Annual report of the Administrative Office of the Courts

              X)3
/of: 19^?
North Carolina State Library.
Raleigh
n. a
Doc.
THE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
ANNUAL REPORT
OF THE
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS
1969
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS
JUSTICE BUILDING
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
BERT M. MONTAGUE
Director
FRANK W. BULLOCK, JR.
Assistant Director
To The Honorable, The Chief Justice of
The Supreme Court of North Carolina
Submitted herewith is the Fourth Annual Report of the Admin-istrative
Officer of the Courts. This Report, prepared pursuant to
G.S. 7A-343, relates to the 1969 calendar year.
Bert M. Montague
Director
THE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
ANNUAL REPORT
of the
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS
1969
CONTENTS
PAGE
The General Court of Justice 5
The Appellate Division 13
The Superior Court Division 15
The District Court Division 41
Appendix r.!ZZZZl"Z"'.'.'.66
I. Structure of the Judicial Department
II. Routes of Appeal
III. Administrative Office of the Courts
TABLES
Fiscal Operations 7
The Courts Commission n
The Judicial Council 12
Justices of the Supreme Court 14
Judges of the Court of Appeals 14
Total Cases Added, and Disposed of in the Superior Court 15
Total Cases Pending in the Superior Court 16
Utilization of Scheduled Court 16
Conference of Superior Court Judges 16
Superior Court Judges 17
Solicitors of the Superior Court 18
Clerks of the Superior Court 19
Association of Clerks of the Superior Court 20
Civil Cases Added, and Disposed of in the Superior Court 21
Civil Cases Pending in the Superior Court 22
Distribution of Pending Civil Cases among the Counties 22
Ten Counties with Largest Civil Dockets 22
Civil Cases Pending, Added, and Disposed of in the
Superior Courts by Judicial Districts 23
Utilization of Civil Superior Court Terms by Judicial Districts 27
Criminal Cases Added, and Disposed of in the Superior Court 31
Criminal Cases Pending in the Superior Court 32
Distribution of Pending Criminal Cases among the Counties 32
Ten Counties with Largest Criminal Dockets 32
Criminal Cases Pending, Added, and Disposed of in the
Superior Courts by Solicitorial Districts 33
Utilization of Criminal Superior Court Terms by
Solicitorial Districts 37
District Court Judges and Prosecutors by District 43
Civil Cases Pending, Added, and Disposed of in the District
Courts by Type of Case and Manner of Disposition 46
Criminal Cases Pending, Added, and Disposed of in the
District Courts by Type of Case and Manner of Disposition .52
District Court Activity in Motor Vehicle and Small Claim Cases. .58
Days of Court Held at Each Seat of the District Court 62
THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE
A constitutional amendment adopted in 1962 provides the frame-work
for a unified court system in North Carolina. The 1963 Gen-eral
Assembly created a Courts Commission and charged it with
the responsibility of preparing and drafting the legislation necessary
for complete implementation of the new Judicial Article. This Com-mission,
composed largely of legislative leaders and under the chair-manship
of Senator Lindsay C. Warren, Jr., immediately embarked
upon its task. Its major production was recommended legislation
which was enacted as "The Judicial Department Act of 1965". This
Act prescribed the organizational and operational details of the
General Court of Justice and established an Administrative Office
of the Courts.
The 1962 Judicial Article provides for an Appellate Division
consisting of the Supreme Court, a Superior Court Division and a
District Court Division in the General Court of Justice. The 1965
Act provided for gradual implementation of the new court system.
Because of the increasing burden of appellate work, it became necessary
to provide an additional court in the Appellate Division. The Constitu-tion
was again amended in 1965 to authorize the new appellate court.
In the trial divisions of the General Court of Justice, criminal
cases are allocated on a jurisdictional basis. There is no jurisdic-tional
division as to civil cases. The district court division has ex-clusive
original jurisdiction of misdemeanors. The district court is
the proper division for the trial of civil cases where the amount in
controversy is $5,000 or less. It is also the forum for domestic rela-tions
and juvenile cases. No jury is provided in the district court for
criminal trials. Each defendant has the right of appeal to the superior
court and to trial de novo.. Jury trial is provided, upon demand, in the
district court in civil matters, and appeal is to the Court of Appeals.
There are now 93 district court judges and there will be 112 when
the establishment of the new system is completed. The judges are elected
to four-year terms. A Chief District Judge with very extensive admin-istrative
authority is designated in each district by the Chief Justice of
the Supreme Court. Specialized judgeships are authorized.
A district court prosecutor is authorized for each judicial district.
A specified number of assistants is authorized for districts in which
the workload requires more than one. On January 1, 1971, the office
of district prosecutor will be abolished and the solicitor, with a
designated number of assistants, will be responsible for prosecution
in the superior court and district court divisions.
Family counseling services are provided in any judicial district hav-ing
a county with a population of 85,000 or more. Almost one hundred
counselors now serve in nine of the State's judicial districts. The clerk of
superior court in each county is required to establish and maintain,
under the supervision of the Administrative Office of the Courts, an
office of consolidated records of all judicial proceedings in the trial
division of the General Court of Justice. He retains his former ju-risdiction
in special proceedings, probate of wills, and administra-tion
of decedents estates.
Magistrates, assigned to duty by and closely supervised by the
Chief District Judges, are authorized for each county. Their major
function is the issuing of warrants. They are also empowered to hear
small claims actions, accept guilty pleas in non-traffic misdemeanors
for which punishment cannot exceed a fine of $50 or imprisonment
for 30 days, accept waivers of trial and pleas of guilty in minor
traffic cases in accordance with a schedule of offenses and fines
established by the Chief District Judge, conduct preliminary exam-inations
in misdemeanor cases, grant bail before trial in non-capital
cases, and to perform certain ministerial duties formerly assigned to
justices of the peace.
When the district court is established in a county, all previously
existing inferior courts, including the justice of the peace courts, are
abolished. This change will be completed on December 7, 1970. The
operation of the courts has been declared to be a State function. All
operating expenses of the Judicial Department are paid from State
funds. The only expenses left upon local governing bodies are those
related to furnishing and equipping the courtrooms and related judicial
facilities. To aid the counties in meeting this expense, the law provides
for a facilities fee to be assessed in the bill of costs in every case
processed by the trial division of the General Court of Justice.
The new court system established by the Judicial Department
Act of 1965 was instituted in 22 counties on December 5, 1966. The
new Court of Appeals authorized by the 1965 constitutional amend-ment
was established by the 1967 General Assembly. Its jurisdic-tion
appears in Appendix II. The Court of Appeals now consists of
nine judges who sit in panels of three. The district court was estab-lished
in 61 additional counties on December 2, 1968, and will be acti-vated
in the remaining 17 counties on December 7, 1970.
An Act of the 1969 General Assembly established the Courts
6
Commission on a permanent basis. Having completed its task of
implementing the new court system, the commission will continue to
study the structure and operations of the Judicial Department and
to recommend improvements.
FISCAL OPERATIONS
1968 - 69
All financial records are maintained on a fiscal year basis and, there-fore,
this section of the Report is based on the fiscal year beginning
July 1, 1968 and ending June 30, 1969.
When the new court system was established there was much debate
as to its cost, the receipts which it would produce, and its impact on
local finances. This is the first opportunity to review these questions
based on operations in a substantial portion of the State. The new
system was operational throughout the twelve months of fiscal 1968-69
in 22 counties, and for slightly less than seven months in 61 additional
counties. It is interesting to note that during this period receipts to
State and local governments exceeded the State's expenditures.
in
State Expenditures for the Judicial Department $11,042,451.07
State and Local Receipts from Court Operations $11,682,250.17
Distribution of Receipts by type and unit of government receiving funds:
Appellate Fees and Sale of Reports
and Advance Sheets (State) $ 61,182.37
General Court of Justice Fees (State) 3,870,491.72
Law Enforcement Officers Benefit and
Retirement Fund (State) 1,116,354.35
Total State Revenues $5,048,028.44
Facilities Fees (Counties) $ 952,003.56
Officer and Jail Fees (Counties) 624,142.46
Fines and Forfeitures (Counties) 4,647,815.20
Total County Revenues $6,223,961.22
Facilities Fees (Municipalities) $ 74,591.10
Officer and Jail Fees (Municipalities) 335,669.41
Total Municipal Revenues $ 410,260.51
Distribution of Receipts by Cc unties:
22 Counties Operating for 12 Months:
Officer and
Facilities Officer and Fines and Fac Jail Fees
County Fees Jail Fees
$12,975.70
Forfeitures
$ 92,348.80
Municipalities
$ 1,042.00
Municipalities
Burke $20,474.00 $ 5,958.00
Caldwell 21,256.20 19,116.50 102,351.50 496.00 4,567.50
Camden 1,079.00 868.81 5,843.00 -0- 4.00
Catawba 27,583.00 27,624.00 233,731.90 23,196.00 20,173.50
Cherokee 5,321.55 6,046.39 39,816.90 -0- 752.00
Chowan 3,814.00 4,463.35 22,646.40 -0- 1,294.50
Clay 1,782.00 2,211.00 17,902.00 -0- -0-
Cumberland 58,290.77 56,647.10 391,844.65 7,316.00 14,286.00
Currituck 2,520.00 2,272.00 22,082.50 -0- -0-
Dare 4,292.50 2,993.80 27,622.00 -0- 584.00
Durham 54,247.10 15,508.19 195,456.93 -0- 24,939.92
Gates 3,224.10 2,994.50 18,621.80 -0- -0-
Graham 1,719.00 2,128.75 14,140.00 -0- 154.00
Haywood 11,246.00 10,259.50 82,468.25 934.00 3,194.00
Hoke 5,215.50 5,116.95 34,015.00 60.00 326.00
Jackson 4,621.00 6,907.80 30,631.00 -0- -0-
Macon 3,227.00 2,711.25 25,133.00 -0- 508.00
Pasquotank 6,446.50 2,553.50 39,224.60 -0- 1,152.25
Perquimans 2,537.00 2,654.52 15,229.00 -0- 144.00
Robeson 24,182.88 24,251.22 227,241.75 10,980.00 8,598.00
Scotland 10,846.00 9,667.00 69,943.67 1,432.00 1,017.50
Swain 3,436.00 5,185.00 23,192.00 -0- 394.00
61 Counties Opcratin q from December 2, 1968-June SO, 1969:
Alamance 29,864.21 11,431.50 117,465.87 -0- 7,524.00
Anson 5,266.00 4,421.00 31,371.00 -0- 1,292.00
Avery 2,194.80 2,785.45 16,981.75 -0- -0-
Beaufort 8,485.80 9,008.00 39,328.30 -0- 1,019.00
Bertie 3,979.00 3,873.55 17,052.00 -0- 358.00
Bladen 5,944.51 6,465.40 30,006.83 752.00 144.00
Brunswick 3,346.50 3,650.16 18,794.20 1,188.00 64.00
Carteret 6,597.38 4,974.00 41,467.00 841.00 1,384.20
Chatham 4,786.00 4,011.60 27,579.95 -0- 444.00
Cleveland 14,228.24 9,404.50 55,307.10 -0- 4,314.85
Columbus 8,202.50 7,372.10 40,273.35 799.00 2,131.60
Craven 9,008.00 5,577.50 56,546.85 -0- 2,224.00
Duplin 10,644.55 8,522.34 46,718.77 -0- 2,963.00
Edgecombe 8,147.00 8,165.90 49,120.40 2,397.00 3,408.50
Forsyth 40,516.50 15,587.00 156,204.26 860.00 24,498.10
Frankiin 4,962.00 4,089.45 22,204.00 -0- 1,443.10
Gaston 28,310.00 18,409.00 85,911.35 -0- 8,788.00
Granville 6,158.00 5,299.50 31,835.80 20.00 1,185.50
Greene 2,698.50 2,580.30 14,627.00 -0- 330.00
Guilford 76,994.00 20,093.50 193,953.00 -0- 48,843.50
Halifax 11,345.38 7,018.45 53,391.46 2,078.00 3,870.90
Harnett 8,144.55 7,094.50 32,483.35 3,399.10 3,762.85
Henderson 6,945.01 6,085.59 26,211.50 8.00 1,150.00
Hertford 4,309.00 2,972.00 25,536.00 -0- 849.70
Hyde 873.00 872.00 3,088.75 -0- -0-
Johnston 9,887.00 8,784.10 38,292.45 2,394.00 3,562.00
8
Officer and
Facilities Officer and Fines and Facilities Fees Jail Fees
County Fees
1,201.00
Jail Fees
1,270.25
Forfeitures
4,027.00
Municipalities
-0-
Municipalities
Jones -0-
Lee 9,131.20 6,713.06 23,869.50 -0- 2,983.00
Lenoir 12,271.00 6,834.25 65,720.50 -0- 4,627.95
Lincoln 8,596.40 8,055.94 36,070.50 -0- 707.84
Madison 1,754.50 1,264.00 9,697.20 -0- 4.00
Martin 5,749.00 3,782.50 30,763.00 -0- 644.00
McDowell 6,472.82 5,489.50 28,531.50 -0- 402.25
Mecklenburg 81,471.00 17,451.67 300,500.20 -0- 42,988.00
Mitchell 1,068.00 1,958.20 11,559.00 780.00 444.00
Moore 7,572.00 6,316.50 49,407.30 545.00 1,173.10
Nash 7,313.00 8,072.95 40,722.50 3,619.00 4,494.50
New Hanover 18,794.22 10,206.43 66,401.30 -0- 8,908.00
Northampton 3,920.00 4,232.10 26,897.75 -0- 247.00
Onslow 15,647.05 14,204.90 122,996.40 -0- 2,298.00
Orange 5,210.00 5,084.75 46,282.05 2,554.00 2,497.00
Pamlico 1,039.00 1,067.50 5,740.50 -0- -0-
Pender 4,207.00 3,698.00 19,138.00 -0- 212.00
Person 4,123.00 2,846.00 27,337.00 232.00 910.00
Pitt 13,662.05 11,244.00 91,157.57 2,988.00 5,367.00
Polk 1,196.00 1,802.26 8,966.00 -0- 302.00
Richmond 6,662.00 7,209.95 40,591.59 -0- 971.80
Rutherford 7,231.45 5,742.30 28,494.50 -0- 1,912.00
Sampson 8,444.00 8,717.40 59,306.99 437.00 276.00
Stanly 6,587.50 3,888.20 44,087.30 -0- 2,189.80
Transylvania 2,192.00 2,342.00 10,642.00 -0- 350.00
Tyrrell 466.85 280.20 1,564.00 -0- 3.00
Union 7,316.00 6,430.00 93,375.87 -0- 1,244.00
Vance 8,759.63 4,291.00 28,141.55 -0- 1,610.00
Wake 57,436.32 22,263.80 151,891.64 2,708.00 27,354.45
Warren 3,487.38 2,426.50 22,212.00 -0- 243.75
Washington 2,087.70 1,748.25 9,609.00 -0- 388.00
Watauga 2,904.00 2,827.96 22,669.90 -0- 418.00
Wayne 17,463.96 10,938.00 72,199.75 536.00 4,754.00
Wilson 9,748.00 7,408.92 34,196.20 -0- 1,065.00
Yancey 1,620.00 2,328.00 9,809.20 -0- 78.00
Total Receipts Distributed to Local Governments:
Counties Operating for 12 Months:
Burke $132,798.50 Gates $ 24,840.40
Caldwell 147,787.70 Graham 18,141.75
Camden 7,794.81 Haywood 108,101.75
Catawba 332,308.40 Hoke 44,733.45
Cherokee 51,936.84 Jackson 42,159.80
Chowan 32,218.25 Macon 31,579.25
Clay 21,895.00 Pasquotank 49,376.85
Cumberland 528,384.52 Perquimans 20,564.52
Currituck 26,874.50 Robeson 295.253.85
Dare 35,492.30 Scotland 92.906.17
Durham 290,152.14 Swain 32,207.00
ill Counties Operating from December 2, 1968-June 80, 1969:
Alamance 166,285.58 Martin 40,938.50
Anson 42,350.00 McDowell 40,896.07
Avery 21,962.00 Mecklenburg 442,410.87
Beaufort 57,841.10 Mitchell 15,809.20
Bertie 25,262.55 Moore 65,013.90
Bladen 43,312.74 Nash 64,221.95
Brunswick 27,042.86 New Hanover 104,309.95
Carteret 55,263.58 Northampton 35,296.85
Chatham 36,821.55 Onslow 155,146.35
Cleveland 83,254.69 Orange 61,627.80
Columbus 58,778.55 Pamlico 7,847.00
Craven 73,356.35 Pender 27,255.00
Duplin 68,848.66 Person 35,448.00
Edgecombe 71,238.80 Pitt 124,418.62
Forsyth 237,665.86 Polk 12,266.26
Franklin 32,698.55 Richmond 55,435.34
Gaston 141,418.35 Rutherford 43,380.25
Granville 44,498.80 Sampson 77,181.39
Greene 20,235.80 Stanly 56,752.80
Guilford 339,884.00 Transylvania 15,526.00
Halifax 77,704.19 Tyrrell 2,314.05
Harnett 54,884.35 Union 108,365.87
Henderson 40,400.10 Vance 42,802.18
Hertford 33,666.70 Wake 261,654.21
Hyde 4,833.75 Warren 28,369.63
Johnston 62,919.55 Washington 13,832.95
Jones 6,498.25 Watauga 28,819.86
Lee 42,696.76 Wayne 105,891.71
Lenoir 89,453.70 Wilson 52,418.12
Lincoln 53,430.68 Yancey 13,835.20
Madison 12,719.70
SUMMARY
The State, which pays the entire operating costs of the court system,
received directly into its general fund 35.6% of operating costs. When
the Law Enforcement Officers Benefit and Retirement Fund receipts
are added, the percentage of return is 45.7%. The total State and local
receipts exceed the operating expenditures by $639,799.10.
As to the impact of the new system on local governments, those
which formerly made a profit from court operations no longer do so.
One of the most elementary principles of the administration of justice
is that they should not do so. Those which operated at a loss have an
improved status. Having been relieved of all operating expenses, they
are now directly responsible for furnishing facilities only. This responsi-bility
existed in the past. It is now being met more adequately and is
supported by receipts from facilities fees.
10
THE COURTS COMMISSION
1969
Senator Ruffin Bailey—Chmn.
Raleigh
Rep. Herschel S. Harkins
Asheville
Senator J. J. Harrington
Lewiston
Mr. Sneed High
Fayetteville
Mr. Herbert Hyde
Asheville
Mr. Wilbur M. Jolly
Louisburg
Mr. Karl W. McGhee
Wilmington
Judge James B. McMillan
Charlotte
Dean J. D. Phillips
School of Law
University of North Carolina
Chapel Hill
Rep. Kenneth C. Royall, Jr.
Durham
Rep. Horton Rountree
Greenville
Rep. J. Eugene Snyder
Lexington
Rep. Marcus Short
Greensboro
Sen. Lindsay C. Warren, Jr.
