341 103.2
29TH DISTRICT
Henderson
McDowell
Polk
Rutherford
Transylvania
TOTAL
4,102
2,906
1,032
3,940
1,243
13,223
3,098
2,379
913
2,735
977
10,102
75.5
81.9
88.5
69.4
78.6
76.4
235
277
38
519
262
1,331
187
229
34
544
198
1,192
79.6
82.7
89.5
104.8
75.6
89.6
30TH DISTRICT
Cherokee
Clay
Graham
Haywood
Jackson
Macon
Swain
TOTAL
1,375
357
560
4,129
1,443
1,203
954
10,021
1,378
243
492
2,681
866
921
417
6,998
100.2
68.1
87.9
64.9
60.0
76.6
43.7
69.8
196
43
61
278
91
67
40
776
94
48
73
286
90
66
19
676
48.0
111.6
119.7
102.9
98.9
98.5
47.5
87.1
Group I
Group II
GRAND
TOTAL
544,392
99,478
643,870
376,900
70,131
447,031
69.2
70.5
69.4
82,443
12,584
95,027
78,795
11,353
90,148
95.6
90.2
94.9
In some counties, the percent of cases disposed of exceeds one hundred percent
because cases pending on January 1, 1972 are not included in the "filed" column.
The figures in both the "filed" and "disposed of" columns are for the calendar
year 1972. Some of the cases filed in 1972 will not be disposed of until 1973 and
some of the cases disposed of in 1972 were filed in 1971. Assuming a fairly con-stant
rate of filing and disposition, the percentages are relatively accurate.
84
DAYS OF COURT HELD AT EACH SEAT
OF THE DISTRICT COURT*
1972 Calendar Year
Civil Criminal Total
1ST DISTRICT (2 Judges)
Camden—Camden 1 12 13
Chowan—Edenton 11 39 50
Currituck—Currituck 5% 20 251/2
Dare—Manteo 1 27% 28i/
2
Gates—Gatesville 1% 15 I6I/2
Pasquotank—Elizabeth City 9 38 47
Perquimans—Hertford 4 13 17
TOTAL 33 164i/
2 1971/2
2ND DISTRICT (2 Judges)
Beaufort—Washington 23% 9iy2 115
Hyde—Swan Quarter 3 15 18
Martin—Williamston 24% 58% 83
Tyrrell—Columbia 1 12 13
Washington—Plymouth 8 33% 4iy2
TOTAL 60 210y2
270i/
2
3RD DISTRICT (4 Judges)
Carteret—Beaufort 46 92% 138i/
2
Craven—New Bern 86% 164 2501/
Pamlico—Bayboro 5% 2iy2 27
Pitt—Greenville 75 169V2 2441/
Farmville 25 25
Ayden 22 22
TOTAL 213 4941/2 7071/2
4TH DISTRICT (4 Judges)
Duplin—Kenansville 23i/
2
82i/
2 106
Jones—Trenton 4% 15 191/2
Onslow—Jacksonville 52 290i/
2 3421/2
Sampson—Clinton 31 88 119
TOTAL 111 476 587
5TH DISTRICT (3 Judges)
New Hanover—Wilmington 132 287i/
2 4191/
Pender—Burgaw i9y2 41 6OI/2
TOTAL 15iy2
328i/
2 480
6TH DISTRICT (3 Judges)
Bertie—Windsor 7% 39i/
2 47
Halifax—Halifax 22 87i/
2
109i/
2
Roanoke Rapids 35 35
Hertford—Winton 16 40% 56%
Northampton—Jackson 8 37 45
TOTAL 53i/
2
239i/
2 293
7TH DISTRICT (4 Judges)
Edgecombe—Tarboro 17 66 83
Rocky Mount 8% 68y2 77
Nash—Nashville 49 73y2 1221/
Wilson—Wilson 34 102 136
TOTAL 1081/2 310 418%
* All days of court at each seat were not necessarily held by a judge assigned to
the designated judicial district. In 1972 District Court Judges held a total of 248
days of court in judicial districts other than their own. A day of court is defin-ed
as at least a two hour session before lunch and at least a two hour session
after lunch. Juvenile and domestic relations cases are counted as civil court.
