State v. Blanton
| Citation | 42 S.E.2d 663,227 N.C. 517 |
| Decision Date | 05 June 1947 |
| Docket Number | 505 |
| Parties | STATE v. BLANTON et al. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina |
The appealing defendant and his codefendants, Ward M. Blanton and Vivian Baird, were tried on an indictment charging them with conspiracy to procure persons "to commit wilful and corrupt perjury before the courts of the State of North Carolina" and that "they did combine, conspire and confederate, and plan together amongst themselves each with the other and with each other to suborn of perjury and for corrupt bargaining and contracting with other to commit wilful and corrupt perjury and to procure false testimony to be given wilfully and corruptly knowing the same to be false and they knew and believed that such testimony would be false and knowing that the persons suborned would wilfully and corruptly give false testimony and that they, the said Ward M. Blanton, Vivian Baird and W.T. Shore, induced and procured said persons to give false testimony in actions before the Courts of the State of North Carolina and did, in fact, procure through such unlawful wilful, wicked and deceitful and felonious conspiracy succeed in having perjury committed in the Courts of the State of North Carolina, to-wit:"
There follow 10 numbered paragraphs in each of which the charge of conspiracy is repeated, with specific references to incidents of overt accomplishment, causes in which the perjuries are alleged to have been committed, the nature of the perjury, particulars of procurement, and concerted action.
The conspiracy alleged was in connection with actions brought in Mecklenburg Superior Court in a wholesale scheme to obtain divorces for persons actually residing out of the State, and principally, or wholly, within the State of South carolina. The perjury referred to in the indictment relates to false proof of North Carolina residence requisite to procure a divorce here, both as a matter of evidence and pleading.
The defendants moved to quash the indictment on the ground that it was not found on competent testimony; and that it failed to charge the commission of a crime. The motion was overruled in both respects.
The defendants pleaded not guilty and the trial proceeded. During its course a plea of nolo contendere was accepted from the defendant Baird. Blanton and Shore were convicted, but only Shore appealed.
In general outline the evidence points to the office of Colonel T.L. Kirkpatrick, a prominent attorney of Charlotte, now deceased, as the headquarters of the defendants Blanton and Baird in organizing and handling the divorce business referred to in the indictment and alleged to be illicit. Colonel Kirkpatrick was entirely disabled, later died, and is not chargeable with participation in the enterprise. Blanton not a practicing attorney, had occupied the office subsequent to the disablement of Col. Kirkpatrick. Vivian Baird was a secretary in the office, holding a commission as Notary Public. W.T. Shore, a practicing attorney, handled the court end of the business, receiving the complaints or pleadings prepared in the office, going over them in pretrial conference with clients, presenting the cases and examining the clients and witnesses on the hearing, and performing all the offices of actual attorney and attorney of record as required. The evidence discloses that many cases were tried and disposed of before interference by the S.B.I. brought the activities to a close. The defendant Shore received $10 per case, paid usually by Blanton, but not directly received from the clients represented. Blanton received sums varying from $100 to $150 or more per case.
From this office direct solicitation of clients was made in extensive territories in South Carolina, both by Blanton and persons employed by him; and through clients and otherwise the business was advertised, and the fact that divorces could be obtained from the North Carolina Courts through the facilities of the office, regardless of the fact that applicants were not residents of the State.
Oscar E. Sells, testifying for the State, testified that he had gotten in trouble about gasoline coupons and Blanton accompanied him to Washington to see "various Senators and Congressmen." After his conviction and service of a six months term he came to Charlotte to see Blanton who engaged him to ride over the country with one Isadore Groskin to sell oil stock. Vivian Baird was employed in Blanton's office. Witness drove Blanton to South Carolina on several occasions and went down there and solicited business for the office. People from South Carolina would come up and get divorces. Blanton was giving him money to eat on, his car when he wanted it, and a commission on all the business he brought in. At one time he took Blanton and Vivian Baird to Rock Hill and they sent him over to see Evelyn Barr, and her sister, Thelma Chassereau, to see what could be worked out in getting some divorce cases. He did see them and the two sisters rode all over Rock Hill to see their friends who wanted divorces. Witness went down to Rock Hill on two other occasions and called on people, leaving the address and phone number of Blanton's office with a pawn broker who was to advise all those at the Finishing Plant who wanted divorces how they could get "fixed up."
