Xl'3 Raleigh
N. C.
Doc.
THE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
ANNUAL REPORT
OF THE
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS
1967
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 Second Annual Report of the Admin-istrative
Officer of the Courts. This Report, prepared pursuant to G. S.
7A-343, relates to the 1967 calendar year.
llert M. Montague
Director
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Foreword —
.
4
The Supreme Court _„ 8
The Court of Appeals _~ 9
The Courts Commission 10
Judicial Council - 10
Conference of Superior Court Judges 9
Superior Court Judges and Judicial Districts 11
Solicitors and Solicitoria] Districts 12
District Court Judges and Prosecutors 13
Clerks of Superior Court 14
The Superior Court 16
Civil Dockets 18
Criminal Dockets - 22
APPENDIX
I. Structure of The Judicial Department 25
II. Poute of Appeals 26
III. The Administrative Office 27
IV. The Superior Court
r
~~ 29
A. Civil Cases Pending, Added and Disposed of 29
P. Utilization of Civil Court Terms 33
( \ ( Jriminal Cases Pending, Added and Disposed of 37
D. Utilization of Criminal Court Terms 41
V. The District Court 45
A. Civil Cases Pending, Filed, and Disposed of 45
B. Criminal Cases Pending, Filed, and Disposed of 46
C. Method of Disposition of Civil Cases 47
D. Method of Disposition of Criminal Cases 48
E. Appeals From District Court to Superior Court 49
V. Number of Days District Court was in Session. 50
THE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
ANNUAL REPORT
of the
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS
1967
FOREWORD
A constitutional amendment adopted in 1962 provided the frame-work
for a unified eourt system in North Carolina. The 1963 General
Assembly created a Courts Commission and charged it with the respon-sibility
of preparing and drafting the legislation necessary for com-plete
implementation of the new Judicial Article. This Commission,
composed largely of legislative leaders and under the chairmanship 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 provided for an Appellate Division con-sisting
of the Supreme Court, a Superior Court Division and a District
Court Division in the General Court of Justice. The 1965 Act pro-vided
for gradual implementation of the new court system. The sche-dule
of activation is shown in Appendix I. Because of the increasing
burden of appellate work, it became necessary to provide an additional
court in the Appellate Division. The Constitution was again amended
in 1966 to authorize the new appellate court.
In the trial division of the General Court of Justice, criminal
cases are allocated on a jurisdictional basis. There is no jurisdictional
division as to civil cases. The District Court Division has exclusive
original jurisdiction of misdemeanors. The District Court is the proper
division for the trial of civil cases w7here the amount in controversy is
$5,000 or less. It is also the forum for domestic relations 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 therefrom is to the Court of Appeals.
There will be approximately 105-110 District Court Judges when
the establishment of the new system is completed. The judges are
elected to four-year terms. A Chief District Judge with very extensive
administrative authority is designated in each district by the Chief
Justice of the Supreme Court. Specialized judgeships are authorized.
Family counseling services may be provided in any judicial dis-trict
having a county with a population of 85,000 or more. 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 juris-diction
in special proceedings, probate of wills and administration
of decedents' estates.
Magistrates, assigned to duty by and closely supervised by the
Chief District Judges, are authorized for each county. Their major
function will be issuing 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 examinations in misde-meanor
cases, grant bail before trial in non-capital cases, and to per-form
certain ministerial duties formerly authorized for 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 will be 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 pro-vides
for a facilities fee to be assessd 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 1966 constitutional amendment was
established by the 1967 General Assembly. Its jurisdiction appears in
Appendix II. The Court of Appeals now consists of six judges who
sit in panels of three. There is authorization for the appointment of
three additional judges in March, 1969. This report relates to the 1967
calendar year, and no detailed statistics on the work of the Court of
Appeals are included. It began hearing cases on January 30, 1968,
and during the last two weeks of argument of the 1968 Spring Session,
beard 95 cases.
It is, perhaps, too early to attempt a statistical demonstration of
the operation and effectiveness of the new court system. The impres-sions
we receive from observation, from newspaper coverage, in con-ferences
and correspondence with judges, prosecutors, lawyers, clerks,
and the public in general, indicate that the unified system, operating
with full-time judges and with uniform jurisdiction, rules and costs,
has produced a marked improvement in the administration of justice.
A few statistical comparisons might be appropriate.
At the appellate level, we have already noted a sample of the
volume of cases being heard by the new Court of Appeals. The relief
provided for the Supreme Court came none too soon. During the year,
the Supreme Court wrote opinions in 465 cases, the same as the num-ber
written during the previous reporting year.
At the trial court level, the evidence indicates that the District
Court is fulfilling its purpose We anticipated from the District Court
a relief of the burden on the Superior Court. The statistics demonstrate
that such relief has been provided, that the caseload in the Superior
Court in those counties where the District Court has been established
has been^substantially reduced, and that trial can now be reached more
quickly in both trial divisions. One county might be taken as being
representative of conditions which prevail in counties where the Dis-trict
Court has been instituted. Iii Cumberland County there were 271
civil rases filed in the Superior Court during the year as compared
with 2,043 filed during Uie previous reporting year. At the same time,
then- were 3,079 civil Cctses filed in Cumberland County in the District
Court Division. The District Court was able to dispose of 2,600 of
these cases, leaving a small backlog of accumulated cases on the District
Court docket. Thus, at the end of the year, there were 523 civil cases
pending on the Superior Court docket in Cumberland County as com-pared
with 1,168 at the end of the previous reporting year. Comparable
changes are noted in connection with the criminal docket. Only 690
cases were filed in the Superior Court in that county during the year
as compared with 1,139 during the previous year. At the end of the
year, 201 of these cases were pending as compared with 347 pending
at the end of the previous year. The fact that the District Court
absorbed most of the criminal caseload is shown by the fact that 24,973
cases of a criminal nature were filed in the District Court in Cum-berland
County. That court disposed of 25,667 cases, producing a small
reduction in the pending caseload.
Reports indicate that litigants and counsel are satisfied with the
judges hearing civil matters in the District Court Division. Out of
13,722 civil matters heard in the District Court, jury trial was de-manded
in only 412 cases. During the first nine months of the year
when appeals went from the District Court to the Superior Court, only
37 cases were appealed
The 1967 General Assembly, in addition to establishing the Court
of Appeals and making technical changes in the Judicial Department
Act of 1965, enacted several laws which should produce substantial
improvements in the administration of justice. A new jury law estab-lishes
a jury commission in each county of the State and removes all
exemptions from jury service. The system for prosecution of criminal
cases was revised. Prosecution districts were made identical with the
judicial districts, and the prosecuting offices will be made full-time
positions. New rules of civil procedure were adopted, to become effec-tive
July 1, 1969. Five additional Superior Court Judgeships were
authorized, bringing the total to 48. Those concerned about the justi-fication
for the increase and about the efficiency and production of
our judges will be interested in a bill enacted by the New York Legis-lature
in May, 1968, creating 125 additional judgeships.
The Courts Commission, under the chairmanship of Senator
Ruffin Bailey since June 28, 1968, is still engaged in performing its
assigned task. In addition to conducting studies requested by the 1967
General Assembly in areas such as the system for providing represen-tation
for indigent defendants and the method of selection of Superior
Court Judges, the Commission must establish the manpower structure
for the 17 counties which come into the system in 1970 and maintain
6
a continuing study of the operations of the new system and recommend
changes where justification for them appears.