Goldsboro
Mr. A. A. Zollicoffer, Jr.
Henderson
Ex officio Members:
Mr. Bert M. Montague—Director
Administrative Office of the Courts
Raleigh
Mr. C. W. Teague
North Carolina State Bar
Raleigh
Mr. Herbert H. Taylor, Jr.
North Carolina Bar Association
Tarboro
11
THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL
Carlisle W. Higgins, Senior Associate Justice of the Supreme Court,
Chairman
W. Marion Allen, Past President, N. C. State Bar, Elkin
Julian R. Allsbrook, Senator, Roanoke Rapids
Julius L. Banzet, Chief District Judge of the 9th Judicial District,
Warrenton
Hugh B. Campbell, Associate Judge, N. C. Court of Appeals, Raleigh
James H. Carson, Jr., Representative, Charlotte
Thomas D. Cooper, Jr., Resident Judge of the 15th Judicial District,
Burlington
Sam J. Ervin, III, Resident Judge of the 25th Judicial District, Mor-ganton
Henry A. McKinnon, Jr., Resident Judge of the 16th Judicial District,
Lumberton
Thomas W. Moore, Jr., Superior Court Solicitor, 11th Solicitorial Dis-trict,
Winston-Salem
James E. Ramsey, Representative, Roxboro
Millard R. Rich, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh
W. D. Sabiston, Jr., Attorney, Carthage
Bonner D. Sawyer, Past President, N. C. State Bar, Hillsborough
John K. Smart, Jr., Attorney, Brevard
William W. Staton, Senator, Sanford
W. E. Timberlake, Attorney, Lumberton
Charles B. Winberry, District Court Prosecutor, 7th Judicial District,
Wilson
Frank W. Bullock, Jr., Executive Secretary, Raleigh
12
THE APPELLATE DIVISION
During 1969, the Supreme Court wrote 67 opinions. Full opinions
were written in 65 cases, one of which was an advisory opinion, and
two opinions were per curiam. Of these opinions, 36 dealt with civil
cases and 31 dealt with criminal cases. The court affirmed the lower
court in 27 cases and took corrective action in 40 cases. The Supreme
Court considered 102 petitions for certiorari from the Court of Appeals.
With the appointment of three additional judges in July, 1969,
the Court of Appeals is now fully staffed. The court, sitting in panels
of three, considered 584 cases during 1969. This is only two more
than the number considered in 1968. The great majority of the 496
appeals (255 civil and 241 criminal) came from the superior court.
Sixty-nine cases came from the district court, 13 from the Industrial
Commission and 6 from the Utilities Commission. The court affirmed
the lower bodies in 403 cases and took corrective action in 179.
The statistics reveal that the Court of Appeals has provided the
needed relief for the previously overburdened Supreme Court. The
Supreme Court is now free to examine carefully the truly significant
questions of law.
13
JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT
Chief Justice
William H. Bobbitt
Associate Justices
Carlisle W. Higgins
Susie Sharp
I. Beverly Lake
Joseph Branch
J. Frank Huskins
Dan K. Moore
Emergency Justices
Emery B. Denny
William B. Rodman, Jr.
J. Will Pless, Jr.
JUDGES OF THE COURT OF APPEALS
Chief Judge
Raymond B. Mallard
Hugh B. Campbell
Walter E. Brock
David M. Britt
Naomi E. Morris
Associate Judges
Frank M. Parker
R. A. Hedrick
Earl W. Vaughn
William E. Graham, Jr.
14
THE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
Nineteen sixty-nine marks the first year that the district court
system has been fully operational in 83 counties of the State. The im-pact
of the new system is fully reflected in the decreased activity of the
superior court.
When compared to 1968, there was a decrease in every measure of su-1
perior court activity. Total filings decreased by 34.8%, total dispositions
decreased by 34.7%, and the total number of cases pending at the end
of the year decreased by 22.7%. The percentage of reduction in dis-positions
is a somewhat misleading figure because the number of dis-positions
in 1968 included the wholesale transfer to the new district
courts of pending superior court cases within the new court's jurisdic-tion.
There were far fewer transfers in 1969 and, therefore, most of the
dispositions were upon the merits of the case rather than simply by
transfer. ——7^
The reduction in activity is also reflected in the number of days
of court scheduled and held. The number of days scheduled decreased
by 3.8% and the number of days of court actually held decreased by
11.4%. The percentage of court utilization dropped from 85.4% to 78.5%.
TOTAL CASES ADDED, AND DISPOSED OP
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
July 1, 1964 - December 31, 1969
Added ip M Disposed of v//;;/;/;;;;;a
7/1/64-6/30/65: KBanHBnnnHHnuKM 59.307
w////////////////////////////////////////////////, 56,922
7/1/65-6/30/66: mm^mhmhm^v^m 61,577
v///;///;/;////;;;;;;s>;;;;;;;;;/;;;;;;;;;;j>/777777. 59.498
1/1/67-12/31/67:^nn^iH 64,722
w/v//////y/7/^^^^ 65,432
1/1/68-12/31/68: ihii„i n i iiim ! mil 70,115
^BB^III^2B^tBB^BMBMmBBnBZBBmmto 82.879
1/1/69-12/31/69 : iwh mii 45,698
v/////////w///////////////////////////////7777r, 54,148
(in thousands) | 10 | 20 | 30 | 40 | 50 | 60
|
70 | 80
|
15
TOTAL CASES PENDING
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
July 1, 1965 - December 31, 1969
7/1/65
7/1/66
12/31/67
12/31/68
12/31/69
(in thousands) 9 18 27 36 45
UTILIZATION OF SCHEDULED COURT
July 1, 1964 - December 31, 1969
35,312
37,045
48,495
36,997
28,631
Days Scheduled
8724
Days Held Percentage
7/1/64-6/30/65 7155 82.
7/1/65-6/30/66 9129 7462V2 81.7
1/1/67-12/31/67 9313 7815 83.9
1/1/68-12/31/68 9421 8042 85.4
1/1/69-12/31/69 906iy2 7118 78.5
CONFERENCE OF SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES
President, Judge Albert W. Cowper, Kinston
President Elect, Judge Henry A. McKinnon, Jr., Lumberton
Secretary-Treasurer, Judge Eugene G. Shaw, Greensboro
Additional Executive Committee Members:
Judge Robert A. Collar, Jr., Statesville
Judge Harry C Martin, Asheville
16
o 5 f 's - - % •
> 5 > S 2 S c eS
3 in
g ? ? ^ , ^3 i— 0) ^
bq £ c m d M e •
•66 "S
8*
5 01
-— ~ 0, U s > o
£63a
o « >> *
Q c s t«
g 9 &
•J
'-
o ° fill
.O.Q h S g g
III 91 <D <D O O
<n <n rt *n ^i M **.
o c c C >, •- '"
" d ri es
~ g* 0) <u J 7j
n « g "
s ° c 5
2 Q u
2 «1 5 ?«
G S E . >> o7'£
. ^^ p.;
9u u , J ^ .* «3
^ O J2 C <P rt —
O O •
* »,- "l r H hi
S3 2 §
5 E ° . 2 >>
cj o b .• ? n c r . . hj ,5 . •
0) O)
c
^ o *« = *
?CD£j3 r « 0>oCfcB^ >,0i
u -
1 2
2 "3
s it
A
£ O
s
o
ft
0)
o
o
rt
o3
w
to
8)
>
rt
£
«<
"d § 3 P
>> w ~ & V © C
n ja <J o •3 >- 3
01 0)
N £ i-s J o
rt
3
od
J5
ui <c t»
rt
OS ©
e^> H
g s©
pc
cc
©
It O
B5
C_
6 >
>>
g
,3
rt
ao
ma
o
CQ
c©
©
CjO
rt
U
.5
'S
O
CO H
I—
i
rt
W
3
5 j£
- fi u
p 1-3 +J ©
05
§
s
8
e.
o
a
So
C
bo
«
0u
K
©u
s
©"
Oo
S
by
Si
o
«
•3
"3
©
05
1
5 M
c
.3 c
0)
(4
09
rt
s
o
bo
3
o
P
c
05 »"5
o
P w
rt
,3
En * §
©
M £ a> OS © o
|^
N "' •4
—
- a
o o
rt
05 ©
n
©
A -a
c
3
o
"0
ei >
BO
_bp
3
o 3oo
bo
c
3
©
V
o
c
o
s
U
rt
,.
i-s "
t-s •-3
~
rt c ©
a 0 >>
> t- d X3 w o C 12
U
©
o
o
bo
u
3
m
>>
Hi
rt"
1
rt
w
W
E-I
O
O
<
a « 0) u (a 6 B
W © 0) rt a
c
>>
!s A - s -
O
1-3
o
rt * <
3
l f i
CLERKS OF SUPERIOR COURT
County
Alamance
Alexander
Alleghany
Anson
Ashe
Avery
Beaufort
Bertie
Bladen
Brunswick
Buncombe
Burke
Cabarrus
Caldwell
Camden
Carteret
Caswell
Catawba
Chatham
Cherokee
Chowan
Clay
Cleveland
Columbus
Craven
Cumberland
Currituck
Dare
Davidson
Davie
Duplin
Durham
Edgecombe
Forsyth
Franklin
Gaston
Gates
Graham
Granville
Greene
Guilford
Halifax
Harnett
Haywood
Henderson
Hertford
Hoke
Hyde
Iredell
Jackson
Johnston
Jones
Lee
Clerk of Court
Wiley P. Wooten
Atwell B. Bumgarner
Glenn Busic
H. C. Tucker
Virginia D. Winebarger
D. B. Eller
Bessie J. Cherry
Robert E. Williford
C. C. Campbell
J. E. Brown
R. C. Ratcliff
T. G. Bumgarner
Estus B. White
Mary H. Thompson
Caroline G. Halstead
A. H. James
G. M. Harris
Eunice Mauney
J. W. Drake
D. W. Ramsey
Lena M. Leary
Ralph A. Allison
Paul Wilson
Lacy R. Thompson
Dorothy P. Pate
Marion B. Person
R. E. Saunders
C. S. Meekins
E. R. Everhart
Glenn L. Hammer
R. V. Wells
Alton Knight
Don Gilliam, Jr.
A. E. Blackburn
Ralph S. Knott
George C. Holland
S. H. Carter, Jr.
O. W. Hooper, Jr.
Mary C. Nelms
S. T. Barrow
J. P. Shore
Jacob C. Taylor
Elizabeth F. Matthews
J. B. Siler
J. Seldon Osteen
A. W. Greene
E. E. Smith
Walter A. Credle
C. G. Smith
Margaret W. Henson
James C. Woodard
F. Rogers Pollock
Sion H. Kelly
19
County
Lenoir
Lincoln
Macon
Madison
Martin
McDowell
Mecklenburg
Mitchell
Montgomery
Moore
Nash
New Hanover
Northampton
Onslow
Orange
Pamlico
Pasquotank
Pender
Perquimans
Person
Pitt
Polk
Randolph
Richmond
Robeson
Rockingham
Rowan
Rutherford
Sampson
Scotland
Stanly
Stokes
Surry
Swain
Transylvania
Tyrrell
Union
Vance
Wake
Warren
Washington
Watauga
Wayne
Wilkes
Wilson
Yadkin
Yancey
Clerk of Court
J. S. Davis
M. L. Hnggins
A. W. Perry
C. N. Willis
L. B. Wynne
Robert Jarrett, Sr.
Robert M. Blackburn
Guy Snyder
C. M. Johnson
C. M. McLeod
Rachel M. Joyner
James G. McKeithan
R. J. White, Jr.
Everitte Barbee
Frank S. Frederick
Sadie W. Edwards
Naomi A. Chesson
Frances N. Futch
W. J. Ward
Rama J. Williams
H. L. Lewis, Jr.
J. Thurston Arledge
John H. Skeen
T. L. Covington
Ben G. Floyd
David Blackwell
Frank M. Montgomery
Edgar W. Tanner
Charles A. Britt
J. M. McGregor
Joe H. Lowder
Robert Miller
Martha O. Comer
H. H. Sandlin
Marian M. McMahon
Melvin Pledger
Ethel M. Gordon
H. W. Hight
J. R. Nipper
Lanie M. Hayes
Louise S. Allen
Orville H. Foster
Shelton Jordan
Wayne Yates
William A. Boone, Jr.
Raye O. West
Fred Proffitt
ASSOCIATION
President
1st Vice President
Treasurer
Secretary
Assistant Secretary
OF CLERKS OF SUPERIOR COURT
Alton Knight, Durham
Lena M. Leary, Chowan
Ralph S. Knott, Franklin
Institute of Government
Marion Person, Cumberland
20
SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL DOCKETS
The new district court system has been significantly effective in
reducing the civil case load of the superior court. As compared to 1968,
major reductions occurred in each measure of superior court activity.
Total filings decreased by 64.1%, total dispositions decreased by 54.9%,
and the total number of cases pending at the end of the year decreased
by 35.6%. The percentage of reduction in dispositions is abnormally
high because the figure for 1968 included cases that were "disposed of"
simply by a transfer to the new district court. Most of the dispositions
included in the 1969 figures were upon the merits of the case.
The decreased civil activity in the superior court is reflected in a
reduction of the number of days of court scheduled and held. The num-ber
of days scheduled decreased by 13.7%, and the number of days
actually held decreased by 24.8%. The percentage of court utilization
dropped from 82.6% to 71.9%.
The ten counties with the largest civil dockets accounted for 42.5%
of the total pending civil cases. Fifty-five counties had fewer than 100
cases pending and only eight counties had more than 500 cases pending.
At the end of 1968 four counties had more than 1000 pending cases,
but on December 31, 1969, only Mecklenburg (with 1,171) exceeded
that figure. In seven of the ten counties with the largest accumulated
case loads the statewide percentage of utilization of civil court was
exceeded.
CIVIL CASES ADDED, AND DISPOSED OF
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
July 1, 1964 - December 31, 1969
Added mm i
Disposed of w/m/mm
7/1/64-6/30/65: oann^ 26,699
mmEBMZBBZmm 24,089
7/1/65-6/30/66: H^nraum 29,944
V////////////////M//M//////////,. 28,557
1/1/67-12/31/67: pii«iii IW iiM , n i wii mi 31,481
ZBE^BZBZB^mBmZB^m 33,602
1/1/68-12/31/68: wm—mmmmmB—msn 33,020
WEBBmBBmBWZBB^BtZBBmBWEBl 45,848
1/1/69-12/31/69: wammam 11,880
WW////////////////////////. 20,692
(in thousands) | 10 | 20 | 30 | 40 | 50 |
21
CIVIL CASES PENDING
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
July 1, 1965 - December 31, 1969
7/1/65
7/1/66
12/31/67
12/31/68
12/31/69
in thousands) o 16 24 32
26,233
27,187
36,592
24,793
15,991
DISTRIBUTION OF PENDING CIVIL CASES
AMONG THE COUNTIES
Number of Cases
Number of Counties
1968
1969
Less than
50
50-100 101-200 201-500 Over
500
30 16 23 17 12
36 19 24 13 8
TEN COUNTIES WITH LARGEST CIVIL DOCKETS
County Pending
1-1-69
Added Disposed of Pending
12-31-69
Utilization
of Court
Mecklenburg 4,917 989 4,735 1,171 82.3%
Guilford 745 480 477 748 67.3%
Forsyth 1,666 494 1,497 663 91.6%
Durham 656 213 220 649 86.7%
Cabarrus 570 909 855 624 71 .4%
Wake 501 407 297 611 85.4%
Lenoir 1,285 81 767 599 50.8%
Iredell 656 450 512 594 92.3%
Buncombe 462 814 779 497 76.9%
Randolph 562 190 258 494 85.7%
STATE MEAN 248 119 207 160 71.9%
22
CIVIL CASES PENDING, ADDED, AND DISPOSED OF
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS
BY JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
January 1, 1969 — December 31, 1969
5TII DISTRICT
New Hanover
Pender
TOTAL
Pending Filed Disposed of Pending Gain or
1/1/69 Jury Judge Other' Total Loss
1ST DISTRICT
Camden 16 3 1 5 6 13 — 3
Chowan 28 7 5 2 7 28
Currituck 10 14 2 2 2 5 28 + 8
Dare 40 13 5 8 1 3 40
Gates 19 9 4 1 5 23 + 4
Pasquotank 7$ 47 5 16 22 43 + 4
Perquimans 32 6 3 3 6 32
TOTAL 2 33 99 10 33 43
{
6 246 + 13
2ND DISTRICT
Beaufort 1,1 9d 50 6 18 1,107 1,131 118 1,081
Hyde 13 11 4 3 7 17 + 4
Martin 40 22 1 22 11 34 28 — 12
Tyrrell i 5 1 6 7 4
9 16
— 2
Washington 18 17 9 6 4 1 — 2
TOTAL 1,2 76 105 16 51 1,131 1,198 183 "~~~ 1,093
3RD DISTRICT
Carteret 1 7 65 14 44 82 14 102 75
Craven 1 2 59 4 25 23 5 2 119
7 10
+ 7
Pamlico 7 10 2 5 + 3
Pitt 1 57 69 7 23 22 5 2 174 + 17
TOTAL 453 203 25 94 132 251 405 — 48
J,TH DISTRICT
Duplin 1 31 37 3 10 19 3 2 166 + 5
Jones 27 12 2 3 8 1 3 26 — 1
Onslow 66 57 23 37 28 88 135 — 31
Sampson 3 38 35 6 8 250 264 109 — 229
TOTAL i92 141 34 58 305 397 436 — 256
269 132 33 54 43 130 271 + 2
94 20 4 4 9 17 57 + 3
323 152 37 58 52 147 328 + 5
1. Includes some pending superior court cases which were transferred to the district court
division after its establishment in sixty-one counties in December of 1968. The figures there-fore
appear unusually high for some counties, e.g., Beaufort County.
