Newspapers / The Journal-Patriot (North Wilkesboro, … / March 3, 1949, edition 1 / Page 2
Part of The Journal-Patriot (North Wilkesboro, N.C.) / About this page
This page has errors
The date, title, or page description is wrong
This page has harmful content
This page contains sensitive or offensive material
The JoBrul - Patriot INDEPENDENT in politics Published Mondays and Thursdays at North Wilkesboro, North Carolina JULIUS C. HUBBARD—MRS. D. J. CARTER Publishers 1982—DANIEL J. CARTER—1»41 SUBSCRIPTION RATES: One Year ?. $2.00 (la Wilkes and Adjoining Counties) One Year $3.00 (Ontslde Wilkes and Adjoining Counties) Rates to Those in Service: One Year (anywhere) $2.00 Entered at the postoffice at North WUkesboro, North Carolina, as Second-Class mstter under Act of March 4, 1879. Thursday, March 3, 1949 Auto Inspection Low Is Killed The legislature in overwhelming vote followed the voice of the people and repealed the auto inspection law. Action of the legislature was no more than was expected. The law has been administered with unpardonable blunders which a free people would not tolerate. The inspection law was good, but administration was several degrees worse than deplorable. The state needs an inspection law similar to what has just been repealed. But when the powers in charge of administration of the law set short periods for inspection of certain models of numerous cars, and did not provide facilities for such inspection when required, they made a horrible blunder that had the only result it could have—repeal of the law. The requirements for approval in the inspection lane were not radical. It is true there were certain things of little or no connection with highway safety which should have been eliminated, like rejecting a car because one sheet of the safety glass on a door was cracked. Generally speaking, most people would like to keep their cars in shape to pass inspection. But a free people will not tolerate being pushed around as the rush for inspection lanes since January 1 caused. They would not have opposed the measure in great degree had they been able to have their cars inspected as the edicts from Raleigh required. But when they had to undergo such hardship as waiting for days in a line of cars they rebeled. Those in charge of administration of the law should have been more familiar with North Carolina people. o Training Needed For Law Enforcement Officers A law enforcement officer is very much a public servant. His is a position carrying grave responsibility, for which he seldom is fitted by education or training. The Federal Bureau of Investigation requires that each agent have a degree from a law school, and each must go through a period of rigid training and indoctrination. They must also be men of more than average intelligence. The State Highway Patrol selects men carefully and gives them a period of training and instruction, which is fine far as it goes but is often not enough when responsibility of the position is considered. But counties and towns are in a different category. In spite of the fact that sheriffs, deputies and policemen are guardians of security, they are in most cases drastically unprepared for their duties. No training is required or provided; often they know nothing about constitutional rights of individuals; their ignorance of rules of evidence in courts often prove insurmountable handicaps in trying for effectiveness in their work; too often they are lacking in experience and education in procedure necessary to get the desired results. In many instances, especially with small cities and towns, the budget for the police department does not allow the paying of a salary sufficient to attract the trained type of men desired. But this handicap could be partially overcome with a program of training. Each police officer, deputy, member of rural police or similar organization should be provided, at municipal