A word of explanation is in order in regard to statistics on the
Superior Court. As of the beginning of this reporting year, the clerks
of court were required to report all civil cases in which complaint had
been filed as opposed to the old method of reporting cases in which
issues had been reached. As a result, ten to twelve thousand additional
cases were picked up in the reports. Thus, despite the fact that the Su-perior
Court disposed of approximately the same number of cases as
were filed, the reported pending caseload increased by more than eleven
thousand.
JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT
Chief Justice:
R. Hunt Parker
Associate Justices:
William H. Bobbitt, I. Beverly Lake,
Carlisle W. Higgins, Joseph Branch,
Susie Sharp, J. Frank Huskins.
Emergency Justices:
William B. Rodman, Jr.,
Emery B. Denny,
J. Will Pless, Jr.
The Supreme Court considered 877 cases during 1967. Opinions
were written in 465 cases. There were 412 petitions and motions pre-sented
and disposed of. Full opinions were written in 340 cases.
SUPREME COURT
Cases Decided By Written Opinions
1957-1967
Full Opinions Per Curiam Tota
1957-58 253 74 327
1958-59 257 58 315
1959-60 277 81 358
1960-61 270 77 347
1961-62 262 81 343
1962-63 287 92 379
1963-64 277 142 419
1964-65 304 169 473
1965-66 287 178 465
1967 340 125 465
Of the opinions written during the year, 285 were in civil cases,
and 180 were in criminal cases. Criminal appeals increased 13.9% over
the 1965-66 court year. Corrective action was taken in 186 cases.
JUDGES OF THE COURT OF APPEALS
Chief Judge:
Raymond B. Mallard
Hugh B. Campbell David M. Britt
Walter E. Brock Naomi E. Morris
Frank M. Parker
The Court of Appeals became operational on October 1, 1967.
CONFERENCE OF SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES
President, Judge Walter E. Crissman, High Point
President Elect, Judge W. K. McLean, Asheville
Vice President, John D. McConnell, Southern Pines
Secretary, Judge Eugene Shaw, Greensboro
Additional Executive Committee Members:
Judge Joseph W. Parker, Windsor
Judge E. Maurice Braswell, Fayetteville
THE COURTS COMMISSION
1968
Senator Ruffin Bailey — Chairman Representative Horton Rountree
Raleigh, North Carolina Greenville, North Carolina
Senator J. J. Harrington Mr. J. Eugene Snyder
Lewiston, North Carolina Lexington, North Carolina
Representative Sneed High Representative Marcus Short
Fayetteville, North Carolina Greensboro, North Carolina
Mr. Herbert Hyde Mr. H. P. Taylor, Jr.
Asheville, North Carolina Wadesboro, North Carolina
Mr. Wilbur M. Jolly House Speaker Earl W. Vaughn
Louisburg, North Carolina Draper, North Carolina
Mr. Karl W. McGhee Senator Lindsay C. Warren, Jr.
Wilmington, North Carolina Goldsboro, North Carolina
Judge James B. McMillan Mr. A. A. Zollicoffer, Jr.
Charlotte, North Carolina Henderson, North Carolina
Dean J. D. Phillips
Law School, University of North Carolina
Chapel Hill, North Carolina
JUDICIAL COUNCIL
William H. Bobbitt, Senior Associate Justice of the Supreme Court,
Chairman
Sam J. Ervin, III, Resident Judge of the 25th Judicial District,
Morganton
Henry A. McKinnon, Jr., Resident Judge of the 16th Judicial District,
Lumberton
John C. Kesler, Attorney, Salisbury
Millard R. Rich, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh
M. G. Boyette, Solicitor, 13th Solicitorial District, Carthage
W. Marion Allen, Past President, N. C. State Bar, Elkin
Bonner D. Sawyer, Past President, N. C. State Bar, Hillsborough
Thomas D. Cooper, Jr., Solicitor, 10A Solicitorial District, Burlington
C. Frank Griffin, Attorney, Monroe
James E. Ramsey, Attorney, Roxboro
Frank H. Watson, Attorney, Spruce Pine
W. E. Timberlake, Attorney, Lumberton
W. D. Sabiston, Jr., Attorney, Carthage
Frank W. Bullock, Jr., Executive Secretary, Raleigh
10
SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES
By Districts
1. Walter W. Cohoon Elizabeth City
2. Elbert S. Peel, Jr. Williamston
3. William J. Bundy Greenville
4. Howard H. Hubbard Clinton
5. Rudolph I. Mintz Wilmington
6. Joseph W. Parker Windsor
7. George M. Fountain Tarboro
8. Albert W. Cowper Kinston
9. Hamilton H. Hobgood Louisburg
10. William Y. Bickett Raleigh
10. James H. Pou Bailey Raleigh
11. Harry E. Canaday Benson
12. E. Maurice Braswell Fayetteville
12. Coy E. Brewer Fayetteville
13. Edward B. Clark Elizabethtown
14. Clarence W. Hall Durham
15. Leo Carr Burlington
16. Henry A. McKinnon, J r.Lumberton
17. Allen H. Gwyn Reidsville
18. Walter E. Crissman High Point
18. Eugene G. Shaw Greensboro
18. James G. Exum, Jr. Greensboro
19. Frank M. Armstrong Troy
19. Thomas W. Seay, Jr. Spencer
20. John D. McConnell Southern Pines
21. Walter E. Johnston, Jr Winston-Salem
21. Harvey A. Lupton Winston-Salem
22. Robert A. Collier, Jr. Statesville
23. Robert M. Gambill North Wilkesboro
24. W. E. Anglin Burnsville
25. Sam J. Ervin, III Morganlon
26. Fred H. Hasty Charlotte
26. Frank W. Snepp, Jr. Charlotte
26. William T. Grist Charlotte
27. P. C. Froneberger Gastonia
27. B. T. Falls, Jr. Shelby
28. W. K. McLean Asheville
28. Harry C. Martin Asheville
29. J. W. Jackson Hendersonville
30. T. D. Bryson Bryson City
Special Judges
Fate J. Beal
James C. Bowman
J. William Copeland
A. Pilston Godwin, Jr.
Robert M. Martin
Hubert E. May
Lacy H. Thornburg
Emergency Judges
Walter J. Bone
W. H. S. Burgwyn
Zeb V. Nettles
Hubert E. Olive
George B. Patton
F. Donald Phillips
Francis O. Clarkson
Henry L. Stevens, Jr.
Chester R. Morris
Lenoir
Southport
Murfreesboro
Raleigh
High Point
Nashville
Webster
Nashville
Woodland
Asheville
Lexington
Franklin
Rockingham
Charlotte
Warsaw
Coinjock
11
SOLICITORS OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
BY SOLICITORIAL DISTRICTS
1. Herbert Small
2. Roy R. Holdford, Jr.
3. W. H. S. Burgwyn, Jr.
4. Archie Taylor
5. Luther Hamilton, Jr.
6. Walter T. Britt
7. William G. Ransdell, Jr.
8. William A. Cobb
9. Doran J. Berry
9a. John B. Regan
10. Dan K. Edwards
10a. Thomas D. Cooper, Jr.