23
Pending Filed
1/1/69
Disposed of Pending G
12/31/69
ain or
Jury Judge Other' Total Loss
OTII DISTRICT
Bertie "Uo 27 14 45 29 88 69 61
Halifax 246 64 11 12 24 47 263 + 17
Hertford 28 36 7 8 15 30 34 4- 6
Northampton 135 14 4 10 79 93 56 — 79
TOTAL 539 141 36 75 147 258 422 — 117
7TH DISTRICT
Edgecombe 47 4 51 7 54 402 463 62 412
Nash 12 2 128 21 66 51 138 112 — 10
Wilson 18 87 12 38 26 76 191 + 11
TOTAL 776 266 40 158 479 677 365 — 411
STII DISTRICT
Greene 2 8 35 2 12 14 49 + 21
Lenoir 1,28 5 81 15 558 194 767 599 — 686
Wayne 16 5 103 12 52 36 100 168 + 3
TOTAL 1,47 8 219 27 612 242 881 816 — 662
9TH DISTRICT
Franklin 194 43 2 15 10 27 210 + 16
Granville 186 18 6 4 1 11 193 + 7
Person 2 4 21 2 8 9 19 26 + 2
Vance 15 22 15 13 98 126 46 — 104
Warren 3 1 6 6 11 2 19 18 — 13
TOTAL 585 110 31 51 120 202 493 — 92
10TH DISTRICT
Wake 501 407 88 98 111 297 611 + 110
11TH DISTRICT
Lee
Harnett
Johnston
62
224
166
51
lfiA-
—
9
1-ft
15 15
-53-
38
39
112
121
74
275
175
+
++
12
51
130 17 66 9
TOTAL 452 344 36 130 106 272 524 + 72
12TH DISTRICT
Cumberland \323 222 24 100 127 251 294 — 29
Hoke 50 9 2 7 9 50
TOTAL I373 231 24 102 134 260 344 — 29
1STH DISTRICT
Bladen 40 25 1 5 17 23 42 + 2
Brunswick 140 34 3 16 16 35 139 — 1
Columbus \263 76 11 70 71 152 187 — 76
TOTAL i143 135 15 91 104 210 368 ~ 75
1. Includes some pending superior court cases which were transferred to the district
court division after its establishment in sixty-one counties in December of 1968. The
figures therefore appear unusually high for some counties, e.g.. Beaufort County.
24
Disposed of Pending Gain or
1/,TH DISTRICT
Durham
15TH DISTRICT
Alamance
Chatham
Orange
TOTAL
Pending Filed
1/1/69 Jury Judge Other' Total 12/31/69 Loss
6)6 213 21
680 120 8
287 37
79 95 3
1,046 252 11
54 145 220 649
16 645 669 131 — 549
11 245 256 68 — 219
11 33 47 127 + 48
38 923 972 326 — 720
16TII DISTRICT
Robeson
Scotland
TOTAL
03 55
90 22
193 77
10
5
15
26
39
65
12
4
16
48
48
96
110 + 7
64 — 26
174 __ 19
11TB DISTRICT
Caswell
Rockingham
Stokes
Surry
TOTAL
12 50
511 507
75 106
460 353
1,058 1,016
1
48
43
92
17
381
93
178
669
27
178
10
252
45
607
103
473
467 1,228
17 +
411 —
78 +
340 —
846 —
5
100
3
120
212
18TH DISTRICT
Guilford
—
Greensboro
High Point
TOTAL
520 360
225 120
745 480
45
17
62
169
82
251
116
48
164
330
147
477
550 + 30
198 — 27
748 + 3
19TH DISTRICT
Cabarrus
Montgomery
Randolph
Rowan
TOTAL
570 909
44 60
562 190
309 431
1,485 1,590
63
1
16
33
113
341
38
203
386
968
451
21
39
131
855
60
258
550
624 +
44
494 —
190 —
642 1,723 1,352 —
54
68
119
133
20TH DISTRICT
Moore
Anson
Richmond
Stanly
Union
TOTAL
21ST DISTRICT
173
26
149
60
62
47
75
21
74
23
4
11
91
30
7
10
29
56
12
65
129
29
109
23
86
91
18
115
58
50
470 238 48 155 173 376 332
Forsyth 1,666 494 31 517 949 1,497 663
82
8
34
2
12
138
1,003
1. Includes some pending superior court cases which were transferred to the district
court division after its establishment in sixty-one counties in December of 196S. The
figures therefore appear unusually high for some counties, e.g.. Beaufort County.
25
Pending Filed Disposed of Pending Gain or
1/1/69
42 56
Jury Judge Other' Total 12/31/69
47 +
Loss
22ND DISTRICT
Alexander 4 18 29 51 5
Davidson 2c 5 575 44 274 73 391 419 + 184
Davie 7 9 100 15 60 32 107 72 7
Iredell 656 450 32 234 246 512 594 — 62
TOTAL 1,012 1,181 95 586 380 1,061 1,132 + 120
&8RD DISTRICT
Alleghany 3 36 7 16 12 35 31 + 1
Ashe 26 58 9 17 32 58 26
Wilkes 426 691 57 239 329 625 492 + 66
Yadkin 186 121 2 53 57 112 195 + 9
TOTAL 668 906 75 325 430 830 744 + 76
2J,TH DISTRICT
Avery 1 3 32 2 8 17 27 18 + 5
Madison 51 24 1 31 10 42 33 — 18
Mitchell B 32 8 8 6 22 18 + 10
Watauga 2 8 3 2 10 8 20 11 — 17
Yancy 72 50 15 55 70 52 — 20
TOTAL 172 141 13 72 96 181 132 — 40
25TH DISTRICT
Catawba 206 78 9 37 35 81 203 3
Burke 83 46 4 21 21 46 83
Caldwell 75 51 27 20 47 79 + 4
TOTAL 364 175 13 85 76 174 365 + 1
26TH DISTRICT
4,91 7 989 109 52 4,574 4,735 1,171 — Mecklenburg 3,746
27TII DISTRICT
Cleveland 21 7 68 19 41 28 88 197 20
Gaston 44 9 282 32 235 78 345 386 — 63
Lincoln 1 9 35 18 18 36 + 17
TOTAL 685 385 51 294 106 451 619 — 66
28TII DISTRICT
Buncombe 462 814 93 522 164 779 497 + 35
2UTII DISTRICT
Henderson 1; 34 76 11 16 17 44 166 + 32
McDowell 2!50 19 5 197 202 67 — 183
Polk 4 33 1 7 1 9 28 + 24
Rutherford 1()9 62 8 46 14 68 103 — 6
Transylvania 18 16 6 3 6 15 19 + 1
TOTAL 51 5 206 31 72 235 338 383 — 132
1. Includes some pending superior court cases which were transferred to the district
court division after its establishment in sixty-one counties in December of 19G8. The
figures therefore appear unusually high for some counties, e.g.. Beaufort County.
26
Pending
1/1/69
Filed Disposed of Pending Gain or
Jury Judge Other' Total 12/31/69 Loss
,30 Til DISTRICT
Cherokee B1 24 14 43 15 72 33 — 48
Clay 16 18 5 7 7 10 15 — 1
Graham 61 5 4 23 24 51 15 — 46
Haywood 1 53 52 14 58 51 123 82 — 71
Jackson 1 42 40 2 40 27 63 113 — 29
Macon 66 12 5 32 7 44 34 — 32
Swain 46 19 2 21 17 40 25 — 21
TOTAL 5 65 170 46 224 148 418 317 — 248
GRAND TOTAL 24,8 03 11,880 1,338 6,560 12,794 20,692 15,991 — 8,812
Per Cent 6.4 31.8 61.8 100%
UTILIZATION OF CIVIL SUPERIOR COURT TERMS
BY JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
1969 Calendar Year
Days Scheduled Days Held Days Unused % Use
1ST DISTRICT
Camden 5 3 k 60.0
Chowan 5 4 i 80.0
Currituck 15 11 4 73.3
Dare 10 7 3 70.0
Gates 2 11/2 % 75.0
Pasquotank 30 16% 13% 55.0
Perquimans 10 6 1 60.0
TOTAL 77 49 63.6
2ND DISTRICT
Beaufort 45 23 . 51.1
Hyde 5 1% 3% 30.0
Martin 30 UVz 15% 48.3
Tyrrell 4 2 2 50.0
Washington 9 3 6 33.3
TOTAL 93 44 49 47.3
3RD DISTRICT
Carteret 48 36 12 75.0
Craven 28 13% 14% 48.2
Pamlico 5 5
Pitt 40 26 14 65.0
TOTAL 121 75% 45% 62.3
kTH DISTRICT
Duplin 30 20% 9% 68.3
Jones 20 16 4 80.0
Onslow 40 16 24 40.0
Sampson 29 9 20 31.0
TOTAL 119 61 % 57% 51.6
1. Includes some pending superior court cases which were transferred to the district
court division after its establishment in sixty-one counties in December of 196S. The
figures therefore appear unusually high for some counties, e.g.. Beaufort County.
Days Scheduled Days Held Days Unused % Use
5TII DISTRICT
New Hanover 134 93 41 69.4
Pender 21 9 12 42.8
TOTAL 155 102 53 65.8
6TII DISTRICT
Bertie 10 7V2 2V2 75.0
Halifax 40 15% 24V2 38.7
Hertford 17 13 4 76.4
Northampton 15 7 8 46.6
TOTAL 82 43 39 52.4
1'TH DISTRICT
Edgecombe 30 22V2 7V2 75.0
Nash 55 45 10 81.8
Wilson 48 33 15 68.7
TOTAL 133 100V2 32V2 75.5
8TH DISTRICT
Greene 13 5 8 38.4
Lenoir 61 31 30 50.8
Wayne 55 49 6 89.0
TOTAL 129 85 44 65.8
9TH DISTRICT
Franklin 25 13 12 52.0
Granville 26 15 11 57.6
Person 20 10 10 50.0
Vance 20 16 4 80.0
Warren 15 9 6 60.0
TOTAL 106 63 43 59.4
10TH DISTRICT
Wake 213 182 31 85.4
11TH DISTRICT
Harnett
Lee
Johnston
TOTAL
12TH DISTRICT
Cumberland
Hoke
TOTAL
13TH DISTRICT
Bladen
Brunswick
Columbus
TOTAL
75 58 17 77.3
43 26V2 161/2 61.6
75 51 24 68.0
193 135V2 571/2
41
70.2
96V2 551/2 57.5
5 2 3 40.0
101 y2 571/2 44 56.6
10 3 , 30.0
35 15 20 42.8
65 441/2 2OV2 68.4
110 62V2 471/2 56.8
28
1J,TH DISTRICT
Days Scheduled Days Held Days Unused % Use
Durham 106 92 14
21
4
10
35
86.7
15TH DISTRICT
60
25
35
120
39
21
25
85
Alamance
Chatham
Orange
TOTAL
65.0
84.0
71.4
70.8
16TH DISTRICT
Robeson
Scotland
TOTAL
65
25
90
42
15
57
23
10
33
64.6
60.0
63.3
17TH DISTRICT
Caswell
Rockingham
Stokes
Surry
TOTAL
10
65
10
48
133
4V2
47
5
34
90V2
5V2
18
5
14
42V2
45.0
72.3
50.0
70.8
68.0
18TH DISTRICT
Guilford 253 170% 82 1/2 67.3
19TH DISTRICT
Cabarrus
Montgomery
Randolph
Rowan
TOTAL
20TH DISTRICT
Anson
Moore
Richmond
Stanly
Union
TOTAL
77 55 22 71.4
10 3 7 30.0
105 90 1 5 85.7
55 48 7 87.2
247 196 5 1 79.3
20 6 1 4 30.0
25 16 9 64.0
45 26 1 9 57.7
10 9 1 90.0
20 18 2 90.0
120 75 45 62.5
21ST DISTRICT
Forsyth 228 209 19 91.6
22ND DISTRICT
Alexander
Davidson
Davie
Iredell
TOTAL
5 4 80.0
111 77 34 69.3
23V2 15 8V2 63.2
46 42% 3V2 92.3
185V2 138% 47 74.6
29
Days Scheduled Days Held Days Unused % Used
:.;rd district
Alleghany 10 4% 5V2 45.0
Ashe 10 2 8 20.0
Wilkes 60 49 11 81.6
Yadkin 7 6 1 85.7
TOTAL 87 61 Vz 25V2 70.6
24TB DISTRICT
Avery 10 4V2 5V2 45.0
Madison 25 12 13 48.0
Mitchell 10 7 3 70.0
Watauga 10 5 5 50.0
Yancey 15 9V2 51/2 63.3
TOTAL 70 38 2,2 54.2
25TH DISTRICT
Burke 29 27 2 93.1
Caldwell 35 23 12 65.7
Catawba 39 27 12 69.2
TOTAL 103 77 26 74.7
26TH DISTRICT
471 388 83
1
Mecklenburg 82.3
27TH DISTRICT
Cleveland 38 27 11 71.0
Gaston 130 95 35 73.0
Lincoln 12 11 1 91.6
TOTAL 180 133 417 73.8
28TJI DISTRICT
Buncombe 295 227 ( 58 76.9
Z9TH DISTRICT
Henderson 35 30 5 85.7
McDowell 15 10V2 41/2 70.0
Polk 15 10 5 66.6
Rutherford 30 22 8 73.3
Transylvania 15 6 9 40.0
TOTAL 110 78V2 CWh 71.3
SOTH DISTRICT I
Cherokee 30 19 1 1 63.3
Clay 7 7 100.0
Graham 12 9 3 75.0
Haywood 47 43
4J
91.4
Jackson 18 10V2 7P/2 58.3
Macon 19V2 16 3V2 82.0
Swain 9 71/2 IV2 83.3
TOTAL 142% 112 Cio% 78.5
GRAND TOTAL 4,573V2 3,289V2 1,2f14 71.9
30
SUPERIOR COURT CRIMINAL DOCKETS
An examination of the criminal statistics for the superior court
indicates that it is the civil and not the criminal case load that is pri-marily
responsible for the reduced level of activity. This undoubtedly
is due to the fact that prior to court reorganization there were few
recorder-type courts exercising civil jurisdiction, but there were many
exercising criminal jurisdiction. Consequently, the criminal dockets of
the superior courts have not been as significantly affected.
The total number of filings decreased from 1968 by 8.9%. Although
the number of days scheduled increased by 7.8% and the number of
days actually held increased by 4.2%, the number of cases disposed of
decreased by 9.7%. The number of cases pending at the end of the year
remained about the same—increasing by only 3.5%. The number of cases
filed (33,818) and disposed of (33,456) in 1969 was almost equal.
The distribution of pending criminal cases among the counties re-sembles
the distribution for civil cases. Most of the counties have rela-tively
few pending cases, while a few counties have a large number.
Sixty-four counties had less than 100 cases pending at the end of the
year and only five counties had more than 500 cases pending. The ten
counties with the largest criminal dockets accounted for 38.7% of the
total pending criminal cases. None of these counties exceeded the state-wide
average for utilization of criminal court.