or county expense, with a short course which would fit them i for their duties, aa far as fundamental J knowledge of law and court procedure are concerned. Such a course would provide instructions in gathering evidence and presenting evidence in court. It would greatly increase efficiency of law enforcement. A trained operative in law enforcement usually prepares his case before making an arrest. The untrained is prone to arrest first and ask questions later, which often results in cutting off any additional information necessary to obtain a conviction. Any officer may have sufficient reason to convince himself that a suspect is guilty, but evidence sufficient to satisfy 12 men beyond reasonable doubt is another matter, and is the goal for which the law officers should strive in solving a case. The untrained officer is likely to make an arrest and call the case solved. Months elapse and the jury turns the defendant loose for lack of convincing evidence. With progress being made in many lines in this post war era, more attention should be given by federal, state, county and municipal governments to the securing of adequate talent for effective law enforcement, and to provide at least a course of fundamental instruction and training for all law enforcement personnel. o — THE EVERYDAY COUNSELOR By Rev. Herbert Spaugh, D. D. Men and women everywhere are hungry for attention, appreciation and affection. There may be surpluses in many other things, but there is still a shortage in these three A's. Again and again we have urged the readers of this column to show attention, appreciation and affection to those who are closest to them, and the most often neglected. A striking illustration of this vital need is related by Hal Boyle in February's Reader's Digest, "The Doctor Tells a Story." While it may appear fantastic to many readers, it is not to doctors and clergymen who are confronted with those intimate instances in life which the rank and file fail to see. It is a story of a strong and vigorous but close-mouthed ranchman, who married a girl whom he deeply loved, but failed to tell her so. She was called upon to undergo an emergency operation from which she failed to rally. Blood transfusions were given without apparent effect. Finally, the husband offered his own blood to the doctor who examined his blood but found it the wrong type. However, he resolved upon a bold experiment. He did not tell the husband that his blood was the wrong type, but agreed to give the requested transfusion. The husband was placed on a cot alongside his wife with a screen between. The wife showed a little interest when her husband told her he wanted to give his blood. While the operation was in process the wife whispered to her husband, "I love you, John." After a moment of silence, John said, "Louise, you have got to get well!" Then he hesitated and finally choked out, "I love you." The doctor noticed an upsurge in the wife's pulse, who said, "John, tell me again." He hesitated, then repeated, "I love you, Louise, more than anything in the world. I love you and need you, and I am going to make you well!" The wife was now weeping for joy. The doctor said, "You have done it, John." He then signaled the nurse who pulled the needle from John's arm and removed the jar from beside his bed in which his blood has been flowing. Then he removed the needle from Louise's arm which was bringing blood of the right type from another receptacle. The doctor never told them the truth, but secretly rejoiced in her recovery and their newfound happiness. How long has it been since you husbands and wives have told your mates that you loved them? Remember, they want to hear it. How long since you parents have told your children that you loved them? How long since you have shown them appreciation? They want to hear it. How long since you children have told your parents that you loved them and demonstrated your appreciation of what they! have done for you? They want to hear it. | ounty Superior Court ^ HON.). WILL IPLESS, Jr. JUDGE PRESIDING MARCH TERM 1949 FIRST WEEKMONDAY, MARlCH 7,1949 No. No.. No. No. No. NO. No. No. NO. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. -NoNo. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. 2 State vs Paul Cleary, Non- Support. 5—State vs Lester Marley, 1 Ton-Support. 10—State vs Nelia Dora Brewjer, A. W. D. W., and Using Profane Language. 11—State vs J. P. Roberts, Assault. 12—State vs Efner Duncan, ). C. I. 14—State vs Monroe Harris, reckless Driving. 29—Edward Gregory, Speeding 30—State vs Henry Ford Hari, Reckless Driving. 31—Burman Isaac Holland, O. C. L, and Reckless Driving. 38—State vs C. L. Mayberry, Reckless Driving.' 50—State vs Walter Monroe C reer, Reckless Driving. 53—State vs Frank E. Power, 0. C. I. 50—State -vs Pervis Baker, R ickless Driving and O.C. I. 00—State vs Robert Lee Baiker, Reckless Driving. 61—Billie Dean Transou, Speeding. 62—State vs Ralston Staley, Speeding. 63—State vs Roy William' Ro se, O. C. I. 64—State vs James Howard 1 -and, O. C. I. 68—State vs P. W. Wingler, 3. C I. 72—State vs Arvil Ford Darnell, 0. C. I. 74—State vs Phillip Wade He Icomb, 0. C. I. 79—State vs Arville Dewey Sturgill, Reckless Driving. 88—State vs Avery Pilkentc n, 0. C. I. and Operatng Car After Revocation of License. 89—State vs Hampton Odell Wyatt, Reckless Driving. 92—State vs Ralph Barnes, 3. C. L and Operating Car Without Driver's Liceni e. 104—State vs Miles F. Woo en, 0. C. I., and Reckless Driving. 105—Garvey Tulburt, 0. C. 1. 112—State vs General Combs, Speeding. 123—State vs Conrad Church 0. C. I. and Operating Car Without Driver's Lic« nse. 124—State vs Thomas Abe Dancy, O. C! I. 145—State vs Mack Eller, S peeding and Operating Car After Revocation of License. 146—State vs Clarence Hubeit Necessary, 0. C. L 147—State vs Conrad Prevet e, O. C. L 148—State vs Pauline Bell, ! teckless Driving. 149—State vs John L. Carter, 0. C. I. 158—State vs Bobby Lee Sparks, Reckless Driving and Speeding. 162—Clarence James Call, C. C. L 163—State vs Coy Curtis Elledge, Reckless Driving. 165—State vs Robert Johnsoij 169—State vs Gurney Smithy 170—State vs Worth Samuel 177—State vs Arnold Wesley 185—State vs James Fred Brbwn, O. C. L 186—State vs Preston Mathis, O. C. I. 187—State vs Moses G. Harl ;ss, O. C. I. 188—State vs Reece Carter, 0 189—State vs Fred Dyer, O. O. C. L 0. C. L Cook, Speeding. Eller, 0. C. I. • C. L C. L 194—State vs Weldon A. Royal, 0. C. I. 196—State vs J. D. McLean,JO. C. I. 18—State vs Junior Combs, O. C. I. 200—State vs Russell R. Darjnell, O. C. I, 206—State vs Tal Barnette, TUESDAY, MARCH 8 Faw, O. C. I. 28—State vs James Franklin 85—State vs Paul Pardue, Diunkenness. 86—State vs Rufus Hall, Drunkenness. 90—State vs Carl Combs, Diunkenness 91—State vs Charlie Harris, 118—State vs Oliver Houstoi latng Motor Vehicle Laws. 140—State vs James Ollie /W 141—State vs James Ollie W 142—State vs Claude Triplet 143—State vs Claude Triplets, O. C. I. 144—State vs Linnie Harley llinton, V P. L 151—State vs Fred Hart, Jr. 152—State vs Fred Hart, C C 155—State vs Estel Hayes, 0 Operating Car Without 156—Ssate vs Estel Hayes, I Resisting. 157—State vs Estel Hayes, ( . C. W 172—State vs Council (Pat) O. C. I. 173—State vs Council (Pat) 0 .C. I. Drunkenness. Absher, Resisting and Vio addell, 0. C. I. addell, V. P. L. V. P. L. 0. C. I and Speeding. W. 153—state vs Clifford Joe Brown, Reckless Driving and V. P. L. C. I., Reckless Driving and Driver's License. r» vt • Hayes, Reckless Driving and 11u—»b \Hayes, Resisting. 106—State vs Estel Hayes; V. P. L^ Gambling and Violating Slot Machine Laws. 174—State vs Charlie R. Nichols, 0. C. L and Operating Car Without Driver's L icense. 175—State vs Charlie R. Nichols, V. P. L. 176—State vs Billy Transou, Reckless Driving. 