11. Thomas W. Moore, Jr.
12. Charles T. Kivett
13. M. G. Boyette
14. Henry M. Whitesides
14a. Elliott M. Schwartz
15. Zeb A. Morris
16. W. Hampton Childs, Jr.
17. J. Allie Hayes
18. Leonard Lowe
19. Clyde M. Roberts
20. Marcellus Buchanan, III
21. Charles M. Neaves
Elizabeth City
Wilson
Woodland
Lillington
Morehead City
Clinton
Raleigh
Wrightsville Beach
Fayetteville
St. Pauls
Durham
Burlington
Winston -Salem
Greensboro
Carthage
Gastonia
Charlotte
Concord
Lincolnton
N. Wilkesboro
Caroleen
Marshall
Sylva
Elkin
WUA District Court Activated
December, 1970
DISTRICT COURT JUDGES AND PROSECUTORS BY DISTRICTS
Judges
* 1. Fentress Horner
1. William S. Privott
*12. Derb S. Carter
12, Joseph E. Dupree
12. Darius B. Herring, Jr.
12. George Z. Stuhl
14. Thomas H. Lee
*14. E. Lawson Moore
14. Samuel O. Riley
16. Samuel E. Britt
*16. Robert F. Floyd
16. John S. Gardner
25. Joe H. Evans
25. Keith S. Snyder
*25. Mary G. Whitener
*30. F. E. Alley, Jr.
30. Robert J. Leatherwood, III
Chief District Court Judges
Elizabeth City
Edenton
Fayetteville
Raeford
Fayetteville
Fayetteville
Durham
Durham
Durham
Lumberton
Fairmont
Lumberton
Hickory
Lenoir
Hickory
Waynesville
Bryson City
Prosecutors
1. W. F. Walker, Jr.
12. Charles G. Rose, III
14. J. M. Read, Jr.
16. Charles G. McLean
25. J. C. Rudisill, Jr.
30. James H. Howell, Jr.
Currituck
Fayetteville
Durham
Lumberton
Newton
Waynesville
13
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
Lenoir
Lincoln
Macon
Madison
Martin
McDowell
Mecklenburg
Mitchell
Montgomery
Clerk of Court
D. M. McLelland
Atwell B. Bumgarner
Glenn Busic
H. C. Tucker
Doris C. Bare
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
L. J. Greer
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.
W. E. Church
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
Walter P. Henderson
Sion H. Kelly
J. S. Davis
M. L. Huggins
A. W. Perry
C. N. Willis
L. B. Wynne
Robert Jarrett, Sr.
J. E. Stukes
Guy Snyder
C. M. Johnson
14
County
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 ol Court
C. M. McLeod
Ben H. Neville
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.
R. S. McFarland
John H. Skeen
T. L. Covington
Ben G. Floyd
J. Hoyte Stultz, Jr.
Frank M. Montgomery
Edgar W. Tanner
Charles A. Britt
James D. Nance
Joe H. Lowder
Robert Miller
Martha O. Comer
H. H. Sandlin
J. O. Wells
Melvin Pledger
Ethel M. Gordon
H. W. Hight
J. R. Nipper
Lanie M. Hayes
Louise S. Allen
Orville H. Foster
Shelton Jordan
Wayne Yates
C. C. Lamm
Lon H. West, Sr.
Fred Proffitt
ASSOCIATION OF CLERKS OF SUPERIOR COURT
President
1st Vice President
2nd Vice President
Treasurer
Secretary
Assistant Secretary
J. W. Drake, Chatham County
J.B. Siler, Haywood County
Ben Neville, Nash County
J. Edward Stukes, Mecklenburg County
Institute of Government
Lena M. Leary, Chowan County
15
THE SUPERIOR COURT
There were 64,722 cases filed in the Superior Court during the
1067 calendar year. This is an increase of 5.1% over the previous year.
Dispositions increased 10% over the previous year.
TOTAL CASES ADDED, AND DISPOSED OF
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
July 1, 1963-December 31, 1967
Added
Disposed of *Z®®®®®
7/1/63-6/30/64:
7/1/64-6/30/65
:
7/1/65-6/30/66
1/1/67-12/31/67:
(in thousands) | 10 | 20 | 30 | 40 | 50 | 60
58,135
54,336
59,397
56,922
61,577
59,498
» 64,722
* 65,432
Cases
The pending caseload was 30% higher on December 31, 1967 than
on June 30, 1966, although dispositions exceeded filings during 1967.
This is indicative of the tremendous increase in volume of litigation
in recent years. The excess of criminal cases filed over criminal cases
disposed of during 1967 limited the percentage of total dispositions
over total filings to 1.1%.
16
TOTAL CASES PENDING
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
July 1, 1964-December 31, 1967
7/1/64
7/1/65
7/1/66
12/31/67
(in thousands)
32,327
35,312
37,045
48,495
18 27 36 45
Cases
The court schedule was increased by 184 days. There was an in-crease
of 353 days in the amount of court utilized.
UTILIZATION OF SCHEDULED COURT
July 1, 1963-December 31, 1967
Days Scheduled Days Held Percentage
7/1/63-6/30/64 8513 7158% 84.
7/1/64-6/30/65 8724 7155 82.
7/1/65-6/30/66 9129 7462% 81.7
1/1/67-12/31/67 9313 7815 83.9
17
CIVIL DOCKETS
There was an increase of 5.1% in civil filings over the previous
year. There was an even greater increase in dispositions. This figure
increased 17.6% over the previous year and 60% over the 63-64 court
year. Civil dispositions exceeded filings during the calendar year 1967
by 2.7%.
CIVIL CASES ADDED, AND DISPOSED OF
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
July 1, 1963-December 31, 1967
Added
Disposed of
7/1/63-6/30/64:
7/1/64-6/30/65
:
7/1/65-6/30/66:
1/1/67-12/31/67:
BW1MI|«I|PW|MB^^
in wiiii mil' iiiii i——
•:•::•:.:•::•::•:•:•:: :•:•:•: :•:•: ::::•
23,675
20,998
26,699
24,089
29,944
28,557
31,481
33,602
(in thousands) | 9 18 27 36
18
CIVIL CASES PENDING
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
July 1, 1964-December 31, 1967
7/1/64
7/1/65
7/1/66
12/31/67
(in thousands) 16 24 32
22,883
26,233
27,187
36,592
Cases
Six more counties joined the group which has in excess of 500
civil cases pending.
DISTRIBUTION OF PENDING CIVIL CASES
AMONG THE COUNTIES
Number of Cases
Number of Counties
Less than
50
50-100 101-200 201-500 Over
500
18 15 15 29 21
19
DISTRIBUTION OF PENDING CIVIL CASES
AMONG THE COUNTIES
In the year ending June 30, 1966, approximately half of the civil
business transacted in the Superior Court occurred in the ten counties
listed below. 45% of the civil cases pending on that date were in these
counties.
PENDING ADDED DISPOSED OF PENDING
7/1/85 1/1/67 1965*6 1967 1965-6 1967 6/30/66 12/31/67
Wake 2,027 1,995 2,010 2,086 2,157 2,265 1,880 1,816
Cumberland 1,431 673 2,043 271 2,306 421 1,168 523
Guilford 1,477 1,617 1,501 1,485 1,421 1,598 1.647 1,504
Durham 853 951 563 237 584 395 832 793
Forsyth 866 1,288 1,735 2,157 1,776 1,835 825 1,610
Columbus 727 965 556 497 397 601 886 861
Mecklenburg 2.668 3,334 4,486 4,876 4,506 4,325 2,648 3,885
Wayne 755 893 334 714 388 974 701 633
Gaston 939 1,106 1,259 1,372 1,251 1,681 947 797
Davidson 645 301 727 488 564 482 808 307
On the basis of statistical information made available to the Ad-ministrative
Office, the court schedule in the above counties was ar-ranged
so as to help reduce the number of cases pending in S of the
10 counties by Dec. 31, 1967. The number of cases pending on that date
was only 35.9% of the total cases pending in the State. The most
significant reduction occurred in Cumberland County where the Dis-trict
Court has been operating since Dec. 1966.