CRIMINAL CASES ADDED, AND DISPOSED OF
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
July 1, 1964 - December 31, 1969
Added —i Disposed of '/;;///;/;;;//,
7/1/64-6/30/65: Hfi«WHnHre&HDa&&raH 32 .698
&EBZEEEZEZBBfflE^MZBZEESBBEEBk 32,833
7/1/65-6/30/66: b^bmhih 31,633
'//////////////////////////////;///;;;;/;;;/7777777. 30,941
1/1/67-12/31/67: dhbi^hmhbi 33,241
W//////////////////////////////////////////////W/ 31,830
WW/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////. 37,031
TEEzmzszazEnm^mmmE^mm 33,456
(in thousands) | 10 | 20 | 30 | 40 |
31
CRIMINAL CASES PENDING
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
July 1, 1965 - December 31, 1969
7/1/65
7/1/66
12/31/67
12/31/68
12/31/69
(in thousands)
9,079
9,858
11,903
12,204
12,640
10 i 12
DISTRIBUTION OF PENDING CRIMINAL CASES
AMONG THE COUNTIES
Number of Cases
Number of Counties
1968
1969
Less than
50
50-100 101-200 201-500 Over
500
39 24 16 19 3
40 24 17 15 5
TEN COUNTIES WITH LARGEST CRIMINAL DOCKETS
County Pending
1-1-69
Added Disposed of Pending
12-31-69
Utilization
of Court
Guilford 620 2,061 2,013 668 77.6%
Wake 580 1,134 1,057 657 98.7%
Rowan 485 463 381 567 97.5%
Iredell 553 1,209 1,238 524 87.7%
Cabarrus 398 964 851 511 96.0%
Cumberland 301 1,190 1,048 443 86.7%
Wayne 105 836 510 431 93.2%
Catawba 515 943 1,059 399 92.9%
New Hanover 267 1,062 977 352 97.0%
Randolph 335 348 342 341 91.3%
STATE MEAN 123 338 335 126 85.3%
32
CRIMINAL CASES PENDING, ADDED, AND
DISPOSED OF IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS
BY SOLICITORIAL DISTRICTS
January 1, 1969— December 31, 1969
1ST DISTRICT
Beaufort ^
Camden '
Chowan '
Currituck I
Dare '
Gates »
Hyde X
Pasquotank *
Perquimans '
Tyrrell ^
TOTAL
2ND DISTRICT
Edgecombe'
Martin X
Nash "l
Washington^
Wilson q
TOTAL
Pending Filed
1/1/69
234
Disposed of Pending Gain or
Jury Plea Other Total 12/31/69 Loss
360 56 +85-
475—-44-
453 36 305"
-39 42 8-
419 1,498 176 858
TOT 343
167
234 575
14 35
r 467
553 1,587
92
7
63
29
30
33
6
34
19
17
83
23
97
16
111
330
— 23
+ 24
+ 3 — 28 — 4 — 48 — 20 — 4
+ 9
966 173 548 336 1,057 330 — 91
+ 17
+ 8 — 122
+ 4
+ 4 — 89
3RD DISTRICT
Bertie ^
Granville^
Halifax fc
Hertford^
Northampton^
Vance°\
Warren ^
TOTAL
4TH DISTRICT
Lee
Harnett'
>
Johnston
Wayne S
TOTAL
--28— 68
-241 44- 444 403— 228
243 43 425 67— 205
-46— 95
80
89 426—-34 -208 453- 396
69 440 -43~ -53 §9—-1 24
410 1,159 102 600 494 1,196
)5 442 47-
1J5 243 12-
134 289-—22-
1Q5
439 1,485 107
-54-
.84- -88-
119
184
-453- 337
I46- 510
536 507 1,150
12
86
45
35
21
119
55
373
88
149
106
431
774
+
5
17
8 — 12 — 27
+ 30 — 14 — 37
+ 23
+ 34 — 48
+ 326
4- 335
5TH DISTRICT
Carteret 3
Craven 3
Greene g
JonesM
Pamlico^
Pitt 3
TOTAL
222- 43fr 439- 282
421 23-^-46^ 274"' 468
492 44_ 4J_____25— $0
49 15" 3)7
-9— 2:3
523 £8 256 245~~ 559
1,331 116 626 707 1,449
210
308
32
8
23
214
795
— 60 — 47
+ 22 — 7
+ 5 — 31 — 118
33
6TB DISTRICT
Duplin
Lenoir
Onslow I
Sampson
TOTAL
7TH DISTRICT
Franklin^
Wake \o
TOTAL
Pending Filed
1/1/69
Disposed of
Jury Plea Other
6U *58—
120 468 109
(»4 31
T
26-
76 492 34
324 1,129 178
171
130
85
498
Total
70 -263-
580 4yr34
—
2S&
650 1,397 282
105^
589
694
lfe4
243 523
VZZ 278
84 203
492 1,168
~~T5- 134
200 1,057
215 1,191
Pending Gain or
12/31/69 Loss
58
65
97
65
285
— 6 — 55
+ 33 — 11 — 39
199 + 129
657 + 77
856 + 206
STH DISTRICT
Brunswick 1 r
Columbus |2>
New Hanover $
Pender 5
TOTAL
26
58
ttrr-
-278
16
73
59 19
267 W^ 61-
36 165 5
387 1,612 175
166 18
626 -270-
83 43
934 350 1,459
94
257
977
131
39
79
352
70
540
+ 13
+ 21
+ 85
+ 34
+ 153
9TH DISTRICT
Cumberland (^
Hoke
TOTAL
301 Vr«e—ttr
77 =?f—20-
378 1,267 139
431 498 1,048
-60 43 123
491 541 1,171
443 + 142
31 — 46
474 + 96
9TH-A DISTRICT
Bladen^ 61 9&
Robesonw 174
TOTAL 235 836 168
^T7-— 123 36 — 25
395 486- 71 202 + 28
468 197 833 238 + 3
10 Til DISTRICT
Durham \\ 261 843 112 520 297 929 175 — 86
10 Til-A DISTRICT
Alamance
Chatham
Orange
Persons
TOTAL
11 Til DISTRICT
Alleghany
Ashe
Forsyth i\
TOTAL
103 595 47 350
97 140 15 67
42 231 38 131
59 ^248 U 1-32
301 1,184 118 680
-306—
262—
271
228
50
38
35 =h2T7 130 538
123 1,785 136 1,037
164 561 137 + 34
64 146 91 — 6
76 245 28 — 14
87 237 40 — 19
391 1,189 296 — 5
63 339
-44-- 270
437 1,105
541 1,714
17
30
147
194
— 33 — 8
+ 112
+ 71
34
I2TII DISTRICT
Davidson^i
Guilford
—
Greensboro
High Point
TOTAL
Pending Filed
1/1/69
Disposed of Pending Gain or
Jury Plea Other Total 12/31/69 Loss
389 -£82 26- 722 329
480 1,573 120 844 541 1,505 548
140 488 42 259 207 508 120
1,009 2,723 182 1,353 1,200 2,735 997
— 60
+ 68 — 20 — 12
18TH DISTRICT
Anson *°
Moore ^0
Richmond
Scotland I ^
Stanly ao
Union ^0
TOTAL
146
237
322
.240-
275
360
23
45
36
-+8~
20
42
71
166
177
444-
177
138
28
55 14
62 273
82 295
57- 189
225
67—3
93 — 36
119 + 27
80 + 51
76 + 50
47 227 269 + 133
482 1,580 184 843 331 1,358 704 +222
1J,TH DISTRICT
Gaston 3l1
UfTH-A DISTRICT
Mecklenburg
15TH DISTRICT
Alexander 3^
Cabarrus l*\
Iredell
Montgomery
Randolph \\
Rowan i <\
TOTAL
16TH DISTRICT
Burke 1S
Caldwell :+
Catawba xS
Cleveland **\
Lincoln**1
Watauga ^4
TOTAL
11TH DISTRICT
Avery -
1
Davie^
Mitchell'
Wilkes a
3
Yadkin *3
TOTAL
265
48
398
476—-77 274" T62
3 4r781 175 -T,084 -67-2- 1,931 163 —150
233
25
65
23
60
13
186
436~ 102
73
104
851
553 1~r20a---^8-
36 1-34 9-
335 348 24
485 463 39
"40d <&-f^r
-yw—47s- 1,238
-61 24— U
T57 ret-"" 342
T38 264— 381
228 — 37
140
511
524
76
341
567
1,855 3,314 205 1,562 1,243 3,01,0 2,159
-544 43- -362- -83 494
230 47-9-
515
233 273
47
56 A&l
21
943 45-
-367-
-800-
175
43 +08-
41
563
^44- 1,059
473— 404
96
47— 96
^2-^12- ^4
-23 13- 40-
301 6 219
J&8 -8 54— 9
_2Z-~ 63
133
3$
440- 344
71
596 48
35
380 216 644
44
44
23
17
10
138
+ 92
+ 113 — 29
+ 40
+ 6
+ 82
+ 304
280 + 47
146 - 84
399 —116
102 —131
89 + 42
67 +11
1,314 2,481 168 1,833 711 2,712 1,033 —231
+ 19 — 21
— 43 — 3 — 48
1STH DISTRICT
Henderson
McDowell
Polk
Rutherford
Transylvania
Yancey
TOTAL
19TII DISTRICT
Buncombe "^
Madison
TOTAL
20TH DISTRICT
Cherokee
Clay
Graham
Haywood
Jackson
Macon
Swain
TOTAL
21 ST DISTRICT
Caswell
Rockingham
Stokes
Surry
TOTAL
GRAND TOTAL
Per Cent
Pending Filed
1/1/69
Disposed of Pending Gain or
Jury Plea Other Total 12/31/69 Loss
94
46
105
27
29
479
T96
251
-85"
51
952
18
39
TXT
53
11
156
270 ^y097 158
I47 49 12
317 1,146 170
109
42
27
128
-24-
29
359
327
12
339
99
146
46-
200
18
25
226
227
83
381
67
65
534 1,0„49
583 1,068
36 60
619 1,128
112
fO 87
254 1,011
&3 114
179 523
39
602
78
391
17 I
378 1,020
12 92
107 514
148
118
48
36
17
15
382
291 542 46 387 167 600 233
70
245
55
188
12,278 33,818 3,452 18,014 11,990 33,456 12,640
10.4 53.8 35.8 100.0
— 30
+ 24
+ 2 — 69 — 10 — 14 — 97
299 + 29
36 — 11
335 + 18
48
27 8 — 3
23 16 + 4
287 99 — 61
81 24 — 3
27 8 + 2
«3 30 + 11
58
+ 30 — 9
+ 22
+ 9
506 1,735 59 1,110 514 1,683 558 + 52
362
UTILIZATION OF CRIMINAL SUPERIOR COURT TERMS BY
SOLICITORIAL DISTRICTS
1969 Calendar Year
1ST DISTRICT
Beaufort
Camden
Chowan
Currituck
Dare
Gates
Hyde
Pasquotank
Perquimans
Tyrrell
TOTAL
2ND DISTRICT
Edgecombe
Martin
Nash
Washington
Wilson
TOTAL
3RD DISTRICT
Bertie
Granville
Halifax
Hertford
Northampton
Vance
Warren
TOTAL
4TH DISTRICT
Harnett
Johnston
Lee
Wayne
TOTAL
5TH DISTRICT
Carteret
Craven
Greene
Jones
Pamlico
Pitt
TOTAL
Days Scheduled Days Held
169
19-
18
15
25
139
40
169
148
tOV2
-rrvr
25
11V2
12
12
107V2
30
69
138
Per Cent
Days Unused Used
6 86.6
100.0
2 84.6
100.0
2 86.6
2 75.0
5 80.0
\1 96.6
\1 90.0
B 66.6
21 88.3
5 87.5
C 70.0
1 97.6
5 54.5
4 92.7
21 87.5
7te 58.3
1V2 92.1
5 83.3
6V2 63.8
3 80.0
6 76.0
2 85.7
31 V2 77.3
8V2 75.7
10 75.0
7V2 62.5
5 93.2
31 81.6
3 80.0
12 76.0
5 70.5
2 60.0
5 50.0
10 81.8
37 75.6
37
6TB DISTRICT
Duplin
Lenoir
Onslow
Sampson
TOTAL
Days Scheduled
35
AQ-
.38-
Days Held Days Unused
24V2
"74-
-27-
193
24
149V2
A1/2
ii
ill
14
431/2
Per Cent
Used
70.0
92.5
67.5
63.1
77.4
ITU DISTRICT
Franklin
Wake
TOTAL
STB DISTRICT
Brunswick
Columbus
New Hanover
Pender
TOTAL
268
48"
19
187
262
39
18
169
5
9
3
1/
18
88.0
98.7
97.7
75.0
81.2
97.0
94.7
90.3
.9 Til DISTRICT
Cumberland
Hoke
TOTAL
9TH-A DISTRICT
Bladen
Robeson
TOTAL
25
184
22
160
21
3
24
114
11/2
3
4V2
86.7
88.0
86.9
92.5
96.8
96.0
10TII DISTRICT
Durham ^er 1 QA 11 94.6
10TH-A DISTRICT
Alamance
Chatham
Orange
Person
TOTAL
2
4
4
13
95.7
88.8
90.0
80.0
91.2
I ITIf DISTRICT
Alleghany
Ashe
Forsyth
TOTAL
JZ\Z
238
203
218
3
7
10
20
70.0
53.3
95.3
91.5
I ITU DISTINCT
Davidson
Guilford
TOTAL 327
38
258
7
62
69
85.7
77.6
78.8
13TII DISTRICT
Anson
Moore
Richmond
Scotland
Stanly
Union
TOTAL
1J,TII DISTRICT
Gaston
Days Scheduled Days Held Days Unused
46~~ 13V2
25 - 24 ""
35 35
20-
18
-26-
138
-26~
15
22%r
130
V/2
1
3
2 1/2
a
474-^ 146
Per Cent
Used
90.0
96.0
100.0
100.0
83.3
90.0
94.2
83.9
UfTII-A DISTRICT
Mecklenburg
15TH DISTRICT
Alexander
Cabarrus
Iredell
Montgomery
Randolph
Rowan
TOTAL
J6TII DISTRICT
Burke
Caldwell
Catawba
Cleveland
Lincoln
Watauga
TOTAL
.622-
40-
-&\—
49-—
-20—
-26
193
^e-
70—
16—
26—
318
-258-
"5%
46
"43—
-40"
21
167%
-50-
"63-
79"
-66%-
46—
16
289%
64
41/2
2
6
10
2
1
25%
5
7
6
6%
4
28%
80.1
55.0
96.0
87.7
50.0
91.3
97.5
86.7
90.9
90.0
92.9
90.7
100.0
80.0
91.0
11TH DISTRICT
Avery-
Davie
Mitchell
Wilkes
Yadkin
TOTAL
18TII DISTRICT
Henderson
McDowell
Polk
Rutherford
Transylvania
Yancey
TOTAL
46-
46%-
44
40-
66-
46-
66-
-26-
6%--
11
-11%.
-36-
-3XU
-*6-
-34-
-46-
1%
5%
2V2
4
8%
22
163 139%
7
5
2
1
7
1%
23%
85.0
66.6
82.1
86.6
52.7
75.1
82.5
85.7
86.6
97.1
72.0
88.4
85.5
39
19TH DISTRICT
Buncombe
Madison
TOTAL
20TH DISTRICT
Cherokee
Clay
Graham
Haywood
Jackson
Macon
Swain
TOTAL
Days Scheduled Days Held
Per Cent
Days Unused Used
196
221
146
165
50
6
56
1/2
1
3
5
3V2
2V2
6V2
22
74.4
76.0
74.6
95.0
66.6
40.0
83.3
70.8
54.5
40.9
71.2
2 JST DISTRICT
Caswell
Rockingham
Stokes
Surry
TOTAL
GRAND TOTAL
10
65
10
42
127
4,488
6
531/2
7
28
941/2
3,8281/2
4
111/2
3
14
321/2
66O1/2
60.0
82.3
70.0
66.6
74.4
85.3
40
THE DISTRICT COURT DIVISION
The year 1969 marks the first time that statistical data from all
83 counties now under the district court system has been available for
an entire twelve month period. It is still premature to make entirely
valid comparisons between the 1968 and 1969 statistics, since the ma-jority
of the 83 counties were under the new system for only the month
of December in 1968. The more valid observations may be made about
the types of cases handled and the manner of disposition during 1969.
Although the district court may try civil cases in an unlimited mone-tary
amount, the statistics indicate that the greater volume of its work
consists of small claims ($300 or less) and domestic and juvenile mat-ters.
Of the total of 101,099 cases filed in 1969, 51.7% consisted of small
claims, 23.2% consisted of domestic and juvenile matters, and 25.1%
were for claims in excess of $300. The 25,366 cases constituting this
latter category are largely responsible for the significant reduction in
the civil case load of the superior court. Of the total of 93,734 cases
which were disposed of, 32.9% were handled by the judge without a
jury and only 2.5% were disposed of with a jury. Fifty percent of all
civil dispositions were by the magistrates and 14.6% were disposed of
by other means.
In the discretion of the Chief District Judge, small claim actions
may be assigned to a magistrate or reserved for regular disposition by
a district judge. The statistics indicate that 89.5% of all small claims
were disposed of by magistrates. In two counties, no small claims were
assigned to magistrates.
District court criminal statistics reveal that the volume of activity
consists of motor vehicle violations. In 1969, 64.9% (481,838) of all
criminal cases filed were for violations of the traffic laws; other criminal
offenses (260,535) made up the remaining 35.1%. Only 14.1% of these
cases were contested resulting in a full fledged trial before a district court
judge. A judge or magistrate disposed of 31.8% upon a plea of guilty
or nolo contendere, and 40.8% were disposed of by a written appearance
waiving trial and pleading guilty before a magistrate or clerk. Pre-liminary
hearings constituted only 1.6% of the business of the district
court and the remaining 11.7% of the total filings were disposed of by
other means.
All but the most serious motor vehicle violations may be disposed
41
of by a simple written appearance waiving trial and pleading guilty
which the violator may submit to either a magistrate or a clerk of the
superior court. Utilization of this procedure for disposing of guilty pleas
eases courtroom congestion and delay. In 1969, 61.7% of all motor
vehicle filings were disposed of by this procedure. Yet, due to a number
of factors, the use of this procedure varies widely from county to county.
A number of counties disposed of more than 75% of their traffic cases
by waiver but in some counties the rate was as low as 20 to 50%. There
is no "correct" percentage of cases that should be disposed of in this
way. The increased use of the waiver, however, would remove from the
courts traffic violators who simply wish to enter a guilty plea and would
give judicial personnel more time to devote to significant matters.
In 1969, the district court held 5,273 days of civil court and 10,442
days of criminal court. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is author-ized
to transfer a district judge from one district to another for tempo-rary
or specialized duty. During this year, judges held a total of 133
days of court in judicial districts other than their own.
42
DISTRICT COURT JUDGES AND PROSECUTORS
BY DISTRICT
Judges
*1. Fentress Horner
W. F. Walker, Jr.
*2. Hallett S. Ward
Charles H. Manning
*3. J. W. H. Roberts
Charles H. Whedbee
Herbert O. Phillips, III
Robert D. Wheeler
*4. Harvey J. Boney
Paul M. Crumpler
Russell J. Lanier
Walter P. Henderson
*5. Gilbert H. Burnett
N. B. Barefoot
John M. Walker
*6. J. T. Maddrey
Joseph D. Blythe
Ballard S. Gay
*7. J. Phil Carlton
Allen W. Harrell
Tom H. Matthews
Ben H. Neville
*8. Emmett R. Wooten
Herbert W. Hardy
Lester W. Pate
W. Milton Nowell
*9. Julius Banzet
Claude W. Allen, Jr.
Linwood T. Peoples
*10. George F. Bason
Edwin S. Preston, Jr.
S. Pretlow Winborne
Henry V. Barnett, Jr.
N. F. Ransdell
•U. Robert B. Morgan, Sr.
William I. Godwin
Woodrow Hill
W. Pope Lyon
*12. Derb S. Carter
Joseph E. Dupree
D. B. Herring, Jr.
George Z. Stuhl
*13. Ray H. Walton
Giles R. Clark
*14. E. Lawson Moore
Thomas H. Lee
Samuel O. Riley
Chief District Judge
Elizabeth City
Currituck
Washington
Williamston
Greenville
Greenville
Morehead City
Grifton
Jacksonville
Clinton
Beulaville
Trenton
Wilmington
Wilmington
Wilmington
Weldon
Harrellsville
Jackson
Pinetops
Wilson
Rocky Mount
Whitakers
Kinston
Maury
Kinston
Mount Olive
WTarrenton
Oxford
Henderson
Raleigh
Raleigh
Raleigh
Raleigh
Fuquay-Varina
Lillington
Selma
Dunn
Smithfield
Fayetteville
Raeford
Fayetteville
Fayetteville
Southport
Elizabethtowu
Durham
Durham
Durham
a
15. Harry Horton
Stanley Peele
D. Marsh McLelland
Coleman Cates
16. Samuel E. Britt
Charles Graham McLean
John S. Gardner
18. E. D. Kuykendall
Herman G. Enochs, Jr.
Byron Havvorth
Elreta M. Alexander
B. Gordon Gentry
Edward K. Washington
Kenneth M. Carrington
*20. F. Fetzer Mills
Edward E. Crutchfield
Walter M. Lampley
A. A. Webb
*21. Abner Alexander
Buford T. Henderson
Rhoda B. Billings
John (Red) Clifford
A. Lincoln Sherk
*24. J. Ray Braswell
J. E. Holshouser, Sr.
*25. Mary Gaither Whitener
Livingston Vernon
Joe Howard Evans
Benjamin Beach
*26. William H. Abernathy
Willard I. Gatling
Howard B. Arbuckle
J. Edward Stukes
Claudia E. Watkins
P. B. Beachum, Jr.
Clifton Johnson
27. Lewis Bulwinkle
Robert Kirby
Oscar F. Mason, Jr.
Joe F. Mull
John R. Friday
*29. Robert T. Gash
Wade B. Matheny
Everette C. Carnes
*30. F. E. Alley, Jr.
Robert J. Leatherwood, III
Pittsboro
Chapel Hill
Burlington
Burlington
Lumberton
Lumberton
Lumberton
Greensboro
Greensboro
High Point
Greensboro
Greensboro
Jamestown
Greensboro
Wadesboro
Albemarle
Rockingham
Rockingham
Winston-Salem
Winston-Salem
Winston-Salem
Winstoiw:alem
Winston-Salem
Newland
Boone
Hickory
Morganton
Hickory
Lenoir
Charlotte
Charlotte
Charlotte
Charlotte
Charlotte
Charlotte
Charlotte
Gastonia
Cherry ville
Gastonia
Shelby
Lincolnton
Brevard
Forest City
Marion
Waynesville
Bryson City
Prosecutors
•1. Thomas Watts
•2. W. C. Griffin, Jr.
>a Eli Bloom
William Henry Barker
Elizabeth City
Williamston
Greenville
Oriental
44
*4. Alexander T. Shaw, Jr.
Kenneth W. Turner
*5. James T. Stroud, Jr.
*6. W. E. Murphrey, III
*7. Charles B. Winberry, Jr.
Stanly Cook
*8. F. O. Parker
Phil Crawford
*9. Charles M. White, III
*10. Henry Newton
Everette Noland
Carlos W. Murray
*11. Clyde K. Atkins
F. Jefferson Ward, Jr.
*12. Charles G. Rose
Mrs. Sylvia X. Allen
Joe B. Chandler
*13. Lee J. Greer
*14. J. Milton Read, Jr.
Henry M. Michaux, Jr.