179—State vs Dallas Stuart ireene, Speeding. 180—State vs Deward Hart, Speeding. 181—State vs Blum Vestal E endren. Reckless Driving. 182—State vs Jesse David A< ams, O. C. L 183—State vs Jesse David A< ams, V. P. L. 190—State vs Fred Carlton Bumgarner, Speeding. 191—State vs William Darlington, O. C. I. and No Operator's license. 82—State vs Estel Hayes, V dating Slot Machine Law. 32—State vs Estel Hayes, Violating Slot Machne Law. 117—State vs R. Stuart Abs ler, Resisting. WEDNESDAY] 193—State vs Jack Williams 199—State vs Clarence Ray 203—State V6 Earl G. C. Hai 211—State vs Albert Cardwell 213—State vs John W. Burn< 22—N. T. Steelman and Gro 44—State vs Crom Church 46—State vs Noah Hall Wa 47—State vs Roy Bynum, 52—State vs George Bell, 54—State vs Dewey Greene, 69—State vs Bill Kilby, V. P 75—State vs Nora Perry, V. 142—State vs Claude Triplettj, 154—State vs James Leroy St' 161—State vs Clarence Cothri 178—State vs Kenneth Wei" 184—State vs John Wesley 222—State vs Sam Allen and 65—State vs Robert Sizemorej a ii ,trii Pti] Pu»l THURSDAY, No. 25—State vs Willard Wiles, No 26 State vs Claude Hall, d, No. 27—State vs Gordon "J. V. No. 34—State vs J. W. Michael, No. 35—State vs George Sidney MARCH 9 Reckless Driving. jBdwards, Speeding, es, Speeding. Public Drunkenness. 4tte, Public Drunkenness, hie Wagoner, F. & A. d Viola Minton F,. & A. ins, A. W. D. W. folic Drunkenness, ic Drunkenness. V. P. L. L. L. V. P. L. fkeleather, V. P. L. n, Using Profane Language. V. P. L. , V. P. L. Nora Allen, V. P. L. and Veraa Cothren, F. & A. botn, w MARCH 10 Ras tardy. |. C. I., and Reckless Driving, urch, 0 C. I. C. I. (Wilson, 0. C. I. and Operat-I Oh ing Car Without Driver's License. No. 86—State vs George Sidney Wilson, Attempt to Bribe. No. 37—State vs Pearl Coble, C. C. W No. 39—State vs Fred Call, A. W. D. W. No. 40—State vs Fred Call, Setting Out Fre. No. 57—State vs Carlos Hayes, Abandonment. No. 59—State vs Owen Roberts, Abandonment. ^ No. 66—State vs James Dillard Cothren. Hit and Run. No. 70—State vs Prudie Bumgarner, Disordely House. No. 71—State vs R. L. Sebastian and Mae Walker, Disorderly House. No. 77—State vs Baxter Johnson, Trespass. No. 78—State vs C. M. Gilreath and Mary G. Jarvis, Assault and Forcible Trespass. No. 80—State vs Chester Shumate, Abandonment. No. 98—State vs Alexander Bowie, Abandonment. No. 113—State vs Lloyd Church and Lennie Church, Disorderly House. FRIDAY, MARCH 11 No. 7—State vs Tyre Alexander, Worthless Check. No. 9—State vs Paul Hutchison and Silas Hutchison, L. & R. No. 16—'State vs John Frank Johnson, Bastardy. No. 17—State vs Raymond Estep, V. P. L. No. 18—State vs Charlie A. Johnson, Resisting. No. 19—State vs Ralph Ferguson, L. & R. No. 20—State vs Raymond C Dawson, Criminal Assault and Bastardy. No. 21—State vs Orpha Elizabeth Cardwell, Forgery. No. 23—State vs Junior Byrd, Non Support. No. 24—State vs Raymond Franks, Non Support. SECON D WEEKMONDAY, MARCH 14 No. 13—State vs Ernest Harrison Taylor, Murder. No. 32—State vs John Inskeep, Hit and Run. ,< No. 41 State vs Troy Church, False Pretense. No. 42—State vs Gene Hayes, L. & R. No. 48—State vs Chessie Greene & Ila Greene, A. W. D. W. No. 49—State vs Richard Anderson, Non-Support. No. 51—State vs Robert Hayes and Ralph Hayes, A. W. D. Vt with Intent to Kill. No. 83—State vs James Parks, Disturbing Religious Worship. No. 84—State vs Jimmie Parks, Assault. No. 97—State vs Coy Shepherd and Hubert Holleman, H. B. and L. & R. No. 102—State vs James Bell, Embezzlement. No. 107—State vs Truman Hall, Operating Pool Room Without Lcense and Selling Beer Without License. No. 108—State vs Truman Hall, A. W. D. W. and Resisting. No. 109—State vs Tal Bynum, Gambling. No. 115—State vs Irene Johnson and Lula Johnson, Disorderly House. No. 119—State vs Glenn Absher and Fletcher Absher, A.W.DW. No. 120—State vs Glen Absher and Fletcher Absher, Assault. No 126—State vs J. P. Pardue, Injury