One Pearlie Steedly came up from Fort Mill and got her divorce through the Blanton office. Witness' wife was required to testify as to the residence. Shore represented Pearlie Steedly, She obtained the divorce.
On the trip with Blanton and Baird, Blanton, in the presence of Mrs. Baird, Mrs. Barr, and Mrs. Chassereau, said that "there were literally thousands of divorce cases in South Carolina, and all we had to do was to contact the people and get them up there and we would get our commission on each divorce." Soon afterward he saw Mrs. Barr and Mrs. Chassereau in Blanton's office. They were getting a divorce for Mrs. Chassereau "on account of her husband being in the service and she hadn't seen him for three or four years."
Witness stated that Blanton offered Mrs. Sells $10 a case for establishing legal residence in North Carolina for non-residents applying for divorces through his office, and on one occasion gave her $10--in the Steedly case. He said that since the indictments were filed Blanton had menaced him in various ways to prevent him from testifying in the case.
This witness' wife corroborated her husband as to part of his testimony. She further testified that some of the plaintiffs were cautioned not to let Mr. Shore know anything about residence, that he was just going to try the case. That she was in the courthouse and testified in the Doris Williams case, but did not have to tell a lie.
Evelyn Barr (mentioned in Section 4 of the indictment as having obtained a divorce as the result of the conspiracy) testified that she lived at Rock Hill, South Carolina, had lived at the address for over a year. That she sued for a divorce in Mecklenburg Superior Court. The complaint was prepared by Blanton, who signed Mr. Shore's name to it. Shore was not in the office at the time. The paper was notorized by Miss Baird. (It shows Mrs. Barr verified the complaint which alleges her residence to have been in North Carolina for the requisite period). That she later met Mr. Shore in Blanton's office, and asked him if it would be all right to go through with that divorce, knowing that she lived in the State of South Carolina, and he said "yes," and she proceeded to a hearing before Judge Hamilton. She paid Blanton either $135 or $137 for legal services.
The witness stated that after the indictment both defendants Baird and Blanton came to see her and menaced her in an attempt to keep her from court. Blanton tried to frighten her, and she threatened to call the local police. He later gained entrance to her home and told her she wouldn't like to come up missing at work, and threatened violence to her sons; later threatened to have her arrested if she came into the courtroom.
On cross-examination she stated that on the trial she swore that she was a resident of North Carolina upon the advice of her "so-called" attorney; that she did not hire Shore and has never paid him anything. That Blanton told her and her sister what to say in court upon the trial that day and said,"Is that right, Bill?", and Mr. Shore said, "Yes." That Shore did not tell them what to go to court and swear, Mr. Blanton told them what to say. Mr. Shore did ask her how long she had been separated from her husband. That was the first time he had ever asked anything about the subject.
Mrs Chassereau (mentioned in paragraph 8 of the indictment as having obtained a divorce through Blanton's office and the appearance in court of Shore) testified that she was sent up there through a girl who had gotten a divorce through the Blanton office, and met Blanton and Baird, but did not see Shore at the time. Both Blanton and Baird knew that she was not a resident of North Carolina. She paid Blanton and Baird for getting the divorce. She had before started suit for divorce but that case was thrown out of court and she begun anew with Blanton and Baird. The witness stated that she was a resident of South Carolina; that she, with several of other applicants for divorce, saw Shore on February 18, the day she got her divorce, and Shore talked to all of the girls present. He asked if they were sure that they had...
To continue reading
Request your trial