*15. Robert C. Raiford
Frederick L. Noell
*16. Charles D. Ratley
John B. Regan, III
*18. Ross Edward Strange
Richard M. Dailey
Robert J. Scott
James W. Workman
A. Leon Stanback, Jr.
*20. Z. V. Morgan
Phillip W. Robbins
21. James A. Harrill, Jr.
Richard R. Lyle
James C. Yeatts, III
*24. Philip M. Thomas
25. J. C. Rudisill, Jr.
William J. Smith
*26. John B. Whitley
Peter S. Gilchrist, III
William F. Hulse
Thomas F. Moore, Jr.
Jacksonville
Rose Hill
Wilmington
Roanoke Rapids
Wilson
Rocky Mount
Goldsboro
Kinston
Warrenton
Raleigh
Raleigh
Raleigh
Sanford
Sanford
Fayetteville
Fayetteville
Fayetteville
Whiteville
Durham
Durham
Burlington
Hillsborough
Red Springs
Lumberton
Greensboro
Greensboro
Greensboro
Greensboro
Greensboro
Hamlet
Carthage
Winston-Salem
Winston-Salem
Winston-Salem
Burnsville
Newton
Hickory
Charlotte
Charlotte
Charlotte
Charlotte
*27. Frank B. Rankin
William LeRoy Morris
Arnold M. Harris
*29. J. O. Wells
Jack M. Freeman
*30. James H. Howell, Jr.
Belmont
Lincolnton
Ellenboro
Brevard
Forest City
Waynesville
Chief Prosecutor
45
ON-t-OCMCDi-O
r- cm co t- 10
^ cm o> cm to r»
CD CO ^r t- CO
CO CO
++++ 11+ + I + + I
+
(D n- tj- co to
CD LO i- -i- CO
t- co *r
I I
oO
O
S2
WH £?
S2
£ Q
fa O fa
S s CO W
? * Ph Jz;
3 a
Q Q
l<
S3 >•
o QQ
COCOCOCDCOCOLOO
r- CO LO LO O CO CM
i- CO
t-COCDO)CMCOCOO fttoootowoow
CM CM m CO
5
o
CMCOOOCOLOlOCDT-t-
WCDt-N
T-re
.2
CMCOCOCMCMxtf-CD^- coo)cou)cnscow
CM CM r»«
CO
CO
u
cu
1
CD o
cu Q
N CO CO CM CD CM -i-
CO t- CO CM CM
O) co cd -i— r- »-
00 -i- r^ -i- CM CM
CO t- CD
LO t- LO CO CD CO moooioaxo i- io cm <*
CM CD O O Tt CM Nt-^-WOIA
t— CM
CM t- -«t 1- CO l-h-
CO CO CM CO *
"<fr CO co
i- CM CO CM O CO
M- lO O) t- o O)
CD -I— 1-
»~0
O CM CD LO O) CO
co w
r-mso)tNSO (0(000)'nNS CD(
OUOCDCOt-OOO
t- CM r- ^ CM t- O
t- CM
t-COSt-(DCOCOS
CO t- CM t- CO CM ^t
T- T- CO
- (A 1
COU
ON-^Oh-^fT-CO
COOM-NCOCDM-O)
t- CM CM r^
CO
cor- no) comcoo
COCO QM-T-W
CO CO "tf "t CM CO
"* CO t- O
lOONront
CM LO CM "* m
t- CM
Eh
5Q i
"I
ceo
(D (0 3
E o tr tor d
^ CO
ca ca
°J_|
o CO 2- 3 < cu cr cruj
^- *-> co »_ r-OOOQOcoQ.
to Qta.QI) -O
CM "«fr LO CO CD
CM CO LO O t-
CO ^ LO CJ
2
cr
cu u
r^ CM CO
A
s
C^O oLOoh-oCOw00 N O) t- CD t Is
T-'W
<u
*»
T3
CO CD CO CO CO
r- N CM 00O)
CM CM WS
C
cci
CD T— N N 1— "4
^ LO CD 00 <
CO h- CM CO
6
a
T3
ci
CO "<fr CM o CU
LO CM -i
—
I** CO "co -a
CO CO LO CM '-3 a
C
o
i— O)
O r- _ C _j
«+— L_ D ^ ® -s ^ CO TD b t 53 1—
CD ^J5
CD c 8 j
»- co t +-' vT
cd 2 co 5 O OOQ-QlI-
-t- CO
o CM co O CM CM CD r^- o CO O) o co
CM CO N co -^r CO T- 0)
o
cc
a.
a>
CO
o3 w
_CD
co o> -* LO CO o CM CM CO LO CM
CD CD LO lO CO LO O0 O0 CM 1c CO LO CM CO LO o CM O o n
1— CM T~ T- CO cr
cu
T3
a
_CU
-*
cm tt o co co a *tf I
s- O) CO CO hi
N
CD CM CO ^ CM O) CO T— I— T" <i
CM ^ OJ CM CO o "3 t-
T" T-c
"u
p.
QQ
CD CM LO CO CO LO * ,_ CM O l»- ^5
T— T— CM T— N. h- N T
o m cu
TJ
"r~ f- T~ C0 t— CO CM N cu
tJ- Tt CM CM CM
i- CD CD co in CO g
t- CO N- CO fS co
03
T— U O
o
<o=> s .2
co n oo t- in
00 NCD M in ^ co cos h fn
o
t-~ CM <« o
« "§
l-s a 2 « o °£ ^
CO.2 CO
cu bD *
-3 05 -g
46
in m co o to
i- o> cm eo
in ^ ©
+ + + + +
n- co to
CO h- CO
+ 1 I
05 t- "<fr f 00
lO t- C\J CO CM
t- t- CO
+ + + + +
CM O CO O
O) in co eo
CO ** CO
I I I I
r- (55CO COr
•<cf co h- co ^i
tJ- MOO)
O O 00 SCOr
CD CM CM
NM-OOCNJr- O CO CO IT) CO
t- CO CM t- CO
CM CO CO t-
O) o co to
i- CO CM I*-
CO CO CO CO N. f CD ©
5 ^ o> O "^ CO 0)0
o CD CO CD tO co <* CO
r- t-~ CM cm" co
CM h- Oi Tf CM oj w s
01 CM CM O 00 mow
JZ T- 1— T- CO CM r- CO
o O
T>
CD
«n a> o
D. « f co o co in 1- O T-
(0 >>1Z CM ^ O CD CO (O O) U)
5 O)
CM CO CO <fr CO «*
</> CO T-
0) S
i-^t(OOr
TT O i- <* O
CO in CO CM f
CO CM i- CO CM
CO O O CO to
i- CM
CD CO CO CM
xt "^ CD tO
CO CD Tj" Tt
T-" t-~ CM" U)
f W CO CM
CO CM 05 O
t- i- t- W
£?
t- CO CM CD ©
r^ f n- in in
CM co i- co
CD N- tO
inojio
CO i- o
t-" CM
CM ^ CO
CM T- CO
o co "^ i- co oro^iflO)
CM i- i- -r- tO
CO i— O) CO
nj- o o w
h- co m » «2
t-"cm" d 03
.S d
OCMOClOOOTfCMONO
CM CO
OO(f0i-N CON ^ co s tn
Cg
co
X)
a
r-
CD
13
(Or r^O) T-T-CMr-IO O CD W ©
t- N- CO CO
CO CO O CO CO f r- CD CO CM toi-ajos
m co i- co in
i^ co o o o
t- co in t-o
a; CM CM CD CO r-
*• ._ CO CO t- CM h-a>
a) CM CM I— to
P
H CO T" IOOJCMN
= E ttCMO*
E2.
too
CM CM "«*
T-o>
CO ^r r^ CO in
a
«*. T- CM CO
i- co *r
co co to
CD CO CM
coos
CD CO CO f i- to
CO CO T-CO
f CO
in in
Oo rintoSfNo> f CD CO CO N-in
co co m ^
t- o CO i- CM
CO t- n- in <r- lomcoco*
CM *t
f CO O CM m o) co co
CM CM o in
T-" T-" CM ^
Tt co co o
n- r^ co ^,
t- t- i- in
N- O CM en ^LOOO)
cm m co o
_ <
'3 co
I °
eg
O CD 60 h» CO r^ ^t ^- CO o o CO j:
so
O O) o> CM in CO CD to CO N -t ^- so
CD
CT> o> CM CM T— T
—
00 CO m lOOt £
T_ CM
5
oo
b
.2
CM CM ^, CO CO ^t- CO CO s CO ^r y- CO
(fi- r.
Tr^r- :£ CM f T- CO CO in o ^ "3
O) CO CM CM CM m CM CD N to ll
^ o a<
c co O O CO |-
.E to 6
CD >Oc
ZCDQ<LD hO
o E
tstth
mCD CuO CzD OhO
CD
E
cd x: O <
O) co « H
o cc ~o
LU Z 5- H
-: -
r-.i. m
"O CS T3
3 s =
47
fl
CO CD h- CM
LO CO O
+ + + +
CO CO O) CD S (O
i- a) co -^ m m
CM ^
++++++ +
CM CO O CO
CO ^t CO o>
tj- t- in
I + + +
CD N- CO
C\J NO
h~ 00
+ + +
II 't CO O) T-cm
cd cm in
t- co co CO
eg co co oo
tT (ON00
T- T- CO t"
CO O CO CD
i- -«t CD *t
CO CNJ CD
^ CO Tf ^
T-iflN
co oo^t sins
CO CO ^t 1- O 00
CO i- CO CM t- t-co
o cd m tj- co (3)COO)Ot-S m co m h- r- co
oT
OQOCOMOCTOfN CONCO
i- CO
CO CO O l-cd
co in o
co cd en oo
CM O CO CO
CO CM CD i-
T-~T-" CO
•^ in in ^i COIOO^
CO CO t- 00
CD CM O "<t CD 00
t— CM
XT
in o
co o
h- CO
t- CM
cm' CM
t- m
cm en
CO *
CD CD in oco^r
Tfr t- in
Tm O m co CO "t T— CM T- CD in CO in co cd o CO 00 <q • o N 00 in CO i>- o m N CO m CO •t ^r l*» CO 7— *t <
CD o 00 CO CM in m N CO CO * co T- CM T— CO CO
t-
T" T" CO 7- CM CM 6
6
* CM CD CM m "^f I
s*- m 1— CM CO CD CD CD «« "<t *t 00 -2
£
CM "t rj- T" m m m N CO r»- CD CO O N- CM 00 in CO BO 13
T— ^r CD CM CD m ^r T
—
T"^ CO 1* 9)
d
CNNCMW
T-" CM" *f
rfr co m t- i- o>
t- m co in I
s- cm
co "t co r- i- oo
o
CO
CD
t- Tf CD *
cd m t- to
CM CD CO K
CO CO "1- O CD O
CD CO CO
in t-"-!-" CO «* in
•^ i- CM ^, CM O CO CO CO CD CM CD m CD o o co oo
h- n- t- in ^}- O l— CD CO 00 CD CO CO CO O) CO O CO lON« 1- i- i- t- in CM m CD t- CD CO CM 00
0> q»
CD CO I
m s- O co t- o
CM Tf N.
I
s- CO CD CD 'st *f
cd cm co in o-
CM
o
in
cd
CO "<t I
s- o> tr-LOr
CM CM CM N
O CD CD
co m oo
p ^~ 1— T-
- (A
if
C0U
COOCOCO N CO CM CD
t- Or r
t-"cM
lOOWNTtO)
h~ CO T- CD 00 CD
CO CO I
s- ^" CD
co
CO
in
co"
tj- in cd in SOSUJ
•^t in co co
T-
2,543
134
2,677
(O
CO CD CM O)
—cm-cm trro
CO -<t 00
NOlOr-COr
r- O) O s ^ n
CO T- 1— Ot
8o
o m o m
t- CD "^t ^,
r- co co ^t
in cd ^
CM CD CM
CO ^-
*>
Si
CD O C <
ca s
N
— \j/ w .^ \^ £ q
O , Q
« O CD O I^> _l|-
O^lohO
5 a s
48
co o o w
co "**- r^ in
+ + + +
Mc\jfTl- icoOtS 0N-)C0M0W) W N O r^. O) s
"* i- w t— y— O T-
+ + ++ + 1 + I I
2» S win wo
.E »* cm co cm o
"O »- t- CM "<t 00
O) Tf CO CD
CO CM O) O
^t CNJ CM O
CO CO CD 0)0 T- O T-t-
O i-r^.
tj- t-
£ £
C^ CO en o> CO CM CO h- CM t- CO t cm co in "2
2 _CM CO "fr o § CM CM CD t- m ^t CM CM
cd in t-
"T CO CO
o) io ^
r^- t- o»
"5
o „ ~
H *" IO t-~ CM cm" CO O) co" cm"
T-
1
coots O) in in m in co cm in T- O T-T3
a> o CD CO « T— i- CM I
s- t- co co * cd o) in
£ T— t- CO r^ Wr- in CM CO 00 O) ^-v
o o
0)
<N o>
t-
2 CO m in co CO CO o O CO m t- cd lOO^t «* <N
o r^- O 00 O) CO 00 CD O CO 1^- ""^ CM <
'§>
CM T- CO CO •«* m in ST -si- CO in co cm QQ
t-
CO
2
co" 1— T- Tf-r-'cb" 6 09
,_ CO N- CD in CO CO N- 00 CD S- CO CM 00 O 0)
.2
en o r-- CM O tj- CD O) CO * CD in CM m cm oo 03 n
TO T~ cm co r*. o in CM r- o CO CO o cm co in 9)
a
r- o m to
CO CO
Is- co ©
CO i- 00
"o* CO O co o)
o
jC
CO WO)*
- CD CO t- CO
M-in"
CO m
"* CM o to
O) h- CM CO
co r- o) m m o o) co in
t- ION oo
a
-
T-O
CO CD O)
T- 7- Tf CO
•i- CM cm in
t-" CM
tt in h- co OJ^CON
COt- WN 759
2,€
116
7
875
3,4
00 CO r-
COt-N
CO O 00
"fr CO N
3
o
.2
"3
T3
a
03
Mi
<
a) a>
Wt- t N
O) Tf O) CM
i- cm in
i— oo O) oo !E5
COO
cd cm r-^ co
CM CM CO 00
a> CD CD CM *
"-ooj=.io in
CM CO CO
13
CD CO E <
S E o o
O) co co in
com- on 00 l- O
t- CO CO h- ^t- O)
r-- to o cm
-r-^- *sr co
CM T- *
CO "fr h»
05 0)00
COt-IO
CO -i- h-in
^ o)
M" T-oh-
oo
CM"r-"
in
o
co"
5,159 1,754 6,913
*6-5
(^ "t CM
5-1
E *
QQ
CO <D _j
OOH
49
c -a
o c ,
co co ri
d) T3 <
9o o° Ot
DC CO H
o *-
I A O
I
co Q.
"2 S_c_,
g M
.5 6
& n
-2
0)
** a,
CO «a
2. ?S O
C 3 C
, o
o
OJ
5
J
T^t c\j to in cm o TJ- CO CO CO CO
co t- cnj *r
CD o cd o> co cd cm in m c\j tj- ^j-
T-CO
CO co to
t- CNJ CO
i- OJ CO
o
+ 1 + 1 1 1 1 + + + + + + ++I + +
m i- CD o co oo ^ co r- h- co o>
t- CO CO t- o
o CD n co i- in
co cnj co in co
o <* o ^r
(D N (O O)
co r-^ in to_
CO o
CNJ
** *~ T- OJ
_ O O CO CO CO CM
<D CD i- CD t- t- ca
O CO CO CD CO CO CO
H T-" CO
CO CO CNJ CO C\J tO
ONO)t- WO)
co co co m o t-i-
i- <*
o CD in CNJ Tf o
o cd co in m t- m cm O O O T^
cd in co o
co co r^ co
CM CO tO
m S C\ CO (O s
CNJ CO CO CO CD CM
CM t- CO CO CO »
CO
1—
CO
*~ cm"
CO Tt CD ^t CO CO
CO CO CO in CM r-t-
in cm Tt i- in
CM
co
m t- o o m t-cm
cm i- to
o m co -^t co co
i-i- co cm co
CO CD t- tO
rm- OJ CD O N- CD CM
of
"^ CD CD CM
r- CM r- CM CMCMcOr
t- co o r*- m cm \j- t-
5 .Sfaj
<o E >
OJ OJ2
M- CO CO CO "^ CM COCDN CNJ CO CD ^•'toooion
lOifiM-Tt- wo (OOCOCMNlfl
CM t- CM i- CO
CO T- i- O ^ CM
CD O CD O CO CM
t- CM -i- -i- O.
t- * t^ co ^j- to
T- T- T- in
co m o ^
co -^ m to t-CJO^
T-" T~" CNl" ^
r- COOOt^N CO h- -t * m . IN
CM CO CO CM CD CO tO CD -^ CM tO CD <J
O) CM r- CMCON CO Is
a
to
6
>» O CO CD t- t- CO o> CD CO O CM 1
—
.Q m CO CO CM i- O m o o to CO Xi
r>- T" CO -i— I 0) s- i— r^
-I E-5
too
CNO(CMOCOOtOCNONO
CNJ t- ^J" h- CM CO
CD co o in co r^ co tj- in co in o
CO t— 7— i— CD ""tf" CO T- CD CM CO CD
CM T" co co o in o
co ^t- m in co
ojto m t- CM
O
C CD C
ill
0! < ^ DC en Z) r-cO
^
O t- CD CD O
CM "*
El O
C - «
rVl CD ^ O £ g H
5M >^~^ coO
-j < 2 ^ £ >- I-M-
CO CD CO
TT "<3- CD in
cm in m co
= ca
CD XI _|
£CD £ «J < 5 iS i-
C3DCOOCOO hO
CO se- as
CO
CM f* ^ o
2 w
«"£s o -O
a. .2 w
OJ bC OJ
D) ^ rt 13 ^5^
c os a
CD o
H ^ m'
O
CD OJ
50
o
M
CD i- O) ID
TT Oi in O
TT CO 00
^ t- m n- co ^,
t- ^ -i- -i- CD CM
T- T- CO
« 1
+ + + + +++ 1 ++
fl
IE
0)N 0(0
m en w
N CMO (D (D »"
CO CD C\J i- CO <^
CM t- r- r- Is-
2
o
t O) NO OUJONflfOlTS-CoD
ro- mO o h- * cm -r- o> ^ CO CD CN B»
l- T-"CO" ^" T-in
CO CD ^
CO O CM r-r-
CN ^-
't n O) co m *
CD CM CD CM °°
o«>~
m-2
CO t- i- o
hm- h- O W co cm *-
SOt-*
h- t- CO CM
CM ^ CO ©
t-" CM
^ 05 Cn CM
CM CO CM
O O CO CD
JmT^fcr CM O "^ cd to
ONlSOID CO i- CM
t— CO ^" O)
o« Tl- CO * **
*• .— CM in cm o
a) § co m o>
P
-, 10 n r^ CM CO
= E o N CD I"*.
w -=j o in r*- E5
COO T— cm"
o> CO CD ,_ o
CD o T— CO in
NOSN0)(0» CO t- «cf cm <o
I- T- COt-N
CO 05 "<fr CO CO **"
cm co cm co in oo
cm i- in
SCOOOfflW
i- cm w
co cm in co m co
CM "^ CO O CO r- m t co cm o>
CD l*>- m CD CM CO O CO t- h~ CO CM
i- CO
c(oDi-OiCnOcmNeMn Oo
CM CM t- r*»
rt- -<tf- m m Tt cm
IfiSi-lfl^-Tf
T- t- CO t- CO
C\JOCMO)inT-COCM
"tf CM t- CO CM CM CM
+ I ++++++
NCOO(Od)Q^lfi
cMi-incMincococM
T- T- T- ** CO
soMowcnioin incoi-mcMojcoco
t— CO t- t- O)
OCMCMh-COcoCMO)
CO CM CD CM CM r»-
CDinCOCMOloCOCO
h- ri- m ^- co in "•
NCMOt-COojCN*
^t-T-CMM-cMinr-t-
CO
^•^-CMinCMcMCOO)
i- CM
oocn^sotoN ocowo) t omoo
r- CO 1— t- i— O
TlfOcoir^-ir-0r5"N^r-iW^ero
T- CO
CD10C7>0)CMC0C0CM
Tt ^ti- WtJ- CO
t- CM
OQCO^COCOCON
en co co in co oo n
T- «t
mcocostcocon cocococococoino
i- in
in •
CD u
CO
"v.