On Dec. 31, 1967, the 10 counties having the largest concentration
of cases pending were
:
Pending 1/1/67 Added Disposed of Pending 12/31/67 Utilizatioi
Court
Wake 1,995 2,086 2,265 1,816 80.9%
Guilford 1,617 1,485 1,598 1.504 82.3%
Forsyth 1,288 2,157 1.835 1,610 84.4%
Mecklenburg 3,334 4,876 4.325 3,885 86.6%
New Hanover 1,484 1,020 817 1,687 80.9%
Lenoir 1,323 627 707 1,243 85.7%
Harnett 1,859 253 21)5 1,817 70.5%
Pitt 933 498 575 856 S8.9%
Halifax 793 276 255 814 74.3%
Columbus 965 497 601 861 83.6%
The above counties accounted for 44% of the civil cases pending,
44% of the new cases, and 40% of the cases disposed of. In some of
the large counties the volume of new cases will always result in a large
number of cases pending, and the assumption of a crowded docket and
unreasonable delay is not always warranted. In other counties, such as
New Hanover, the number of cases pending is steadily increasing, with-out
a corresponding increase in new cases. This has caused some unde-sirable
delay in the disposition of cases. The absence of adequate physi-cal
facilities to accommodate the court schedule necessary to handle
the volume of business is primarily to blame for the situation.
The 10 counties with the largest volume of new cases filed during
1967 were:
County Neiv Cases Filed
Mecklenburg 4876
Forsyth 2157
Wake 2086
Guilford 1485
Gaston 1372
New Hanover 1020
Wilkes 897
Wayne 714
Cabarrus 698
Craven 660
Five of these counties are among the top ten counties in number
of cases pending.
21
CRIMINAL DOCKETS
There was a 5.1% increase in criminal cases filed over the previous
year. New cases exceeded dispositions by 4.4% during 1967.
CRIMINAL CASES ADDED, AND DISPOSED OF
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
July 1, 1963-December 31, 1967
Added
Disposed of 83888
7/1/63-6/30/64
7/1/64-6/30/65
:
7/1/65-6/30/66
:
1/1/67-12/31/67
:
34,460
M 33,338
(in thousands) | 10.5 21 31.5
31,633
30,941
33,241
31,830
Cases
Dispositions increased 2.9% over the previous year. Still, the num-ber
of cases pending December 31, 1967 was 10% above the January 1,
1967 number, and 20.7% above the June 30, 1966 figures. The growing
number of cases filed was largely responsible for this.
CRIMINAL CASES PENDING
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
July 1, 1964-December 31, 1967
7/1/66: faummt^K^^mmmmmm^^mmmmm 9,858
12/31/67
:
(in thousands) I 2
23
DISTRIBUTION OF PENDING CRIMINAL CASES
AMONG THE COUNTIES
In the year ending June 30, 1966, 42% of the total criminal cases
pending in the State were in the 9 counties listed below. By December
31, 1967, the cases pending in these counties made up only 29.5% of
the total. There was a reduction in the number of cases pending in all
but two of the counties.
Cumberland
Forsyth
Durham
Mecklenburg
Wake
Guilford
Gastou
Davidson
Buncombe 1,140 976 930 954 574 429
The 10 counties with the heaviest criminal dockets in 1967 were
FILED DISPOSED OF PENDING
1966 1967 1966 1967 6/30/66 12/31/67
1,139 690 1,021 929 347 201
1,578 1,159 1,496 1,178 428 190
1,433 897 1,438 956 398 400
2,489 2,715 2,726 2,866 400 594
1,062 1,382 1,197 1,493 581 415
1,872 1,975 1,809 2,073 660 594
1,013 964 782 961 408 392
506 426 440 477 336 296
FILED DISPOSED OF PENDING
12/31/67
Mecklenbu •g 2,715 2,866 594
Guilford 1,975 2,073 594
Wake 1,382 1,493 415
New Hanover 1,271 895 419
Buncombe 976 954 429
Gaston 964 961 392
Durham 897 956 400
Iredell 745 646 334
Catawba 727 699 307
Pitt 555 452 304
Most of the above counties kept their dockets reasonably current
during 1967, the large number of pending cases being attributable to a
buildup prior to January 1, 1967 and to the large volume of business
in the counties.
This group accounted for 35.2% of the pending cases in the State
at the end of the year, 36.7% of the cases filed and 37.7% of the cases
disposed of.
24
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 COUNTY RECORDER'S COURT
DOMESTIC RELATIONS MUNICIPAL RECORDER'S TOWNSHIP RECORDER'S
COURT COURT COURT JUVENILE COURT
COUNTY CRIMINAL COURT
MAYOR'S COURT JUSTICE OF THE PEACE
COURT
Under The Judicial Department Act of 1965:
GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE
APPELLATE DIVISION
THE SUPREME COURT
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE
THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE COURTS
1
SUPERIOR COURT
DIVISION
DISTRICT COURT
DIVIS ON
This structure is now in effect as to twenty-two counties. The District Court will be
activated in sixty-one additional counties on December 2, 1968. On December 7, 1970, the
new system will become implemented on a state-wide basis.
25
APPENDIX II
GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE
Routes of Appcal-
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
By Certification in Supreine Court's Discretion:
'Before Court of Appeals hearing:
1. 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
on
record
All except
death and
life im-prisonment
cases 1**
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
(22 counties)
•Utilities and Industrial Comm. cases must be heard by Court of Appeals before Supreme
Court can hear.
* 'Post-conviction hearing appeals go to Court of Appeals by writ of certiorari only, and no
further.
26
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 Director,
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 appropriation
necessary for the maintenance and operation of the Judicial
Department, and authorize expenditures from funds appropri-ated
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 operations
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
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. 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-345. Information to be furnished to Administrative
Officer.—All judges, solicitors, prosecutors, magistrates, clerks of su-perior
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 ex-penditure
of pubilc moneys for the operation thereof.
APPENDIX IV-A
CIVIL CASES PENDING, ADDED, AND DISPOSED OF
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS
BY JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
January 1, 1967-December 31, 1967
Fending Disposed ot Fending Gain or
1/1/67 Filed Jury Judge Other Total 12/31/67 Loss
1ST DISTRICT /
Camden do 6 3 3 3 9 17 — 3
Chowan 45 13 2 11 14 27 31 — 14
Currituck %1 11 5 4 2 11 21
Dare 45 7 3 6 8 17 35 — 10
*Gates 26 9 4 8 12 23 — 3
Pasquotank 139 72 10 42 59 111 100 — 39
Perquimans 52 4 2 5 15 22 34 — 18
Total 348 122 25 75 109 209 261 — 87
2ND DISTRICT
Beaufort 399 251 50 325 29 404 246 — 153
Hyde ,33 18 3 9 4 16 35 + 2
Martin 182 226 33 59 98 190 218 + 36
Washington 65 48 6 24 22 52 61 — 4
Total 679 543 92 417 153 662 560 — 119
3RD DISTRICT
Cartert 682 297 12 166 211 389 590 — 92
Craven 506 660 37 312 183 532 634 + 128
Pitt 9 33 498 42 286 247 575 856 77
Pamlico 59 43 4 9 16 29 73 + 14
Total 2,180 1,291 95 773 657 1,525 2,153 27
4TH DISTRICT
Duplin 411 355 14 131 159 304 462 + 50
Jones 75 63 1 44 16 61 77 + 2
Onslow 430 439 39 310 252 601 268 162
Sampson 338 256 26 172 107 305 289 — 49
Total 1,254 1,113 80 657 534 1,271 1,095 — 159
5TH DISTRJCT
New Hanover 1,484 1,020 142 317 358 817 1,687 + 203
Pender 340 209 9 35 89 133 416 + 76
Total 1,824 1,229 151 352 447 950 2,103 + 279
6TII DISTRICT
Bertie 103 87 7 24 36 67 123 + 20
Halifax 7 93 276 20 145 90 255 S14 + 21
Hertford 213 213 21 51 120 192 234 + 21
Northampton 1 31 134 21 42 51 114 151 + 20
Total 1,240 710 69 262 297 628 1,322 + 82
777/ DISTRICT
Nash 368 131 18 66 109 15)3 306 — 52
Wilson 411 284 26 68 175 269 425 + 14
Total 779 415 44 134 284 462 731 — 48
29
STB DISTRICT
Pending
1/1/67
\
Filed Jury
Disposed ol
Judge Other
1
al
Pending
12/31/67
Gain or
Loss
Greene
Lenoir
Wayne
Total
1.323
8b8
2.286
57
627
714
1,398
11
53
67
131
57
367
468
887
30
377
444
851
4
797
974
1,S69
66
1.243
633
1,942
— 4
SO
260
344
9TB DISTRICT
Franklin
Granville
Person
Vance
Warren
Total
5(
IS
1?