85
Civil Criminal Total
8TH DISTRICT (4 Judges)
Greene—Snow Hill
Lenoir—Kinston
Wayne—Goldsboro
Mount Olive
TOTAL
7i/2
45i/2
971/2
1501/2
27
160
140y2
201/2
348
34i/
2
205y2
238
201/a
498i/
2
9TH DISTRICT (3 Judges)
Franklin—Louisburg
Granville—Oxford
Person—Roxboro
Vance—Henderson
Warren—Warrenton
TOTAL
10
21
131/2
7
4
55i/
2
42i/
2
471/2
48
66
29i/
2
2331/2
52i/
2
68i/
2
6II/2
73
331/2
289
10TH DISTRICT (5 Judges)
Wake—Raleigh
Fuquay-Varina
Wendell
TOTAL
312
312
673
241/2
24%
722
985
241/2
241/2
1,034
11TH DISTRICT (4 Judges)
Harnett—Lillington
Dunn
Johnston—Smithfield
Benson
Selma
Lee—Sanford
TOTAL
54i/
2
46i/
2
1
171/2
1191/2
100
42
73i/
2
39i/
2
28
II21/2
3951/2
1541/2
42
120
401/2
28
130
515
12TH DISTRICT (4 Judges)
Cumberland—Fayetteville
Hoke—Raeford
TOTAL
288i/
2
1
2891/2
442
37
479
7301/2
38
768i/
2
13TH DISTRICT (2 Judges)
Bladen—Elizabethtown
Brunswick—Southport
Shallotte
Columbus—Whiteville
Tabor City
TOTAL
23
27
58i/
2
1081/2
641/2
511/2
33
95i/
2
23i/
2
268
87i/
2
78i/
2
33
154
23i/
2
376i/
2
14TH DISTRICT (3 Judges)
Durham—Durham IOOI/2 223i/
2 324
15TH DISTRICT (4 Judges)
Alamance—Graham
Chatham—Pittsboro
Siler City
Orange—Hillsborough
Chapel Hill
TOTAL
182
23
3%
50
258%
159i/
2
26
28i/
2
54
33i/
2
3011/2
3411/2
49
32
104
331/2
560
86
Civil Criminal Total
16TH DISTRICT (3 Judges)
Robeson—Lumberton 126 136 262
Fairmont 24i/
2
24i/
2
Maxton 41 41
Red Springs 28i/
2 28i/
2
Rowland 27 27
Saint Pauls 31 31
Scotland—Laurinburg 5oy2 83y2 134
TOTAL 176i/
2 37iy2 548
17TH DISTRICT (4 Judges)
Caswell—Yanceyville 9 40 49
Rockingham—Wentworth 56 56
Reidsville 82 82
Eden 77y2 771/2
Madison 43 43
Stokes—Danbury 121/a 45y2 58
Surry—Dobson 2oy2 104 124y2 TOTAL 98 392 490
18TH DISTRICT (7 Judges)
Guilford—Greensboro 256 407y2 663y2
High Point 140 1671/2 3071/2 TOTAL 396 575 971
19TH DISTRICT (5 Judges)
Cabarrus—Concord 39 90 129
Kannapolis y2 50 5oy2 Montgomery—Troy 2oy2 62 82i/
2
Randolph—Asheboro 57y2 94y2 152
Rowan—Salisbury 52 126 178 TOTAL 169V2 422i/
2 592
20TH DISTRICT (4 Judges)
Anson—Wadesboro 131/2 741/2 88
Moore—Carthage 27i/
2 50 771/2
Southern Pines 19 19
Richmond—Rockingham 28i/
2 68 96y?
Stanly—Albemarle 30 9oy2 1201/2
Union—Monroe 26 84 110 TOTAL 1251/2 386 5iiy2
21ST DISTRICT (5 Judges)
Forsyth—Winston-Salem 313 349 662
Kernersville I21/2 121/2 TOTAL 313 36iy2 6741/2
22ND DISTRICT (4 Judges)
Alexander—Taylorsville 141/2 28i/
2 43
Davidson—Lexington 78 84 162
Thomasville 54i/
2 541/
Davie—Mocksville 16 27 43
Iredell—Statesville 67 100 167
Mooresville 27 27 TOTAL 1751/2 321 496 1/2
87
23RD DISTRICT (2 Judges)
Civil Criminal Total
Alleghany—Sparta
Ashe—Jefferson
Wilkes—Wilkesboro
Yadkin—Yadkinville
TOTAL
iiy2
17
1251/2
16
170
15
27
109
44i/
2
1951/2
26i/
2
44
2341/2
eoy2
365i/
2
24TH DISTRICT (2 Judges)
Avery—Newland
Madison—Marshall
Mitchell—Bakersville
Watauga—Boone
Yancey—Burnsville
TOTAL
13i/
2
81/2
7i/
2
171/2
5i/
2
52i/
2
26
191/2
211/2
59
26
152
39i/
2
28
29
76i/
2
311/2
2041/2
25TH DISTRICT (4 Judges)
Burke—Morganton
Caldwell—Lenoir
Catawba—Newton
Hickory
TOTAL
49
61
59
431/2
2121/2
108
113i/
2
80
1141/2
416
157
174i/
2
139
158
628i/
2
26TH DISTRICT (7 Judges)
Mecklenburg—Charlotte 617i/
2 591 1,2081/2
27TH DISTRICT (5 Judges)