+
j
71
3
CM 3
CO o
d co
CO
s
T vP "g
CO o""
h- O .£:
co' O —
en
|
CM CD B
CO
•^
co" jj
T~ o
CI
0>
I-en
CO
o l~
CM
CO o
in X l>
co' .„
02
«r
- 6
CO en £
.o
CO
00 CM* . -
CO a
o" o CC
CO
CO
«4 a)
oin in o w
CO CM o V
co
cm"
5 o
"H~ jd
T3 d
O)
en c>
9
S.
0)
co O 8
o
O 3
CD -d
T- 03
Eh
I
CD O o < fcc
I SIS I
c
o =
CO CD
o
_ -a
CD O
CO
"c
^ SB O >
CO <
5£COo vi/ — (J _< i_ x 2 o_ a: h
51
CO
T3
E o
j ^ i- co m O O CD X ™
c
° c ,_ -J
^ 8 o .E <
C^cj o co H
2C0I-
"i
t"
I d
ft >.
CD
** OJ
c
—
.
y.
o
Sfil
~ 0! -S ^5 £
U y
fl CB =
a
in m n o c\j o)
00 00 ^ CO i- o
co co
CO H
rt
U> oo
HO
wW gCO H O
Ba
Q°
s«
CO 5
pqco ^
5
er°
g£
Kg-
PQ
CO H
CO <
o
<
s ^
c **»
0) CM
CO
OS
CO
u
CO
a
CD o
CD Q
CO
>,0>
CD'S
PS
«.E
II
I +++ 1+1+
ri-^NlCOnNO)^CTO-Tl-(fDlrr
T~ 1- U,
oooins^ioooi
fc>. CO CD CM r- i- i- <j>
CO N q S CO r- ffi N
T^ 1-" 1-" C\T CO
ONWlOOCOCO^ ONOIOtDrCOifl
r>. cm ^r
cm
t- ** co m
OtOCOCOO^i-Nr
cocj5r^TrcococMr>»
r- 1- -i- i- CNJ T- O
CMCMOmCMCOCOCM
1- T- T- CM
scosmocoT-oo
mcjii-cor^-mcvjco
in co m t- r^ cm co
mOcOoOcCMOoCcOoOcCoDmC^D' COCMCOT-CO^CDr
1-" T-" T-" CO"
+ I + + + +
CO O h- CO t— CD
CD CNJ CO CO CNJ CO m t- oo
co m^ co en*
*r ^ co cm to i-cq
o> *t ^1- in cm
in ^ r-" co
'fi
v>
, co i- co ^r CNI O CNJ O CO CD in co co r-t-
O CO o co co in in h- CD coiocoo
CNI CNJ CO <j> in t- 0) t- cn
o J i—
in co co ^ otm« CO CM CO CNJ f^ CO
c C CNJ CO 1- CO 1- |S. co h- t- co
I a
T— CM T~ CM
— <s Si
0.
in co co •Y— co a co o m
"2. o co -«a- CD cm -^f co m 00 o o m cm in
O t- r^- in r-- ws^o o o i-S(CO
co ra "*
00 CO
co"
CO CM CO k?
1-
o i- t^- o cm m
t- r^ i^. m ^ cm
i- co co co cm in
t- r- co -sr i- r»- tCMN CO h»
CO O t- CO t- CO
cm co oo in omo o<o
co" <*" t-" co
cMNincnooT-CO
CO t- t- CM CO CMCONr- Nt-
CO CO CO "^f CO CM
co cm co co in <*
O) m is- co co <«f
co" CM CO
NlfiiflT-OOOCO CO
TM o CO CO in 1^- 00 CM"" >
co oin o co a> © cm m
CM i- i- **
ceo O ffl 3
E o t
co x: zj
.*; co
c £ 03 CO
CO ^ 3 <
(D o cr crZ.
OUOQtOo l™ Qto.o) O
c
o
o c _ .E -J
3 d) -^ CD -C <
ca "a j= iz ^ H
a M
o d
»-H s 3
CO ^
a) £ o
S 1/3
08 a -m
h S E
Si §
bC ° Q
ee
9| .1
ews cHc ^<u
QJ ** C<
h
•S S w
^=5 "S
"g („ ^
"C5 »
*"5 o
cc
o> . e8
tfi to
es 9) O
ej eo -»j
es
a w 1 C r, -S
«s •«
.:
c -2 » es^s J2
2 ^C0 ?!
rj g t- 00
so «3 <5
op fi
o-S^j bo
»So5 Sft
5
Ct. &^«H rs
~ to s S-S a; t3
S ?a fl a
+2«a es
o
"ft
e8
o
es'^S" S
§•*.*
Et
T3"C JU
bo bo«:5 9
3 ^ 2
* 2 * es
•"s ^1-2 §,
h "^^^ 2*
oa a g
5 0-2
«
'C
EQ SS - j
cS
0)
5 O .£> X
V "S'C
e a
^2 ^ o^ •"
J3 O co
T3 r-( *- fl Q3
St: fl w
S CD
bfc-d
hi a a
Trt "Ss _ Pi '
52
u
OOSOOWXOOOOr)
CO CM t- CO CO
+ + + + +
o co in o eo 0)r-m(0 0)
+ + + +
CO rj- CM
TJ- CO CO o o
+ + +
in t- <* co co
co m r^ co cm m r*
+ + + + +
Si 9 m
f £
•o «
o co o co co
co cd in co oo
CO ^t r- rf Tt
in tj- cd t- co
' tj- cd co co r*
2 ' Tf CO 00 CO w
o
i-in
co CO 00
t- CM
is JC -
^mtN-tO)* t- tj- cm m <n cm ©
o* *- CM ^
O CM (OO)
CM CO t- CO
cm ti- in o> ©
r«- in oo "*f co
t- r*- o
U. t- CD <* oo
CO °. ™ cq to
00 1- 10 is. Gl
*"" CO
CO m
CDWO
t- CO
CM CD
cm"
in
CO
CO
CO
OCMO)
CO CO t-
CM
m
in
CO
ONO)0<0
cm in m n- o
cq in CM ^t 0»
cm" co" tt ©
1 *
CO CM CO CD O)
cm t^. in co oo 003 r Oft
t-" t^ m" co
O Tf o cm oo
rf O) CM t- 00 O CO M" CO 00
m CD CO CM |»*
£2 CO t- CM CO
,_ CO i- O) U)
to m co" *f
g^iinnccoo jco-«S
*r- t- I
s- o i-cj
m" cm" ©~
^CMi-^r
o> CM CO CO 00
O) CM CD CO CM
NCMO)
CO CD T
CO *T
^J" CO CM O CM CO SCMO)
CD CM 00
CD CO «*
CO CM 00
iO(Dr
r^ r^ in
O) O
cd in t-
00 CO CM
t^ ^ CM
SON CO O CO
in co co
o m in fO COS CD 00
Tin-CMM"^Ot iN- rCM i-(Or- O
in co tj- co oo m co ** co i-cm
o m r-m
co
CO O) CO CO O)
CM CO CD r» CO
co o o co m
t- i- CO CM CO
fttOCDNr
CM CO CO CM CO
co «*
in ^ i- co co
in cm co -t in
CM Is- CD_ S CO
cm" co" t-" t^ en
lOCOCMOJf
CO O CO CO T-n-
co_ cm in oo
CO l- u>
M- WCOlfiN o co co in in COIOCOIOS
s
a 8
'B°
eS
3 O
* s
7 ^ .*
* o 5
es a> o
c 1
• CS^.2
S 2ieo 3
B'gt- fe © C if
^s c
e ft a c
«t-i «t-c 3
5* eg
* « ex L "E 5 ».a ft «
m r- m tj- io n- in in co o CM CM ^, O^OOOJr 03 « h s •=
5- es
« wot COO) CO CM r- CO 00 lO(Dr WCOt-t- ^
co in O) cm m IflOQO)* S CM O co in co cm r* S'^"^'5 o H in co tj- o> o) T- in co co co" co"co CO O) CO CO O) T3"E <a
i- CM r- CO -r- CM T-Judge
Judge
eas
an
[or
thi
earanc
b- W NtONrr t- i- O CD 00 CM O CM TT CD OJ CM ^>
c t O) (DCOO) O) "^" CO CO *T O h- !>* o O) l— co o> -»a j "3 •—
1
£'i
CM CM CO m ^ ^ CO CO t- 00 in co co N(Dt-OW E * -a £
3 3 i. C a o~ CM CO lOr cm" Tl-" cm" 6) co" r>T CO" i-" t-" CD
o 1-
ict
C
ict
C
,
guil
isonm
ritten
. a> co in co co ^- CO Tf in N- CM O CM CM (OCO(DNS ii^ ^ £o sftsino t co co O) t- lOO)^ T-coon^ s. S. B —
£"•= in cm_ m co t^ O CD O S CD CM CO 00 co co in t-_ t^ §5p *
S » co" m" co" co h-T T-" **-" CO O" CM CM cm" in" CM CM CO s J= > i" T- CM 1— T- t—
ore
a
ore
a
ty
to
xceed
whic
O) o T-T-inr^
CM COr
CM t- O O) CM
en ^^ or* <^i *ft
ftOOS o t- o co o>
ir\ f\i rrt m r<f\
bef bef
hori
ot
e
s
in
y- § * 8 ° a co_ CO
11 J t\l W vj 09
t- CM
tj ur O ES T- T-cases
trie
cases
trie
Urates'
au
ment
can
traffic
cas
$>i &i Eh &l
la
o
•**( 0) OJ ^-- c
£ g
w
Hanove
nder TAL
Eh
c
o "O T3 3 3 ^j
_3 3 3 g ^
2Q CQ cr 2Q 2C Q. 3 O e " u
3 3 r; „ d Nq
2 c 8 -i 5
plin
les
slow
mpsoi
TAL
1^ •o E
„ X }r CO -1
mh^Eh
CO ^ = < ^ 03 O x: < rH ci
gi S ^-
Q - n E*-H iti tq Km tSttH a"8
a$ 03 £ 03 .t: O s 3 q5 (OO f-H CD CO O t. CD 03 CD O O s 2
•3 OOQ.Q.H O-^OCDH ZQ.H <to miizh ftS
53
u
i!
II
CM CO ^ O
CO CD CM CM
i-CO(D
++I I
o m cd t-c\
j tj- r-. it
"3" CO LO eo
cd m t- oo
c\j o cm m
CO CM
CD OO N. CM
CO 10 m a
2 w T- O IO
o H G> <3> (iT h» CM
it Ifl CM r-i
® n CD t- CO ® en CO CO -rt r-_
O* y CO
r- N CM CO
C C CD O) N-
.15
C\J t- *
— o £i
a
Tj- CO co m
"L CD co in o
0) 0)0^ in
CO a
5
^F io if ^
CD 0) o in O o in co
»5
CO CO CO CM^
CM 7— T-"«r
+ +
cmo^f ins cd co co
m cnj s* it h- CM It
in h~ co co
CM CO CM It
CM
CD o
CO
m
CO o
in No
en
CO
it
*~ 1— CM
CO CM CD CO WOOl
CM it CM CO NCMr-O
it co h- o
t-" co" -<f o
o m co i-o>
O) Tt co
CM CM CD CM
co"r-"in
00 CM it CM CM ©
in co co co cd m
i- CO i- CO
+ 4-
I + + +
m o o co co r-
Tt t- CO O) C7) N
in m i- co co
!- in Tt co in i-co
cm o> CO O) co
<* o it h-_ co t^
co" in co" if cm" of
t- t co cocdw
CMCOt-W NO
CO CM it CM CM in
o^Tr-t ocm
co m in oo co o>
cm ^>
0~> O CM CO CD O
it h- CO O) CO CO
h~ "«t O) t- o> CO
t-" cm" -1-" cm" of
oi co coinco^
CO CO CM i- CM it
in co_ co co oo cm
t-^ T-" in
+
a>
>- CO
m m in in CD CD CO o CM ^ N 00 T— CM Slfi^S CD CO co It T
—
o CD CO h» O
m*a N- T- 1- O ^r "fr N- h- 00 '^f CM oo T- in
-» T-" T-"CO <* co"
oo N. O 00 N
cm"
CO CM CO CO CD N CO CM CO in co CM m T"
2 -
o
i- CM CO h-in
h- o © CO CO
co"
CD
cm"
CO
C0_ CO CM 00 o oo_ o> of co" co" H oo" of co" co"
CM
cm" o"
1—
cm" It
CM
CM
COWCMS^ ,_
i_
"3 O CO CO CM CM O m CM r-- m CM
a» C in co it co N T— T
—
O) CO CD <fr o CD it
SE in t- a> co CD f*. * N T— CM r^
cm" co" cm" CO CO" ^F <»
CD CM 00 T— CO o
k COCO Sr N- N "* CO CM O o m o O) So CO CO CO O) it CD O0 o CO s. o oo in co
5-5 NT-_CMr co co ocj 1^ cm"-<* cm" cm" T— CO So co" co" m" ocf T™ CD r-- co" T-T-
T-N-
CO Tt 1 T_ T-at
CO CM O O It
00
CO m CD O)
CO CM
00
CO
h» oo CO CO
CM
CM * '—• O
T- CO t- tJ- O) ^r in CM »—
•V.
*™ *~ y-
E^ Eh E^
Ei
O O O l*H
1*4 H •-i
RJ
CO K 0^
Ei Eh Eh '/;
&Z E
en c/> « t
hi Z ^ H
CQ 2Q
ffl
h«h
<D
CD _l
s
Q c
c c -I Q
£
c
CD
o
o
c
CD
c <
ro
1
s
>
c
CO
J—
o
CO
CD oc
CO
CD <
1-
O Eh
ir- CC c5 _l £ K- Oj III O CL > H »*i
SO)U5r
Oi O) CM CM m cm o)
+ + + +
OO t— CO CO o in ^ o
OO
CO
CO CO
it
T"
CM
-^ in m -«t
O) oo
o CO o
CO
O CO CD 0>
co m m co
t- CM
cm Tfr in i- m co rt co
00 O CO w
co" in" * co
CO Oi o CM cos^to
cm co co_ in
co" cm t-" r^
CM CO t- co
CM N- OO CO
CM i- CO O
co co rt in
co co co co
O0 CM CO CO
co" t-~ rC |C
t- CM
OCMOOr 00 i- i-a>
^_ o_ co
co co co" cf
CO -^t "4- ^"
co co in cm r-_Ncon
in" N-" if r*T
CM CM co i^.
t- m cm oo
CD CO CM it
c
CD CO <<
« -C CD *T
<H o cdO X -j _J H
c
2 c
eS 0) O
-§ .1
iS gt- «
8'3t- >>
5 3
OQ ^
h 52
o ft
° °|«-3
« h S|
<-i - S a -5
§ §fl^ |
p, O.0J . P
•Sal! g
bO tUDesS 5
t3 -d g
^ S 2 n oj
o o *? » _, o oa a a
- - & § .^
.X .^ to h
5 5S.§ *
8-a-a
0) 0j w
o o^» X
A O co
03 0) 3 rt 2
co co 03 +J frt
03 03 *S p <g
03 03 Sf.^ 03
n B
"8 W 03
ft «
iH ca c g co
^a
54
t- CM CO O CO o> to CO 3* co t- o t- O) O
LO LO O *t o> o> * "*- o) co w s omu)
CO * CM t- CO CVJ C\i CD CO CO *
+++ + 1 ++ + 111
0/ r-
I I
CO cm ins LO LO 05 O) LO »- ^f i- to COSO z
IS
V «vi
O CD CD r- co i^ co CD co oo tj- m lo "<r o
ourt
or OWN
cvT cm
CO CM <* T^ o_ Nr-Nr S CM ©
T-o
y- CM CO h- CM 05 00 o (ONr-^ O)C0N C u >-.
2
co r- in •»- co lo m CD iN—NOiOa^> ro LO o to
(DS* O) O) CO CM CO G> LO * e 2 o rt £ E co" cm" to Tt" co" r^ to cm" I
s-" co" r^" oo «n -* o 1— CO CO ^ CM t- CM t- CM
n- co w LO t- o to o CONOCO WO)* — 3 "B
Jr. « CD O) CO t- O T- CM CM 00 LO LO O) "^ I
s- CM 0 b -^
£.2 CO CO o
lo" to
CM CO W CM
co"
!-„ CO i- oo 00 LO *
CM CO"
(0 O) CDOON LO O t- to 00 N- t- LO CO oj cd m
a> . ss
CC 03
es o o
C C Tl- TT O) CO CM O •»— LO t- CM O) CM CM tO eS
o —IsCD
CO CD t- CM ^ t— i- COt-1- 1* 1
T3 £1 ~ ° "5
Q) a
O in t- to inroot CO WCOr- CO 2?I~I CJ> "^ CO Jg» s
Q. •£_ CO LO CO CD h- CD O CM O -^ T~ W O t- CM ^SE
J! a S- CVJ Q o CO LO CO CO CO t;t-ON a>_ co cm ?-'• s
to
Q)
CO CO
T-" T-" CM" lO co" o" cm" co" in
i— r-
*"t-" tO
O S if
(0 CC -
(0 O cncos CO N- CO 00 CO LO LO O O l- LO tO 2_— M
CM O CM CM CO CO * o> CM TT is. O) LO *" • B^ c
"1
rCOO co ^ ^ k CO 00 oo to h-_o » 5> L|o .- * s s «3 to >d in T- CM co" * co" cm" CO
55 -2'- ::::vi "S,
a 1— T- T~
I "S 1-3 Z
s e» a «
H i- r- co Tj- LO LO *t CO Tf 00 r- CO LO "* O) gqa cs
>-a>
COT)
lo r- cm cm -i- co r«- o ^t CO O 00 00 CO i—
M- T- lO O) CO -<fr c» r- q^ooN O "* IO
"9 co" CO T-" T-" "«t" |C cm" cm" co"to T- t—
CM -t tO S- OJ CO * CO O ^ O * 00 G> h-a
co cm in LO 00 LO O o l- CD CD CO co * ^« o o c 5 O CO 00 t- CO LO to to io_r^ ^_ I
s* LOf O P- S.C- . £
? ^"cm" to lo" co" N-" to CM h^" co" co" iC LO""<3-"o 3 33^"t O
CO CO T- CM t- CM i- CM
to tcx- 5
IV <Q rr 05 CO O) CO O CM ,_ I
s- LO CO 00 CO CJ> CM
^ 02*4 S
o c OtON LO "fr ^t «» CM O) O) CO N (DOS -^ *i*~ ^
il
£'i
LO CO CO CO CM t- CM 1— CD 1- a> r- CM O) r-
S 3 -, C a
(0 OC Cm"t-"cO l- t- co to <J) LO T- T- O) CD t- CO o o &JS _.