IE
1,01
4
.)
213
113
170
202
59
757
11
10
18
18
7
64
127
53
119
87
54
440
109
38
30
92
8
277
247
101
167
197
69
781
471
144
137
160
74
986
+
+
+
34
12
3
5
10
24
10TH DISTRICT
Wake i.m)5 2,086 545 739 981 2,265 1,816 — 179
11TH DISTRICT
Lee
Harnett
Johnston
Total
171
1,859
888
2,868
232
253
476
961
24
32
31
87
199
135
478
812
415
128
366
909
6cc
81
1,8(
.8
5
T)
)8
286
1,817
439
2,542
+ 115
42
399
326
12TH DISTRICT
Cumberland
Hoke
Total
61 3
9
J2
271
18
289
28
3
31
214
2
216
179
22
201
41>1
!7
[8
523
50
573
— 150
9
159
1STH DISTRICT
Bladen
Brunswick
Columbus
Total
2£
2]
9i
i,5i
]1
>8
145
190
497
832
13
28
71
112
22
71
399
492
47
46
131
224
6(
81
52
5
n
8
344
327
861
1,532
++
+
63
45
104
4
UTS DISTRICT
Durham
LiTH DISTRICT
Alamance
Chatham
Orange
Total
76-77/ DISTRICT
Robeson
Scotland
Total
7777/ DISTRICT
Caswell
Rockingham
Stokes
Surry
Total
951 237 45 30 320 395 "IK! 58
ft 9 520 30 32 462 524 645 — 4
- 3 147 23 32 38 93 277 + 54
2< 5 296 26 78 107 211 350 + 85
* 7 963 79 142 607 828 1,272 + 135
, >5 82 40 116 29 1 85 402 103
1( 20 o
•J 16 13 32 148 — 12
6( 5 102 47 132 42 21
7
550 115
2 2 58 6 19 35 do 20 2
% 509 67 388 123 518 457 — 09
114 18 32 95 145 44 + 31
761 382 30 61 611 702 441 — 320
,31<4 1,063 121 500 864 1.48P 962 — 422
30
Fending Disposed of Pending Gain or
1/1/67 Filed Jury Judge Other Total 12/31/67 Loss
18TII DISTRICT
Guilford \
Greensboro 1,524 1,319 185 583 588 1,356 1,174 — 50
High Point 393 272 49 37 156 242 330 — 63
Total 1,617
\
1,485 234 620 744 1.59S 1,504 — 113
19TH DISTRICT \
Cabarrus 656 698 53 312 430 795 599 — 97
Montgomery 53 64 5 32 27 64 53
Randolph 484 176 23 68 34 125 535 + 51
Rowan 404
1,597
400 18 207 89 314 490 + 86
Total 1,338 99 619 580 1,298 1,637 + 40
20TII DISTRICT
Moore 656 269 31 98 84 213 712 + 56
Anson 234 104 17 45 165 227 111 123
Richmond 263 304 41 80 118 239 328 + 65
Stanly 95 49 3 36 4 43 101 + 6
Union 186 260 31 84 178 293 153 33
Total 1,434 986 123 343 549 1,053 1.405 — 29
21ST DISTRICT
Forsyth l,: 288 2,157 244 971 620 1,835 1,610 + 322
22ND DISTRICT
Alexander 51 58 10 31 21 62 47 — 4
Davidson i SOI 488 84 380 18 482 307 + 6
Davie 31 124 6 60 46 112 43 + 12
Iredell (552 614 40 199 284 523 743 + 91
Total i,< )35 1,284 140 673 369 1,182 1,140 + 105
2SRD DISTRICT
Alleghany 43 56 6 19 57 82 17 — 24
Ashe 27 90 12 33 41 86 31 + 4
Wilkes 44 897 72 229 405 706 235 + 191
Yadkin 212 98 14 75 47 136 174 38
Total 326 1,141 104 356 550 1,010 459 + 133
2>(TH DISTRICT
Madison 46 51 9 30 17 56 41 5
Mitchell 40 47 5 30 26 61 26 — 14
Watauga 41 89 14 36 28 78 52 + 11
Yancey 105 332 12 54 246 312 125 + 20
Total 232 519 40 150 317 507 243 + 11
25TH DISTRICT
Catawba 356 88 23 107 119 249 195 161
Burke 224 89 36 110 128 274 225 + 1
Caldwell 142 62 11 65 46 122 82 60
Total 722 239 70 282 293 645 502 — 220
26TH DISTRICT
Mecklenburg 3,334 4,876 406 1,098 2,821 4.325 3,885 + 651
31
IVlhlillU
l/I/«7
Disposed ul Pending Gain o
Filed Jury Judge Other Total 12/81/67 Loss WTR DISTRICT
Cleveland .01 4-2.3 31) 163 107 309 415 + 114
Gaston 1,1 [H5 1^72 109 1,025 547 1,681 797 309
Lincoln JY.) 178 15 114 51) 18S 89 — 10
Total 06 1.1)73 163 1,302 713 2,178 1,301 — 205
JST 11 DISTRICT
Buncombe r:;i 565 89 408 52 549 547 + m
29TH DISTRICT
Henderson 177 61 14 35 25 74 164 — 13
McDowell 143 181 19 83 15 117 207 + 64
Polk 35 1 13 11 25 39 -f 10
Rutherford 157 20 140 27 187 93 + 19
Transylvania l: 108 102 46 148 70 40
Total 542 54 373 124 551 573 + 40
SOTII DISTRICT
Cherokee i)3 88 3 6 67 76 105 + 12
Clay o 10 3 3 7 + 7
Graham ( '.4 9 1 12 1 14 59 5
Haywood 11K 116 13 32 67 112 195 + 4
Jackson 170 20 4 31 25 60 130 40
Macon 48 11 2 3 4 9 50 + 2
Swain 66 11 1 29 30 47 19^
Total £ 265 23 85 196 304 593 — 39
GRAND TOTAL 37,644 31,481 3,607 14,340 15,655 33,602 36,592 —1,052
APPENDIX IV-B
UTILIZATION OF CIVIL COURT TERMS
BY JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
1967 Calendar Year
tST DISTRICT
Camden
Chowan
Currituck
Dare
Gates
Pasquotank
Perquimans
Total
2ND DISTRICT
Beaufort
Hyde
Martin
Tyrrell
Washington
Total
3RD DISTRICT
Carteret
Craven
Pamlico
Pitt
Total
yr/r district
Duplin
Jones
Onslow
Sampson
Total
7/7/ DISTRICT
New Hanover
Pender
Total
677/ DISTRJCT
Bertie
Halifax