Cleveland—Shelby
Gaston—Gastonia
Lincoln—Lincolnton
TOTAL
59i/
2
163
51/2
228
133
4111/2
75
619i/
2
1921/2
574i/
2
80y2
8471/2
28TH DISTRICT (4 Judges)
Buncombe—Asheville 3901/2 4591/2 850
29TH DISTRICT (3 Judges)
Henderson—Hendersonville
McDowell—Marion
Polk—Columbus
Rutherford—Rutherfordton
Transylvania—Brevard
TOTAL
341/2
16
24
20
94i/
2
671/2
521/2
20
641/2
32
236^
102
681/2
20
881/2
52
331
30TH DISTRICT (2 Judges)
Cherokee—Murphy
Clay—Hayesville
Graham—Robbinsville
Haywood—Waynosville
Canton
Jackson—Sylva
Macon—Franklin
Swain—Bryson City
TOTAL
2
201/2
61/2
31
60
241/2
7i/
2
131/2
401/2
15
211/2
141/2
211/2
158i/2
26i/
2
7y2
13%
61
15
28
141/a
521/2
2181/2
Group I
Group II
GRAND TOTAL
4,401
1,0031/2
5,4041/2
9,062
1,7901/2
10,8521/2
13,463
2,794
16,257
88
FISCAL OPERATIONS
1971 - 72
The 1971-72 fiscal year is the first such period during
which each division of the General Court of Justice has been
operational in each of the State's 30 judicial districts. Conse-quently,
both receipts and expenditures increased substantially
over the previous fiscal year. The ratio of receipts to expendi-tures
remained approximately the same, with total receipts
from court operations exceeding State expenditures by more
than 1.4 million dollars.
State Expenditures for the
Judicial Department $26,362,971.98
State and Local Receipts from
Court Operations $27,788,940.99
Distribution of Receipts by type and unit of government receiving funds:
Superior and District
Court Fees (State) $ 8,922,427.46
Supreme Court Fees (State) 5,697.00
Court of Appeals Fees (State) 13,858.83
Sale of Appellate Reports (State) 105,106.04
Law Enforcement Officers Benefit
and Retirement Fund (State) 2,161,285.25
Total State Receipts $11,208,374.58
Facilities Fees (Counties) $ 1,974,111.54
Officer Fees (Counties) 1,066,262.21
Jail Fees (Counties) 438696.75
Fines and Forfeitures (Counties) 12,266,154.47
Total County Receipts $15,745,224.97
Facilities Fees (Municipalities) $ 132,400.00
Officer Fees (Municipalities) 637,326.44
Jail Fees (Municipalities) 65,615.00
Total Municipal Receipts $ 835,341.44
Total Receipts $27,788,940.99
Of total court receipts, 32.5% or $9,047,089.33 went into
the State General Fund. The balance was distributed to the Law
Enforcement Officers Benefit and Retirement Fund (7.8%) and
the counties (56.7%) and municipalities (3.0%) of the State.
Receipts deposited in the State's general fund amounted to
34.3% of the State's expenditures for the Judicial Department.
Total State receipts (both general fund and LEOB&RF) equaled
42.5% of Judicial Department expenditures.
The table which follows gives a county by county breakdown
of fees distributed to each county and the municipalities within
that county.
89
^oowoHo^oowooLo^ooiooffi^ffiOOOwflioo rto^qco(NinqG;(N(N003HT*oHcDrt( ooio'*(NiOHio
t>CT5t>t^r^oooo^"^",^rHcooaio,
3 0tDo^foo(Ni-ocorHcqooio
OO^lO W lO O^rH 00 O^rH tj« 00 O^HtNQMCl SO^ CO ^ "> CO CO^CO^C*-
rf co" to" o" o" i> ctT i> cn t> o" o" so © co co" <n" t> i> erf «o co" t> i-f I> OS i-T
t> rf r-i CO CO CO O lO i—I « CO iH <N pH rH I> t-H O in IQ tH l> OS W 00 CO
CO iHrHcOrHCOCOrHTFrH (NHH00
P
s
p
H HH
hJ J
kJ <J o CU
( ; u£
£ p
P S
H Q
o
p
03
g
5
ou
o
P
fa O
H
P
OS
H
P
H
fa -J?