(0 o «— r- 05g g
CO «^5=^ O .2 .3 2 "S
•-2 co LO co CO CD CO CM r- co a ^t to lo o in is i ft'C ^
o o CM LO 00 O) "^ t- tO oo i- CO I
s- LO O "tf * J: x. z. —
o'Z lO^A CM CD_ "«fr CO ^•_ LO LO *t LO CO LOCO SSSJ "
S«>> T-"i-"CM co" cm" rr" © co" i-" cm" -"fr" CO O) C\j" T-" « X CM CM r- T~ T— 1— T- C5 C3 „-3 ^
0) l- CO * LO 00 O CO r- S h- CM lO Tt CO o efore efore
rity
exec
n
wl
._ «D LO i- tO CO N 00 O) 1— CO y- h- CM tom ja^Qo*1
C i- arcM-tO;
—
1- CO CM f* 00 ^ CM 00 lO 1- CO * J= O ao
DC
(D _J
O3XOHO
cu to fc <
i5Eoo
co m o H-
55
C co CD _| H
<OOl- ^
03 03 —
E fi
CO CO ~i
CD 5 <
So oofOc
DC C/> H
N < 8 CO
r%8
Tf CM CO inTtOJONr T— CD CD h- CM t- in CO CM i- tO o 9
O m N o r* CM CM O) LD t- CO T— co i- m m cm t- NiflCOO °*
I T— O T- Tt t- CO i- CO ^_ t- CO CO h- O CM 03 c o i-"V T— co" ^r ^ A S
O + + + + + + 1 + 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ^ .2
o d £ p.— 3 CO CO y- co o~> co r^- oo t- CD ^t cm oo o t- m O CM "t CO B
CD t- CO 00 CM CD r- t- CM CO CD CD CM CM O h* co m co to « M S 5 <*> CO 1- Tf c\j co cm m co o m CM CM t- CO r^. oo oo •* a> a)
in co'cb" cm" T-~ CM g| £
.S«g o M° O
2
"<fr CD CO
CM CD CM
co cd co o m h-
CD CO CM CD -r- CO
CD
CO
N Nt- Tt COCM
TT l- CO CM CD CO m -^ co r^ co ^,
CO CO 00 CD o co r^- co
r- CM CD CO
Haw »h
o^-uj O h- 00 CO CM CM SE o
£ *t m cd •m- m ^ -<t cd m "it" CM t- -i- CM -i- CD CD O CM CM
<tf t- m CM CO i- cm ^r
Off 02
t 00 CM CD CD Oi CD CD CD ,_ Orf 00O5CON 00 t— CD CO ^5 "S
ll
* o in 00 O t- CD CO CO r— CD CM CM O CO O co o cd m
co_ CO CD
cm
in CD O CM CD t^
t-~ CO
CD T- CM "t «- O o t o in
t-" 1-" in i^
fc vi en
s? m r- CO Oi t- Oi CD Tfr CD N. (DOCO wco* o -i- m co CS 0) O
CO m oo CM CO "^ CD 1^ CM o CM CM l- CM t- CD 00 O -^ CM c8
o IS CO t- rs. CO CD M-T-»
1
u
1
s Si
Q.
° "3
</) » 03^ ,a
o o> co m O CD 00 CD CD CM in mCDNr-OON CD CO 00 o Q. •» o ** m ^ St- M r^- o t- co m cd r^. CD "^f LO C7> CO CD cd m n o
5
•
o LO CO CO cm i- m m cm co^ h^ O CD O CM CO CO CM_ CO t tO S^ 1
-,1 w
>» >
CD eg to h«r*f cm" co" t-" cm" co" cm o" T-" 1-" T-" ^r ^f co" o co
1— T- S'3t- >>
e a s
CO O CD CO «* tj- in cm m -^ o cd in cd o "t i- CM CD CO tO 2^ -" bU
CO CO CM CD CO CO 00 CO CO r^ "tf 00 CD CD t CO cd co r^- o , St) 2?
CM CD CM SOCOt-IO^1 o "t T- t^ T- CO ffitCOr *» Jj .S O L.T T) -<fr t-" -r-" T-" -r-" CO co" 1— t-" co" m" t^ ^ °fl» u
0. CO CO T-MO
•£ CO
- o CD CO (DiflOi-ms m O CM h- CM CM CO "^ t^- CO CD *s«a cj M o o o r- CO tO N CO T- lOM-i-i-T-n NOIOS «M «M B
CO h- m "3" CD CO CM CO CO CO CO CO CM CM CM CO CD i- CO ^,
- 9*3 3
-9 M-" t-"io" ci m" r- T-" 1-" T-" ^"
ft P<_s ^ jm
CO T- CD CO O Is- O CO CO 00 00 t- ^ CM CM h* OCONCO rt rt S « .fe
ftft»^^
^ P T)^ <u
« Oi O CD m » CM CD CM i- CD "0-
T— T— O h» O T~
co
CD
^NOWSNST 't CO ifl CO r CO CO CD CO S If) CO T"
5 * * co" © -* co" m" "* cd" co" cm" CM" t^ t-" CM" t-" CD 00 CD CD CO i- CO cm CO t- CO MlMSS g
-a -d g
2
0) C
CO in co cm in co o co co CO CD CO O CD O CO Tl- CO "«t r-
2 2 % h S
CO CD o i- CD CD CD O «* CM m CD O CO CM ^* CO O CO o g «»*» 1
oo wo &a« _cv
11
11
co CM CD O CD CO CD CD CD o co m "t co -«t cd in ^t co_ to
</> cm" co" co" CM" t-" CM" t-" t-" of o" cm" co" co" co" co"
O * *" 1~ T-u
+" -^ bD a "ti
.2 .2 S
V. 0) o CD CO t- m cd o o m in CD CO Tf CO CM ^r CO CO CO CM 'S 'm S'S fe
CD CO CD t- CM LO CM CD o -t rONOlOO CD CO CD CO co co ec P<
in cm r* t- CM CD O t- CM CD CO CO Oi t^ Oi CM t- t- cm in OflS.2 «
2 « T— O T^ cm" ^-" cm" co" tj-~ co cm" T-" T-" CO in" co" co" *" ci j-
> CO T- « T- CM t- CM 03 oS _ ^3 2 S « "3
h h s. o S
O O ^' X
C °> *0J *cp"C ® S
en
i- in
T- o Tf m cd h- m o 1^ CO CO in CM CM o co ^ m cm m o t- r*i
t-_ co^ o> to
T^T-'CO" tO
5 «? COOCOIOCOM-CM
CM T- ^ 1^
T-CD
cm"
CO h- 00 h» CM CD
CO CO t— CD
-o -a 0+a
in CM |C
J2 O co
-d X3^ c «
•H " ca 2 cs
09 CO CD *J ,2
CJ CD — d W
Si Em 5-1 Eh &H 2 1 S S ca
03 C3 h fl b
cj cj- a z
3 8'Sa s
T) T3 5 fl T3
d ^ a d d
O O o o
0$ o +_ £ Si o C El 5^ E-H E^
QQ 1 -° 'o 5Q
•a
c
«, 2 -j
0Q 2Q CQ "cj "« CD "3
1 w Q_
_r- _J 5 £ c — «
S-9-J
M Mfn a M
El
O 0) o><
CD H
e-<
93
£ c o P
c o.o«co
93
CO
o
u.
Eh
CzzDcaO"Oco hO
hn'sSm
S 03
la
56
o *
m M £ o
a -i
O
oo
10
to
CO "<fr CM 00
Tj" h- lO l»»
CO 05 CD
O) CO CO <o CD CO
t- CO CM 00 ^ *
co ^t t- cm
10 T- T- T- CM
+
OOOOOSOOPJSO o
CO CO CM CM CO lO h» *-
r- ^ CD
CO
+ + + ++++ I + I++II+ + + +
5* "£
>»
o>
c c m
o>
i (o = a>
a>X
a
in
"%_ in
9) Oi
*S •<?
.£ CO
in
K m
H o
£2
CM
N-CO
m? Oi
a f^ o
i-
00
TJ
o c
o> o
11
U
oo
<n
oo
CM
«O
w O r>- Oo O)
52 oo
S o in > in
CoO w»""s05oCO
h- -^ CM
oo" *f
O tO to CM
a> *t m o>
CO CO Oi t-t-"
«of m" cm"
t- CM "*
co "t i- oo s oi co o>
h- co l-
<«f in
^ tO -r- 1- O CM CO tO
i- CM CO
tJ- to to CO
CO O CO l-r-
co "* en
io I
s*-" c\T U)
CO N ^t N
co m co m
n. co m co
cm" o" cm" in
co CO "^t o
i- f- r- co
in oi oo co
^cm WoOcoNo in co o co
t-" co" to" crT
t- CM *
<t C\l O CO
h«- CO *fr *» SOOr
"*" T-" T-" NT
co oo oo ^
to oo to CM
r-~ o> o) i^
to" "t" "^f CO
t- CM
i- h- n- m
rj- CM CM
oWwNnOt-Nt-Sp<)0
r- in co^n
h» ^ o ^t co co
OJ O) N ^t 0)°
in h» CD O LO CD
to" co" co" T-" of
tCOMOlfNiCiOocNO^*m * -«* CO CO
CM CO"
CO CM CO O rj- t^.
tO "^ CM Is" -t— *~
T- CO
O CO CO T- CO CD
O) CM CD T- CO Is" OT-^eo-**
to CO CD o> t>- *~
,tNn^o r
O00C\|NS»
T-" T-" *
N(Or-T-COr
to o o) ^t ** m
o> CM t- in CO CM
T-" CO
CD N CO O CM T-i-
in a> co in m
CM. CM^ O) CN in CM
N ^"" S T-" T""
CM
O^WCMt CNSW O) CM i- m
•^ N. ^ s. s "*.
cm" t- co" of
CM CM CM oo m o>
CM CO O O CO OJ
^oj co" t-tD
"* rf t- CO 00
00 CO ^ CO CO CO
SiflCOOMOOS CM
mco>-Loa)05-r-CM co
r- T- CO 1- 1- T- CO_
Tj-o5tors~ooLO'^-co co
cotoc\JcMO-^-r--co to
<J)COCDt-Ot-COt- ^ o
co" CVIr-V* co 2 ** t- CM "
COtOOTtOJOOCM CM
i- i- co cm t- m O)
CM ooOCMt-* O)
* rf s00
tcoiflmcoo^n
CM i- t r-CO*
CM CO
Or-IOSCOCOCON
NC0ttr0CiMnCM^0l00O5r00rO
in
7t
•5°
a
CM
t— CO CO CO N O) O) CO CMO)00)i-COMO
r>- co co co i- co co
CCODiO-OOO)CSMONCNO(COOCNO
OJ CO i- tO T- t- 00
C^MNS^t--oOCoOsSTC-OnO
O) CO Is- t-_ Ci CML"fr CO
T-" CO" T-" T-" JT-" ^"
CsMmTo-sOcCoMhc-MCiO-^oC)O
lOi-cocMocoojin
cm" lO
CMcoincocO"^-r-in
innsCcMTo-cCqMTq-cLoOTm-sO
1— CO t- 00
NMOMO^CMS 1-CMCOr^CMCOtOlO
-cm eo-i o>
to
O)
CO a <u o
N ,_
^
C | 9m
T"
• 5 ^. &
CO 00 m S 88 -
CM
to
h-"
d i5 g t-
O) K'^t- >•
CM ".CO d
o 00 .1^3^ SP N
0) CO s> „5o •=
g 2 — 10) "3 |°E»? CO
CM
h. T- g«fl 5
h»
co •<r ° ° | =« "3
CM o3 eS £c t, 'E
5 S««a S o *"
T- P. ».= tx
co •>5 s-h
- * « i:
« o 5 g'S'3 g a a ^ ?
cm" o 3 "3 T- ^-C g
P 3 2 m -
LO T— ^s "-S 2^ £
CO
LO
o"
iri
CO 1 1£i s
o o — 2 -
to o oa s s CM « S.3 fi *> it- *; "2 T
CO O) i i pV*" ^
CO t: x —
GO) to fSsji
;
< a
CO 85 e3 ^T3 .2
^3- — * x:
£ 2. Si
o ojx
CM
CM
"3 "S-C .5 ^ -2 *a
SB J
« c c J
<D O o < > to Oh
Oi> OcoJczHo
C _ T3 C
O — >- CO
CO CD O ^
CD 0-5-5 CO
iStLLtj-h
Ew OH
^
Ew
as sd
0)
f«H
©0
CD
O
<
I- o
i I g § c < §
• 1 -
ej C3 u 2 u
o o -^ a *j
a k Six to
"2 "9 a 5 "2
_=_= = = _=
HMgigM
H N i B B8
57
DISTRICT COURT ACTIVITY IN MOTOR VEHICLE AND
SMALL CLAIM CASES*
January 1, 1969 — December 31, 1969
PER CENT OF MOTOR VEHICLE CASES
DISPOSED OF BY WAIVER'
PER CENT OF SMALL CLAIM CASES
DISPOSED OF BY MAGISTRATE'
1ST DISTRICT
Motor
Vehicle
Cases Filed
305
Motor Vehicle
Cases
Disposed of
by Waiver
195
Per Cent
Disposed of
by Waiver
63.9
Small
Claims
Filed
30
Disposed
of by
Magistrate
32
Per Cent
Disposed
of by
Magistrate
Camden 106.6
Chowan 1,206 763 63.2 107 96 89.7
Currituck 802 546 68.0 44 39 88.6
Dare 1,180 791 67.0 70 52 74.2
Gates 633 523 82.6 237 222 93.6
Pasquotank 1,403 749 53.3 264 274 103.7
Perquimans 665 483 72.6 41 39 95.1
TOTAL 6,194 4,050 65.3 793 754 95.0
2XD DISTRICT
Beaufort 3,966 3,808 96.0 488 472 96.7
Hyde 523 300 57.3 33 31 93.9
Martin 2,766 1,810 65.4 349 334 95.7
Tyrrell 334 275 82.3 44 21 47.7
Washington 853 862 101.0 121 83 68.5
TOTAL 8,442 7,055 83.5 1,035 941 90.9
3RD DISTRICT
Carteret 3,578 2,620 73.2 114 146 128.0
Craven 5,295 3,557 67.1 394 351 89.0
Pamlico 578 259 44.8 62 67 108.0
Pitt 8,653 4,470 51.6 782 717 91.6
TOTAL 18,104 10,906 60.2 1,352 1,281 94.7
J,TII DISTRICT
Duplin 7,046 5,113 72.5 241 224 92.9
Jones 684 386 56.4 45 43 95.5
Onslow 11,085 5,116 46.1 1,229 800 65.0
Sampson 4,797 3,922 81.7 432 368 85.1
TOTAL 23,612 14,537 61.5 1,947 1,435 73.7
5TII DISTRICT
New Hanover 10,250 5,786 56.4 900 661 73.4
Pender 2,392 1,435 59.9 96 90 93.7
TOTAL 12,642 7,221 57.1 996 751 75.4
1. In some counties, the per cent of cases disposed of exceeds one hundred per cent be-cause
cases ].ending on January 1, 1969 are not included in the "filed" column. The figures
in both the "filed" and "disposed of" columns are for the calendar year 1969. Some of the
cases filed in 1969 will not be disposed of until 1970 and some of the cases disposed of in
1969 were filed in 1968. Assuming a fairly constant rate of filing and disposition, the percent-ages
are relatively accurate.
*These two tables are combined for convenience of format; they are not otherwise related.
58
PER CENT OF MOTOR VEHICLE CASES
DISPOSED OF BY WAIVER'
PER CENT OF SMALL CLAIM CASES
DISPOSED OF BY MAGISTRATE'
<
6TH DISTRICT
Motor
Vehicle
;ases Filed
2,616
5,888
2,506
2,137
13,147
Motor Vehicle
Cases
Disposed of
by Waiver
2,255
3,724
1,631
1,748
9,358
Per Cent
Disposed of
by Waiver
86.2
63.2
65.0
81.7
71.1
Small
Claims
Filed
227
256
187
194
864
Disposed
of by
Magistrate
200
198
144
151
693
Per Cent
Disposed
of by
Magistrate
Bertie
Halifax
Hertford
Northampton
TOTAL
88.1
77.3
77.0
77.8
80.2
7TII DISTRICT
6,768
6,136
5,287
18,191
4,964
5,083
4,458
14,505
73.3
82.8
84.3
79.7
833
570
1,540
2,943
743
601
1,509
2,853
Edgecombe
Nash
Wilson
TOTAL
89.1
105.4
97.9
96.9
8TH DISTRICT
Greene
Lenoir
Wayne
TOTAL
1,847
6,367
7,894
16,108
1,472
3,824
4,712
10,008
79.6
60.0
59.6
62.1
108
933
1,126
2,167
101
670
1,085
1,856
93.5
71.8
96.3
85.6
9TH DISTRICT
Franklin
Granville
Person
Vance
Warren
TOTAL
2,326
4,702
2,008
2,851
1,503
13,390
1,749
2,470
1,932
2,193
986
9,330
75.1
52.5
96.2
76.9
65.6
69.6
375
330
713
467
84
1,969
338
274
501
552
71
1,736
90.1
83.0
70.2
118.2
84.5
88.1
10TII DISTRICT
Wake 42,614 30,412 71.3 3,588 3,355 93.5
11TH DISTRICT
Harnett 5,186 3,852 74.2 505 445 88.1
Johnston 7,784 5,034 64.6 376 348 92.5
Lee 4,354 4,345 99.7 474 383 80.8
TOTAL 17,324 13,231 76.3 1,355 1,176 86.7
12TII DISTRICT
Cumberland 21,528 9,785 45.4 2,543 2,230 87.6
Hoke 1,455 1,251 85.9 134 118 88.0
TOTAL 22,983 11,036 48.0 2,677 2,348 87.7
1. In some counties, the per cent of cases disposed of exceeds one hundred per cent be-cause
cases pending on January 1, 1969 are not included in the "filed" column. The figures
in both the "filed" and "disposed of" columns are for the calendar year 1969. Some of the
oases filed in 1969 will not be disposed of until 1970 and some of the cases disposed of in
1969 were filed in 1968. Assuming a fairly constant rate of filing and disposition. tlu> percent-ages
are relatively accurate.