to Property. No. 127—State vs Paul Trivette, Abandonment. ' No. 130—Leonard Wyatt, Non Support. No. 131—State vs Paul Pennell, L. & R. TUESDAY, MARCH 15 No. 93—State vs Lester Smith, A. W. D. W. with Intent to Kll. No. 94—State vs Tony White, Assault with Intent to Kill. No. 95—State vs Lee Wyatt, A. >W. D. W., with Intent to Kill. No. 96 State vs Ray Brown, A. W. D. W. No. 121—State vs Quincy (Sonny) Brown, Assault. No. 125—State vs Gray Faw, Seduction. No. 128—State vs Richard A. Riggs, Worthless Check. No. 129—State vs Richard A. Riggs, False Pretense, i No. 138—State vs Jesse Dana Triplett, Hit and Run. No. 139—State vs Jesse Dana Triplett, Reckless Driving. No. 150—State vs Paul McGlamery, Non Support. No. 159—State vs Duke Mitchell, L. & R. No. 160 State vs Monroe Mitchell, L & R. No. 166—State vs R. A. Riggs, Worthless Check. No. 167—State vs R. A. Riggs, Worthless Check. No. 171—State vs James Welborn, Assault. No. 195 State vs Billy Parsons, O. C I. No. 197—State vs Arnold Church, A. W. D. W. No. 202—State vs Laveme (Vernon) Pruitt, Abandonment No. 204—State vs Early Speaks, A. W. D. W. WEDNESDAY, MARCH 16 » No. 33—State vs Mack Joines, Manslaughter. No. 43—State vs Gene Holbrook and Wm. H. Collins, L. & R. No. 45—State vs Paul McConnihead, L. & R. No. 58—State vs Albert Hawkins, A. W. D. W with Intent To Kill. No. 73—State vs Frank Prevette, Manslaughter. 4 No. 76—State vs H. E. Poindexter, Disposing of Mortgaged A Property. No. 114—State vs Vera Ester, Assault With Intent to Rape. No. 116—State vs Hort Key, Rudolph Johnson and Bryan Cox, Burglary. No. 164—State vs Carl Davis, A. W. D. W. No. 168—State vs John L. Foster, Non-Support. No. 207—State vs Julius James Carson, alias Bubble Carson, alias James William Carson, L. & R. No. 208—State vs James William Carson, Reckless Driving and Hit and Run. No. 209—State vs A. J. Long, Assault on Female. No. 214—State vs Lonnie A. Ashley, O. C. I THURSDAY, MARCH 17 No. 192—State vs Wallace Howell, L. & R. No 201—Gilbert McGlamery, L. & R. No. 210—State vs Guy Harris and Talmage Prevtte, H. B. and L. & R. No. 55—State vs Ed Gilreath, Embezzlement No. 212—State vs Keaster Burchette, L. & R. and Public Drunkenness. No. 215—State vs Odell Shepherd. A. W. D. W. with Intent to Kill. No. 216—State vs Garney Church, Charlie Wyatt and Dean Powers, A. iW. D. W. with Intent to Kill. No. 217—State vs Arvil Eller, H. B., L. & R, No. 218—State vs James Eller, H. B., L. & R. No. 219—State vs Clyde Marley, Non Support and Assault on Female. No. 220—State vs Louise Brooks, Abandonment. No. 221—State vs Granville Coffey, Non Support. FRIDAY, MARCH 18 No. 99—State vs E. L. Beshears, A. W. D. W. and Injury to Personal Property. No. 100—State vs E. L. Beshears, O. C. L No. J01—State vs E. L. Beshears, C. C. W. No 110—State vs E. L. Beshears, Clyde Curry and Noah Call, A. W. D. W. with Intent to Kill No. Ill—State vs E. L Beshears, Violating Motor Vehicle Laws. A new calendar for the Third Week of Court will be made and posted at the close of the second week. Witnesses subpoenaed to appear before tlie Grand Jury will do so on the day they are subpoenaed, and after they appear before the Grand Jury they will a ppear back on the day the case is calendared for trial. Witnesses in cases not reach© on the day they are calendared for trial are required to remain in court until the case is disposed of or until they are dism ssed. ♦ All cases in which the defend into are bound over to thii te™ and which do not appear on the calendar are subject to be called for trial at any time. All cases in which the defendants are in jail are subject to b« called at any time regardless of where the case appears on the calendar.
The Journal-Patriot (North Wilkesboro, N.C.)
Standardized title groups preceding, succeeding, and alternate titles together.
March 3, 1949, edition 1
2
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75