Hertford
Northampton
Total
CHEDUEI:d days held
5 5
8% 7
5 2%
% %
i %
25 13%
10 4
55 33
50 46
4 3%
27% 13%
2 2
15 6
98% 71
45 42
50 32
3 1
36 32%
134 107%
35 22%
13 10
49 37
46 31%
143 101
115 93
27 22
142 115
17 13
35 26%
16 14
13 8
81 61%
DAYS UNUSED
27%
21
27
4
19%
33
1TB DISTRICT
Edgecombe
Nash
Wilson
Total
8TB DISTRICT
Greene
Lenoir
Wayne
Total
DAYS SCHEDULED DAYS HELD
30 24
55 43
60 47
145 114
14 9%
77 66
80 69
171 144%
DAYS UNUSED
12
13
31
4%
ii,
ii
26V,
."77/ DISTRICT
Franklin
Granville
Person
Vance
Warren
Total
25 17
16 10
25 iey2
23 21
17% 12%
106% 77
8
6
8%
2
5/
29%
/'//'// DISTRICT
Wake 335 271% 63%
7/77/ DISTRICT
Harnett
Lee
Johnston
Total
12TB DISTRICT
(Cumberland
Hoke
Total
18TB DISTRICT
Bladen
Brunswick
Columbus
Total
ryrii DISTRICT
Durham
100 70%
50 44
85 61
235 175%
t5 116%
7 6
i2 122%
15 14
50 43%
67 56
132 113%
24
59%
28%
1
29%
1
6%
1
18%
140 112
7.7/7/ DISTRICT
Alamance
(Chatham
Orange
Total
75 61%
25 22
50 41
150 124
13%
3
9
25%
34
16TH DISTRICT
Robeson
Scotland
Total
HTH DISTRICT
Caswell
Rockingham
Stokes
Surry
Total
1STH DISTRICT
Guilford
19TH DISTRICT
Cabarrus
Montgomery
Randolph
Rowan
Total
20TH DISTRICT
Anson
Moore
Richmond
Stanly
Union
Total
2 1ST DISTRICT
Forsyth
DATS SCHEDULED DAYS HELD DATS UNUSED
80
15
95
10
75
13
50
148
300
56%
4
60%
5%
56
11
41
113%
247
71 65
5 4
111 91
45 37
232 197
35 21
25 19
60 41
15 8%
32% 26%
167% 116
270 228 42
22ND DISTRICT
Alexander
Davidson
Davie
Iredell
Total
23RD DISTRICT
Alleghany
Ashe
Wilkes
Yadkin
Total
2J,TH DISTRICT
Avery
Madison
Mitchell
Watauga
Yancey
Total
14 7
95 94
13 8%
40 32%
162 142
11 6
10 6
55 49
12 8
88 69
11 8
25 19
12 6
10 6
15 8%
73 47%
35
15TB DISTRICT
Burke
Caldwell
Catawba
Total
2UT1I DISTRICT
Mecklenburg
DAYS SCHEDULED DAYS HELD DAYS 1'NTSED
30
40
40
110
580
29
31
502 78
27711 DISTRICT
Cleveland
GastOD
Lincoln
Total
38 34%
200 178
21 10
250 231%
1ST II DISTRICT
Buncombe 240 215
29TH DISTRICT
Henderson
McDowell
Polk
Rutherford
Transylvania
Total
30TI1 DISTRICT
Cherokee
Clay
Haywood
•Graham
Jackson
Macon
Swain
Total
GRAND TOTAL
40 29
15 11 4
11 9% 1%
45 29 16
25 17 8
L36 95% 40%
17 7 1C '
2 % %
30 24
13 8
16 7% %
10 7% %
5 3
93 57% 35 %
73% 4,158% 1,014 %
APPENDIX IV-C
CRIMINAL CASES PENDING, ADDED, AND DISPOSED OF
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS
BY SOLICITORIAL DISTRICTS
January 1, 1967-December 31, 1967
1ST DISTRICT
Currituck
Camden
Pasquotank
Gates
Perquimans
Chowan
Dare
Beaufort
Hyde
Total
2ND DISTRICT
Nash
Wilson
Martin
Washington
Total
3RD DISTRICT
Bertie
Halifax
Hertford
Northampton
Vance
Warren
Granville
Total
IfTII DISTRJCT
Lee
Harnett
Johnston
Wayne
Total
5TH DISTRICT
Carteret
Craven
Pitt
•Greene
Jones
Pamlico
Total
Pending
1/1/67 Filed Jury
Disposed ol
Judge Other Total
Pending Gain or
12/31/67 Loss
7 18
256 1,317
226
131
97—
241-
J&~
1,046
208—
50 33
114 98
88- 26T
37 28
-.156 W~
90
232
124
83
245
.362 -84-
-544 46-
1,348
-37- -91 m~ 184
^JL6 58 93_ 167
226 VZ2T 429
317——T7T- 540
123 689 508 1,320
36
11
255
33
62
30
42
94
19
582
102
140
15
3
260
34
37
52
36
98
54
59
370
95
86
50
14S
379
215
266
304
43
20
28
S76
+
+
17
12
3
15
5
16
13
17
11
65
3
25
14
4
4
7
5
7
14
4
22
3
44
50
41
67
4
28
+ 65 — 19
+ 103
+ 1
+ 12
+ 20
+ 182
37
6' Til DISTRICT
Duplin
Onslow
Lenoir
Sampson
Total
Pending
1/1/67 Filed
&
Jury
888 sr
IfOl 4384-^"*^aS_
3122 1,330 179
Disposed ol
Judge Other Total
205 49 278
188 121 340
170 175 443
100 T&. 299
753 423 1,355
Pending Gain or
12/31/67 Loss
59
64
102
72
297
+ 11
2
59
25
25
1TH DISTRICT
Wake
Franklin
Total
506 1^82 £©*— 724 518 1,493 415 — 111
69 404- 28— 72 32 127 46 — 23
595 1,486 274 796 550 1,620 461 — 134
STH DISTRICT
Brunswick
Columbus
New Hanover
Pender
Total
140-
1,712
27
39
117
20
209
113
262
895
88
1,358
32
36
419
56
543
— 45
+ 11
+ 394
+ 22'
4- 382
9TH DISTRICT
Cumberland
Hoke
Total
9TH A DISTRICT
Bladen
Robeson
Total
10TH DISTRICT
Durham
JOTH A DISTRICT
Alamance
Chatham
Person
Orange
Total
440
32
472
36
600 79
165- ~28-
855 107
465
- 86"
551
197-— 27 42
,466 -401——~"SBF
663 128 301
—385-8-
393
929
122
4051
11 80
10T 466
117 546
302 956
445
125
136
109 367
308 1,073
201
75
276
153
99
252
400
194
85
79
72
430
— 239
+ 43 — 196
+ 117
4- 117
— 59>
24
1G
38
48
30