«! a 3S
I*
fart
fig
OS
fart
fa*
dj <^
fag
12
fa£
-co
OoOoo© OoOoOo H ^ ^ ^ ~: ^ ^-: <-> -: '-; -:
ft t> Tf CD CM iOCOi> tHCOCO
rt OOOOOOOCOOmo OMOOOI>H(MOO00OtDOO « Tjl CD 00 CO i-H CO
eft
OoOpO©
OOO CO l>lOH
OoOopoooOoOopoOoOoOoOo op ww^ww^^.w^w
CNOOO©^^ C<i OI>COr-i CN NCDioHCOHOMH
CD»O05t^«> Oi-ICN CD 00 Cft O CO O Tt< rt< in O ^OCDioO
tH^H in LO 00 rH rH l> CO lO CO CftOOosO OOOOC75
OpOpooOpOpOpCcOoOpOp
CO CO OS "^ COt> CO "# iH CO 00 Tf lO CD
i-l tH 1-4
eft
oOpO pO oopo po oo
O CO* 00 CO CO 00 r-i OOOOOOoO*OCOOOO> OOOH^QOOOtDOOOO
00 rH c^co^ °° co
i-T ©~io" co" <*
CO 1-H
eft
rhOLO
COOt*
€ft
OwqOOp
O0C>I>
r-ICOCT^
ONOOoONOowWHiniOOOlOJ^OOOOOOmO pprHinpcopooo^ppt>cxj^^copiocqppoqp
wo^od^'co'i>'co^'c<ic!rirHcqcNico^^Lncoo^o^c6
00 00 00Q0CDQC0(Nm0i(NmOO0:OHOC0(NCDlO00lO
poim>oLoqoipcpoiooocoNoppooioooicooto>ooopoooppopopopopop
t> t> tj< co' id Tji crj co cri r> oi od co co oo ci co" cri co co th cd cxi io
r-ICNTHCO^i-l00Ttii—H>-stfC0C}T-lC7l0000OlOr-ir~o -<tfO
CO^OO IQ ^f 0^10^10^ t>CO UO IOH Wl> 00 ^,00 CT3 "^ iH t> lO lO CO ^ rH co" r-Trfco ic" co t>i> t-Tcoco'
,
co''co'
>
rHecTrtos*
ee-
OoOwOo
rji t>o
CMCO^rH
t>rf r-T rH<oo" ^c^co"io"rH^co',
oo'
,
i>co''co" CDHOTjI
rH rH CO t^ CO rH i-l HHHCO
Tt<COO
ioioco
COrfTt
<b'TH©%fcvf
oiqcwoqoqoTojn|noqoqoqoqoqoqoqooHo4iq^Hoooqowoqoqcoooio>mqocooow
iddcDi-HT^T^CDCO^CO^CTiaJcXJrHi-HCD^^OOCOodc^lO
ClWiCI>lOCOTt<t>W\fiCOHTf->*HOCOCO(NtD ,tCDOOHt»COT)<
c^co^co t^^i> io rf oq^r-i Tt^co^ai co oo co^o^co ro os w o^t^oo^o^w co^
3? t> CO" O" CO" TjT rf t>" O" OS" CO" OS lO rH CO" l>" rH" t>" xf »0 rH CO" t> rH CO" CO"
CO rH rH rH ^ CM CO CO rH CO CO rH CO lO
.jj^S a co > cu o^i C 3 rj
cd « 3 S « « 43^-a^s^S o
90
8 -r* o o ic t>
ci q o q oj
co'rHcjicDTHO^cdcot^oioo^ot^coco^TtoiocoidcD i> co oi >d "d >d t* (JS NHi>(N'<*int'HioHcooc^oococoocoH(Mcn(DTri.o i-4 oi •*? 01 cd m co as qoo^o^^ ^hh co no «o to q,coq w a h c co m qoi co t> ic oi_ co i-h a> »
H3
o"cD"oi"idco"cD"o"co"iHCD"co"oo"cD"oi"cD'c«Tf 1-4 c$ in oi *<v co v* 00 00" «*." of cd 00 --' o4 CX)0i^-^03C0CDp0inC^04OlTfOirH^rHOCD0iC^CX)C^iO i-H i-h co oi tT rH Oi o
OI rH rt< rH lO tJ< H OOWHHH (N (M H MH H
,„& 00000 o 0000 00 00 o
gS 000 00 q 000 q q o o q ©
« 2 id rH CD t> O CO rH CTJ O «D O CO CO »d ©
fa.;? ooooHoiooiooooioooin^050Tfoooot> o