59
PER CENT OF MOTOR VEHICLE CASES
DISPOSED OF BY WAIVER'
PER CENT OF SMALL CLAIM CASES
DISPOSED OF BY MAGISTRATE'
Motor Vehicle
Motor Cases Per Cent
Vehicle Disposed of Disposed of
Cases Filed by Waiver by Waiver
tSTE DIS TRICT
3,298
2,646
4,418
10,362
1,865
1,579
2,360
5,804
Bladen
Brunswick
Columbus
TOTAL
l.'tTH DISTRICT
56.5
59.6
53.4
56.0
Durham 13,487
15TH DISTRICT
Alamance 11,513
Chatham 2,569
Orange 4,474
TOTAL 18,556
1GTH DISTRICT
Robeson 9,305
Scotland 2,540
TOTAL 11,845
3,626 26.8
10,102
2,146
3,011
15,259
4,909
1,314
6,223
87.7
83.5
67.2
82.2
52.7
51.7
52.5
Small
Claims
Filed
Disposed
of by
Magistrate
Per Cent
Disposed
of by
Magistrate
261 203 77.7
228 175 76.7
379 305 80.4
868 683 78.6
3,968 3,493 88.0
711 583 81.9
184
80
975 583 59.7
1,506 1,465 97.2
441 401 90.9
1,947 1,866 95.8
18TH DISTRICT
Guilford—
Greensboro 31,560 6,509 20.6
High Point 10,236 7,846 76.6
TOTAL 41,796 14,355 34.3
20TH DISTRICT
Anson 2,111 2,270 107.5
Moore 4,225 3,109 73.5
Richmond 2,659 1,518 57.0
Stanly 3,020 2,539 84.0
Union 4,190 3,256 77.7
TOTAL 16,205 12,692 78.3
5,159 4,575 88.6
1,754 1,649 94.0
6,913 6,224 90.0
162 229 141.3
273 137 50.1
403 382 94.7
704 683 97.0
278 396 142.4
1,820 1,827 100.3
21ST DISTRICT
Forsyth 22,945 10,775 46.9 2,236 2,818 126.0
1. In some counties, the per cent of cases disposed of exceeds one hundred per cent be-cause
cases pending on January 1, 1969 are not included in the "filed" column. The figures
in both the "filed" and "disposed of" columns are for the calendar year 1969. Some of the
cases filed in 1969 will not be disposed of until 1970 and some of the cases disposed of in
1969 were filed in 1968. Assuming a fairly constant rate of filing and disposition, the percent-ages
are relatively accurate.
60
PER CENT OF MOTOR VEHICLE CASES PER CENT OF SMALL CLAIM CASES
DISPOSED OF BY WAIVER' DISPOSED OF BY MAGISTRATE'
Motor Vehicle Per Cent
Motor Cases Per Cent Small Disposed Disposed
Vehicle Disposed of Disposed of Claims of by of by
Cases Filed by Waiver by Waiver Filed Magistrate Magistrate
2J,TII DISTRICT
Avery 1,819 1,065 58.5 18 10 55.5
Madison 803 646 80.4 10 15 150.0
Mitchell 924 1,057 114.3 15 6 40.0
Watauga 1,706 1,291 75.6 98 84 85.7
Yancey 952 838 88.0 47 23 48.9
TOTAL 6,204 4,897 78.9 188 138 73.4
25TII DISTRICT
Burke 5,166 4,269 82.6 614 516 84.0
Caldwell 6,133 3,853 62.8 895 729 81.4
Catawba 13,263 10,478 79.0 1,026 961 93.6
TOTAL 24,562 18,600 75.7 2,535 2,206 87.0
2GTII DISTRICT
Mecklenburg 55,897 34,955 62.5 5,090 4,493 88.2
27TH DISTRICT
Cleveland 6,768 5,734 84.7 1,007 578 57.3
Gaston 14,988 7,696 51.3 1,577 1,371 86.9
Lincoln 4,968 2,486 50.0 192 201 104.6
TOTAL 26,724 15,916 59.5 2,776 2,150 77.4
29TII DISTRICT
Henderson 4,422 2,090 47.2 154 107 69.4
McDowell 2,532 2,123 83.8 174 167 95.9
Polk 502 463 92.2 15 17 113.3
Rutherford 3,508 2,311 65.8 355 349 98.3
Transylvania 835 483 57.8 144 126 87.5
TOTAL 11,799 7,470 63.3 842 766 90.9
30TH DISTRICT
Cherokee 1,209 730 60.4 99 76 76.7
Clay 726 461 63.4 39 45 115.3
Graham 315 125 39.6 3 3 100.0
Haywood 3,828 2,527 66.0 134 152 113.4
Jackson 1,013 483 47.6 56 49 87.5
Macon 954 598 62.6 63 60 95.2
Swain 517 183 35.3 83 58 69.8
TOTAL 8,562 5,107 59.6 477 443 92.8
GRAND TOTAL 481,695 297,328 61.7 52,321 46,869 89.5
1. In some counties, the per cent of cases disposed of exceeds one hundred per cent he-cause
cases pending on January 1, 1969 are not included in the "filed" column. The figures
in both the "filed" and "disposed of" columns are for the calendar year 1969. Some ol the
cases filed in 1969 will not be disposed of until 1970 and some of the eases disposed of in
1969 were filed in 1968. Assuming a fairly constant rate of filing and disposition, the percent-ages
are relatively accurate.
61
DAYS OF COURT HELD AT EACH SEAT OF THE
DISTRICT COURT*
1ST DISTRICT (2 Judges)
Camden—Camden
Chowan—Edenton
Currituck—Currituck
Dare—Manteo
Gates—Gatesville
Pasquotank—Elizabeth City
Perquimans—Hertford
TOTAL
2XD DISTRICT (2 Judges) 1
Beaufort—Washington
Hyde—Swan Quarter
Martin—Williamston
Tyrrell—Columbia
Washington—Plymouth
TOTAL
3RD DISTRICT (4 Judges)
Pitt—Greenville
Farmville
Ayden
Craven—New Bern
Carteret—Beaufort
Pamlico—Bayboro
TOTAL
J,TH DISTRICT (4 Judges)
Onslow—Jacksonville
Duplin—Kenansville
Jones—Trenton
Sampson—Clinton
TOTAL
5TH DISTRICT (3 Judges)
New Hanover—Wilmington
Pender—Burgaw
TOTAL
6TII DISTRICT (3 Judges)
Northampton—Jackson
Halifax—Halifax
Roanoke Rapids
Bertie—Windsor
Hertford—Winton
TOTAL
Civil Criminal Total
1 11% 1 2%
4 49 53
2% 24 26V2
6 39 45
1 24 25
20 48% 68V2
6 36 42
40% 232 272%
57 108 164
8 28 36
28 55 82
4 21 25
13 49 63
110 260 370
94 184V2 278V2
211/2 21%
22V2 r>2%
91 1/2 146V2 i\>8
73V2 94 16I7V2
11 241/2 CI5V2
270 493% 7e13%
49 255 3C)4
36% 103 1CI9V2
11V4 361/4 A17%
56% 159 2151/2
153% 5531/4 706%
191 1/2 250 441%
34 451/2 79%
225V2 295% 521
i
13 46 1
32% 55 87%
4V2 251/2 3Q
16% 50 66V2
171/2 44 61%
84 220% 3C14%
1. Figures not reported for August, but included is an estimate based upon average for
months reported.
* All days of court at each seat were not necessarily held by a judge assigned to the
designated judicial district. In 1969, District Court Judges held a total of 132% days of
court in judicial districts other than their own.
62
1TH DISTRICT (4 Judges)
Nash—Nashville
Rocky Mount
Edgecombe—Tarboro
Wilson—Wilson
TOTAL
8TH DISTRICT (J, Judges)
Wayne—Goldsboro
Mount Olive
Greene—Snow Hill
Lenoir—Kinston
TOTAL
Civil Criminal Total
71 y4 991/2 1703/4
38 100V4 138%
591/4 104 163%
64 V2 150 214V2
233 453% 6863/4
99% 185% 285
1/2 31% 32
5% 33 38V2
111V2 166 1/2 278
217 416V2 6331/2
9TH DISTRICT (3 Judges) 1
Person—Roxboro
Granville—Oxford
Vance—Henderson
Warren—Warrenton
Franklin—Louisburg
10TH DISTRICT (5 Judges)
Wake—Raleigh
Apex
Wendell
Fuquay-Varina
TOTAL
11TH DISTRICT (4 Judges)
Harnett—Lillington
Dunn
Johnston—Smithfield
Benson
Selma
Lee—Sanford
TOTAL
12TH DISTRICT (4 Judges)
Cumberland—Fayetteville
Hoke—Raeford
TOTAL
13TH DISTRICT (2 Judges)
Bladen—Elizabethtown
Brunswick—Southport
Shallotte
Columbus—Whiteville
Tabor City
TOTAL
2201/2 615 835V2
46 46
.. 38 38
2201/2 699 9191/2
911/2 132 223V2
1 63 64
77 1211/2 1981/2
1 45 46
49 49
43 1111/2 154V2
2131/2 522 7351/2
305 3861/2 691 1/2
15V2 40V2 56
320V2 427 7471/2
30 79 109
42 44 86
37 37
54 84 138
20 20
126 264 390
1. No reports submitted.
lyrif DISTRICT (3 Judges)
Durham—Durham
loTII DISTRICT (4 Judges)
Alamance—Graham
Burlington
Chatham—Pittsboro
Siler City
Orange—Hillsborough
Chapel Hill
TOTAL
16TII DISTRICT (3 Judges)
Robeson-
Scotland-
TOTAL
-Lumberton
Fairmont
Maxton
Red Springs
Rowland
Saint Pauls
-Laurinburg
1STH DISTRICT (7 Judges)
Guilford-
TOTAL
-Greensboro
High Point
20TII DISTRICT (4 Judges) 1
Anson—Wadesboro
Moore—Carthage
Southern Pines
Richmond—Rockingham
Hamlet
Stanly—Albemarle
Union—Monroe
21ST DISTRICT (5 Judges)
Forsyth-
TOTAL
-Winston-Salem
Kernersville
2',TII DISTRICT (2 Judges)
Avery—Newland
Madison—Marshall
Mitchell—Bakersville
Watauga—Boone
Yancey—Burnsville
TOTAL
Civil
263
178
33
62
6
279
110V2
30V2
141
354
265
619
Criminal
460
226
Vz
65V2
70V2
51
41 3V2
186
39
61 1/2
38
24
4iy2
123
513
488
252V2
7401/2
Total
72J
404
1/2
981/2
132V2
57
692V2
2961/2
39
61 1/2
38
24
411/2
1531/2
654
842
5171/2
1,3591/2
540 1/2 435 9751/2
26 26
5401/2 461 1,0011/2
15 33 48
7 29 36
9 31 40
9 44 53
11 27 38
51 164 215
1. No reports submitted.
64
25TII DISTRICT (Jt Judges)
Burke—Morganton
Hickory
Caldwell—Lenoir
Catawba—Newton
TOTAL
26TII DISTRICT (7 Judges)'
Mecklenburg—Charlotte
27TH DISTRICT (5 Judges) 2
Civil Criminal Total
541/2 149 203V2
48 155 203
54 154V2 208 1/2
41 106 147
197V2 564V2 762
469 1,128 1,597
Cleveland—Shelby 45 137 182
Gaston—Gastonia 165 398 562
Lincoln—Lincolnton 67 69 137
TOTAL 277 604 881
29TH DISTRICT (3 Judges)
Henderson—Hendersonville 52 87 139
McDowell—Marion 32 77 109
Polk—Columbus 22 38 60
Rutherford—Rutherfordton 47 75 122
Transylvania—Brevard 27 40 67
TOTAL 180 317 497
30TH DISTRICT (2 Judges)
Cherokee—Murphy 6 351/2 41 1/2
Clay—Hayesville 3 15 18
Graham—Robbinsville 14 14
Haywood—Waynesville 11 98 109
Canton 8 8
Jackson—Sylva 4 30 34
Macon—Franklin 3 17V2 201/2
Swain—Bryson City 15 21 36
TOTAL 42 239 281
GRAND TOTAL 5,2723/4 10,441 1/2 15J14V4
A NOTE ON STATISTICS
The statistical data in this Report has been supplied to the Admin-istrative
Office by Clerks of the Superior Court and Chief District Judges.
Since the beginning of court reorganization and the implementation of
a new reporting system, there has been some variation in interpretation
of the statistical categories. Efforts are being made by the Clerks of
Superior Court and Administrative Office to insure completely standard-ized
reporting. All statistics are supplied by Clerks of the Superior Court,
except data on the number of days of district court held in each district
which is supplied by the Chief District Judges.
1. Figures not reported for January, February, March and April, but included is an
estimate for these months based upon average for months reported.
2. Figures reported only for September, October, November and December, but included is
an estimate for other months based upon average for months reported.
65
APPENDIX I
STRUCTURE OF THE JUDICIAL
DEPARTMENT
I. Prior to the effective date of The Judicial Department Act of 1965:
THE SUPREME COURT
THE SUPERIOR COURT
GENERAL COUNTY COURT
DOMESTIC RELATIONS MUNICIPAL RECORDER'S
COURT COURT
COUNTY RECORDER'S COURT COUNTY CRIMINAL COURT
TOWNSHIP RECORDER'S.
COURT
MAYOR'S COURT
JUVENILE COURT
JUSTICE OF THE PEACE
COURT
II. Under The Judicial Department Act of 1965:
GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE
THE SUPREME COURT
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE
THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE COURTS
I
SUPERIOR COURT
DIVISION
DISTRICT COURT
DIVISION
This structure is now in effect as to 83 counties. The District Court will
be activated in the final 17 counties on December 7, 1970.
APPENDIX II
GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE
Routes of Appeal —
SUPREME COURT
I. Appeals as of Right:
1. Constitutional questions;
2. When dissent in Court of Appeals;
3. Utilities Commission general
rate-making case.
I
II. By Certification in Supretne Court's Discretion:
9Before Court of Appeals hearing:
L Significant public interest;
2. Legal principles of major significance;
3. Delay would cause substantial harm;
4. Court of Appeals has backlog.
Utilities Comm.
Industrial Comm.
After Court of Appeals hearing:
1. Significant public interest;
2. Legal principles of major significance;
3. Court of Appeals decision in
conflict with Supreme Court decision.
COURT OF APPEALS
(3 panels-3 judges each)
All
civil
cases
on
record
All except
death and
life im-prisonment
cases •*
Death and
life imprison-ment
cases
only
SUPERIOR COURT
All
criminal
cases for
trial de
Appeals from
administrative
agencies, except
Utilities Comm. and
Industrial Comm.
DISTRICT COURT
(S3 Counties)
*Utilities and Industrial Comm. cases must be heard by Court of Appeals before
Court can hear.
Supreme
**Post-conviction hearing appeals go to Court of Appeals by writ of certiorari only, and no
further, except the State may move for certification to the Supreme Court under G.S.
7A-31(a).
67
APPENDIX III
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS
G.S. 7A-340. Administrative Office of the Courts; establishment;
officers. — There is hereby established a State office to be known as the
Administrative Office of the Courts. It shall be supervised by a Di-rector,
assisted by an assistant director.
G.S. 7A-343. Duties of Director. — The Director is the Adminis-trative
Officer of the Courts, and his duties include the following:
(1) Collect and compile statistical data and other information on
the judicial and financial operation of other offices directly
related to and serving the courts;
(2) Determine the state of the dockets and evaluate the practices
and procedures of the courts, and make recommendations con-cerning
the number of judges, solicitors, prosecutors and mag-istrates
required for the efficient administration of justice;
(3) Prescribe uniform administrative and business methods, sys-tems,
forms and records to be used in the offices of the clerks
of superior court;
(4) Prepare and submit budget estimates of State appropriations
necessary for the maintenance and operation of the Judicial
Department, and authorize expenditures from funds appro-priated
for these purposes;
(5) Investigate, make recommendations concerning and assist in
the securing of adequate physical accommodations for the
General Court of Justice;
(6) Procure, distribute, exchange, transfer and assign such equip-ment,
books, forms and supplies as are to be acquired with
State funds for the General Court of Justice;
(7) Make recommendations for the improvement of the opera-tions
of the Judicial Department;
(8) Prepare and submit an annual report on the work of the Ju-dicial
Department to the Chief Justice, and transmit a copy
to each member of the General Assembly;
(9) Assist the Chief Justice in performing his duties relating to
68
the transfer of district court judges for temporary or special-ized
duty; and
(10) Perform such additional duties and exercise such additional
powers as may be prescribed by statute or assigned by the
Chief Justice.
G.S. 7A-344. Special duties of Director concerning representation
of indigent persons.—In addition to the duties prescribed in G.S. 7A-343,
the Director shall also:
(1) Supervise and coordinate the operation of the laws and regu-lations
concerning the assignment of legal counsel for indigent
persons under sub-chapter IX of this chapter to the end that
all indigent persons are adequately represented;
(2) Advise and cooperate with the offices of the public defenders
as needed to achieve maximum effectiveness in the discharge
of the defender's responsibilities;
(3) Collect data on the operation of the assigned counsel and the
public defender systems, and make such recommendations to
the General Assembly for improvement in the operation of these
systems as appear to him to be appropriate ; and
(4) Accept and utilize federal or private funds, as available, to
improve defense services for the indigent.
G.S. 7A-345. Duties of assistant director.—The assistant director is
the administrative assistant to the Chief Justice, and his duties include
the following;
(1) Assist the Chief Justice in performing his duties relating to
the assignment of superior court judges;
(2) Assist the Supreme Court in preparing calendars of superior
court trial sessions; and
(3) Performing such additional functions as may be assigned by
the Chief Justice or the Director of the Administrative Office.
G.S. 7A-346. Information to be furnished to Administrative Officer.
—
All judges, solicitors, prosecutors, public defenders, magistrates, clerks of
superior court and other officers or employees of the courts and of offices
directly related to and serving the courts shall on request furnish to
the Administrative Officer information and statistical data relative to
the work of the courts and of such offices and relative to the receipt
and expenditure of public moneys for the operation thereof.
69
STATE LIBRARY OF NORTH CAROLINA
3 3091 00748 3381