11 Til DISTRICT
Alleghany
Ashe
Forsyth
Total
12TH DISTRICT
Davidson
Guilford
Greensboro
High Point
Total
48
67
209
324
347
692
292
400
1,039
-250-
1449
1,540
143
152
426'~ —68-
4975 -277
1,468 156
507 121
2,401 340
130
177
581
888
244
1008
718
290
1,252
23'
-39-
454
516
170,
988
462
320
958
156
222
1,178
1,556
477
2073
1,336
737
2,550
23 — 25
95 4- 28
190 — 19
308 4- 16;
296
594
424
170
890
— 51 — 98
+ 132 — 230 — 14£
13TH DISTRICT
Moore
Anson
Richmond
Stanly
Union
Scotland
Total
V,TU DISTRICT
<Gaston
1J,TH A DISTRICT
Mecklenburg
Pending
1/1/67 Filed
1©3-
Jury
Disposed of
Judge Other Total
25& 39 129— C7
^23 ML—
Pending Gain or
12/31/67 Loss
23
38
57
8
13
22
71
745 2r745- 291 1,739 ~836 2,S60 594
+
+
+
— 151
15TH DISTRICT
Rowan
Cabarrus
Randolph
Montgomery
Alexander
Iredell
Total
63 -599——-67——264 tt*— 443 219
129 679____56~ 40F~—*193~ 650 158
152 -323 40 1» IIT 249 226
54 -83 _12_ I5~ ~lfr- 103 34
29 -84- 3 55 0" 58 55
235 ^f4& 30 435-—-141 640 334
662 2,513 227 1,346 576 2,149 1,026
+ 156
+ 29
+ 74 — 20
+ 26
+ 99
+ 364
16TH DISTRICT
Catawba
Burke
Caldwell
Cleveland
Lincoln
Watauga
Total
17TII DISTRICT
Mitchell
Wilkes
Davie
Yadkin
Total
18TII DISTRICT
Henderson
McDowell
Rutherford
Polk
Yancey
Transylvania
Total
19TH DISTRICT
Buncombe
Madison
Total
407
48
455
-976
4£0—
1,156
93
100
49r ^370-
101 58
592 428
954
166
1,120
113
65
S9
7
56
159
4S9
60
32
44
99
34
58
65
429 + 22
62 + 14
491 + 36
39
tOTE DISTRICT
Clay
Cherokee
Graham
Haywood
Jackson
Macon
Swain
Total
21ST DISTRICT
Caswell
Rockingham
Stokes
Surry
Total
Pending
1/1/67 Filed Jury
Disposed ol
Judge Other
21
123
53
112
21
121
307
\m
$26 -8
101—- &
-ssa——20
1,523 39
Pending Gain or
Total 12/31/67 Loss
j)
o + 1
.>.) 44 + 23
2 5 + 4
223 96 — 32
36 18 + 13
26 5 + 1
43 18 + 10
390 188 + 2a
28
271
44
206
549
— 25
4- 159
+ 23
+ 85
+ 242
GRAND TOTAL 10,819 33,241 3,567 18,679 9,584 31,830 11,903 +1,084
40
APPENDIX IV-D
UTILIZATION OF CRIMINAL COURT TERMS
BY SOLICITORIAL DISTRICTS
1967 Calendar Year
1ST DISTRICT
Currituck
Camden
Pasquotank
Gates
Perquimans
Chowan
Dare
Tyrrell
Hyde
Beaufcrt
Total
DAYS SCHEDULED DAYS HEED
10
-30^-
7%
"28%
156y2
DAYS UNUSED
2%
1
1%
1%
%
1
2
4
2
1
15
2ND DISTRICT
Edgecombe
Nash
Wilson
Martin
Washington
Total
45
—
-45—
-66
-»%-
177%
3?
-88-
48-
44%
144%
8
7
12
3
3
33
3RD DISTRICT
Bertie
Halifax
Hertford
Northampton
Vance
Warren
Granville
Total
45^
,19—
138
9
-itf%-
115
1
5%
2%
2
3%
6
2%
23
jTH DISTRICT
Harnett
Johnston
Lee
Wayne
Total
36
45-
/55-
155
^%-
136%
6%
7
2
3
18%
5TJS DISTRICT
Carteret
Craven
Pamlico
Pitt
Greene
Jones
Total
5
4
6%
3%
2%
21%
41
tVI'11 DISTRICT
Duplin
Onslow
Lenoir
Sumps. 'ii
Total
DAYS SCHEDULED DAYS HELD
36
58
153
22
411
128
DAYS UNUSED
8
4
7
6
25
77/ DISTRICT
Wake
Franklin
Total
4^
345
-^4-
321
23
1
24
8Tg DISTRICT
Brunswick
Columbus
New Hanover
Pender
Total 151 1331-2
6%
7
3y2
i7y2
9TH DISTRICT
Cumberland
Hoke
Total 17S 161
8
3
11
9TH A DISTRIC T
Bladen
Robeson
Total
15-
rosr
100
-14-
^1
95
<TH DISTRICT
Durham
// A DISTRICT
A a ma nee
Chatham
Person
Orange
Total 120
54>2
17
110
3
5
1%
10
TH DISTRICT
Alleghany
Ashe
Forsyth
Total
9
144 127
4
4
9
IT
JiTH DISTRICT
Davidson
Guilford
Total
51% oy2
19%
23
42
DAYS SCHEDULED DAYS HELD DAYS USTJ8ES
LiTH DISTRICT
Anson 20 -
TT~^ 9
Moore 25 HT~ 3
Richmond ^5 - 2tfft 9%
Stanly 15 -
—
Vf :;
Union Ji^%— 2t%- 1
Scotland __W 10- 1
Total 137% 111 26%
//7V/ DISTRICT
Gaston .406 170 11
//77/ I DISTRJCT
Mecklenburg .340 3i«- 24
l.YJ'H DISTRICT
Rowan .40 " 31-
Cabarrus 40 —«- 8
Randolph -25-- 20- ."i
Montgomery -20 10- 10
Alexander -0 —Sr" 1
Iredell -o£) —14-#r- 5yo
Total 100 151% 38%
1GTII DISTRICT
Barke -46- 34** 5%
Caldwell -46 "ST- 3
Cleveland -47- 45*6 1%
Lincoln -44- 13r- 3
Watanga 15 43- 2
Catawba 55 54
1
Total 211 105 16
HTH DISTRICT
Mitchell 43 40- 3
Wilkes 40-— 33- 7
Yadkin 28 r*- 6
Davie 4t- 19-" 4
Total 107 96 21
t8TH DISTRICT
Yancey 15 12J* 2%
McDowell ^35 33- 3
Rutherford -30 2$- 1
Polk +4— 40**" 3%
Henderson -20 1544 4%
Transylvania 10 16 3
Total 133 115% 17%
19TH DISTRICT
Buncombe 456— 146%- 3%
Madison 485*"* !r9
—
6
Total 175 165% 9%
43
10TB DISTRICT
Cherokee
Clay
Graham
Haywood
Jackson
Macon
Swain
Total
DAYS SCHEDULED DAYS HELD
5%
2
30
18—
15
94%
1%
21!
8
50%
DAYS UNUSED
6%
4
1
8
8%
9
7
44
8£gT DISTRICT
Caswell
Rockingham
Stokes
Surry
Total
5Mr- 4%
6%
4
9
24
GRAND TOTAL 4,140 3,657% 482%
44
APPENDIX V-A
CIVIL CASES IN DISTRICT COURT
PENDING FILED DISPOSED OF PENDING
1/ 1/67 12/81/67
FIRST DISTRICT
Camden w 46 32 16
Chowan fj 120 101 23
"Currituck Jo 37 32 5
Dare 1 61 46 16
Gates 98 83 15
Pasquotank 11 373 313 71
Perquimans 1 53 34 20
Total is 788 641 166
TWELFTH DISTRICT
Cumberland 735 3,079 2,600 1,214
Hoke 73 210 199 84
Total 808 3,289 2,799 1,298
FOURTEENTH DISTRICT
Durham 1,561 4,387 4,758 1,190
SIXTEENTH DISTRICT
Robeson 46 1,927 1,242 731
Scotland 15 430 338 252
Total 19
_
2,357 1,580 983
TWENTY-FIFTH DISTRICT
Burke 17 803 550 270
Caldwell . 1,229 819 431
Catawba i 6 2,067 1,716 397
Total 74 4,099 3,085 1,098
THIRTIETH DISTRICT
Cherokee 201 128 73
Clay 4 29 17 16
Graham ) 45 20 27
Haywood 1 ! 579 504 88
Jackson 5 166 56 115
Macon ' 83 51 40
Swain . 113 83 31
Total 3 i 1,216 859 390
GRAND TOTAL 2,690 16,136
45
13,722 5,125
APPENDIX V-B
CRIMINAL CASES IN DISTRICT COURT
PENDING
1/1/67
FIRST DISTRICT
FILED DISPOSED OF PENDING
12/31/67
Camden
Chowan
Currituck
Dare
Gates
Pasquotank
Perquimans
Total
4
-
2
1
11
[2
9
2
404
1,310
464
1,080
763
1,786
951
6,767
376
1,255
460
1,005
776
1.737
010
6,627
37
101
7
27
18
01
71
352
TWELFTH DISTRICT
Cumberland
Hoke
Total
1,911
46
1,957
24,973
2,352
27,325
25,667
2,249
27,916
1,217
140
1,366
FOURTEENTH DISTRICT
Durham 103 18,500 17,902 707
SIXTEENTH DISTRICT
Robeson
Scotland
Total
567
ISO
753
11,654
3,250
14,004
11.252
3,234
14,486
969
202
1,171
TWENTY-FIFTH DISTRICT
Burke
Caldwell
Catawba
Total
133
247
112
552
6,030
6,887
14,209
28,035
6,052
6,206
10,645
23,803
296
946
3,736
4,978
THIRTIETH DISTRICT
Cherokee
Clay
Graham
Haywood
Jackson
Macon
Swain
Total
•
(
I
1
1(
4(
18
$3
J6
>4
)7
ra
1,587
340
641
4,660
1,570
1,004
1,071
10,081
1,588
386
618
4,300
1,610
1,140
1,204
10,954
57
26
50
285
76
49
40
502
GRAND TOTAL 4,042 106,521 101,688 9,166
46
APPENDIX V-C
DISPOSITION OF CIVIL CASES BY COUNTIES
IN DISTRICT COURT
By Jury ll.v Judge Magistrate Other Total
Camden 1 6 19 6 oh
''r
Chowan 5 22 5G 18 101
Currituck 2 2 17 11 4 Dare 7 10 24 5 46
Gates 8 68 7 *
Pasquotank 18 101 133 61 318
Perquimans 5 8 13 8 :;4
38 157 330 116 641
Cumberland 113 1,003 1,064 360 2,600
Hoke 5 95 65 34 199
118 1,158 1,129 394 2,799
Durham 114 705 3,467 472 4,758
Robeson 23 273 677 269 1,242
Scotland 8 95 160 75 338
31 36S 837 344 1,580
Burke 9 216 267 58 550
Caldwell 22 136 621 40 819
Catawba 43 506 919 248 1,716
74 858 1,80' 346 3.085
Cherokee 5 42 39 42 128
Clay 2 3 11 1 17
Graham 5 13 2 20
Haywood 19 107 325 53 504
Jackson 3 28 25 56
Macon 3 22 15 11 51
Swain 48 20 15 83
37 263 i:r 125 sr.o
GRAND TOTAL 412 3,509 8,001 1,794 13,722
47
APPENDIX V-D
DISPOSITION OF CRIMINAL CASES BY COUNTIES
IN DISTRICT COURT
Jndge Plea Waiver Prelim.
Hearing
Other Total
Camden 90 132 140 1 13 VI6
Chowan I'll 410 477 64 93 1,255
Currituck 152 83 182 17 35 4^9
Dare 120 447 427 41 60 i,ok
Gates 199 144 448 16 49 8$6
Pasquotank 292 505 622 163 155 1,737
Perquimans 152 144 578 6 39 919
1,216 1,865 2,874 308 444 6.707
Cumberland
Hoke
3,079
340
3,419
11,296
1,034
12,330
6,018
570
6,588
89
59
148
5,185
246
5,431
25,667
2,249
27,916
Durham
Robeson
Scotland
2,769
1,155
710
1,865
7,216
5,471
1,455
6,926
6,000
2,593
695
3,288
337
203
143
346
1,580
1,830
231
2,061
17,902
11,252
3,234
14,486
Burke 1,126 2,042 3,014 336 433 6.951
Caldwell 644 3,024 1,825 309 386 6,188
Catawba 1,166 5,053 3,231 198 997 10,645
2,936 10,119 8,070 843 1,816 23,784
Cherokee 593 460 432 32 67 1,584
Clay 194 90 95 3 4 386
Graham 161 77 367 12 1 618
Haywood 536 1,750 1,684 89 340 4,399
Jackson 115 312 512 32 639 1,610
Macon 181 174 500 12 282 1,149
Swain 244 763 80 40 77 1,204
2,024 3,626 3,670 220 1,410 10,950
GRAND TOTAL 14,229 42,082 30,490 2,202 12,742 101,745
48
APPENDIX V-E
APPEALS FROM DISTRICT COURT
TO SUPERIOR COURT—1967
FIRST DISTRICT
Camden
Chowan
Currituck
Dare
Gates
Pasquotank
Perquimans
Total
CIVIL CRIMINAL
11
45
37
60
30
177
28
388
TWELFTH DISTRICT
Cumberland
Hoke
Total
488
96
584
FOURTEENTH DISTRICT
Durham 21 782
SIXTEENTH DISTRICT
Robeson
Scotland
Total
207
175
382
TWENTY-FIFTH DISTRICT
Burke
Caldwell
Catawba
Total
276
219
528
1,023
THIRTIETH DISTRICT
Cherokee
Clay
Graham
Haywood
Jackson
Macon
Swain
Total
20
3
5
91
16
12
159
49
APPENDIX V-F
NUMBER OF DAYS AND HALF DAYS
DISTRICT COURT WAS IN SESSION—-1967
FIRST DISTRICT
SKAT CIVIL CRIMINAL
Manteo r,M, 37
Gatesville 4y2 my,
EdentOD 7 45
Hertford 4 41
Camden 2y2 13
Elizabeth City 13 GO
Currituck 7 22
431/2 2371/2
TWELFTH DISTRICT
Fayetteville
Raeford
263 y,
30
FOURTEENTH DISTRICT
2931/2
Durham
SIXTEENTH DISTRICT
344
Lumberton
Maxton
St. Pauls
Red Springs
Rowland
Fairmont
Laurinburg
1341/2
1
1%
37
TWENTY-FIFTH DISTRJCT
174
Hickory
Newton
Morganton
Lenoir
38
52
47y»
38y2
THIRTIETH DISTRICT
176
Waynesville
Sylva
Bryson City
Franklin
Murphy
Robbinsville
Hayesville
Canton
29
1
1
2
1
iy2
35y2
50
4061/2
36y2
443
393
146y,
44y>
46
421/2
28
47
79
4331/2
1351/2
104
104
99
4421/2
'STATE LIBRARY OF NORTH CAROLINA
mi mi ii
3 3091 00748 3266
