Case Name: THE NORTH CAROLINA STATE BAR, Complainant, v. ELAM REAMUEL TEMPLE, Attorney at Law, Johnston County, Smithfield, North Carolina, Respondent
Court: North Carolina Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1968-11-13
Citations: 3 N.C. App. 73
Docket Number: No. 68SC93
Parties: THE NORTH CAROLINA STATE BAR, Complainant, v. ELAM REAMUEL TEMPLE, Attorney at Law, Johnston County, Smithfield, North Carolina, Respondent
Judges: Campbell and Britt, JJ., concur.
Reporter: North Carolina Court of Appeals Reports
Volume: 3
Pages: 73–73

Head Matter:
THE NORTH CAROLINA STATE BAR, Complainant, v. ELAM REAMUEL TEMPLE, Attorney at Law, Johnston County, Smithfield, North Carolina, Respondent
No. 68SC93
(Filed 13 November 1968)
Appeal by respondent from Martin (Robert), S.J., October 1967 Session, JoHNSTON Superior Court.
The facts of this case are set out in State Bar v. Temple, 2 N.C. App. 91, 162 S.E. 2d 649. In apt time, respondent filed a petition to rehear. Because a motion of complainant suggesting a diminution of the record had not come to the attention of the Court, although properly filed and with proper notice to respondent, this Court granted the petition to rehear and directed oral arguments under Rule 44(e), Rules of Practice in the Court of Appeals of North Carolina.
Robert B. Morgan and B. E. James for complainant.
Elam Reamuel Temple, Attorney pro se, and John W. Hinsdale for respondent appellant.

Opinion:
Morris, J.
Respondent's appeal in this^ matter was duly docketed and calendared for hearing on 12 June 1968. At that time the respondent did not appear to argue. The matter was calendared for rehearing on 23 October 1968. Again respondent did not appear to argue, nor did counsel who had signed his brief appear to argue, although respondent's petition to rehear specifically requested that the Court direct oral arguments.
We have carefully examined the brief filed by respondent on rehearing and have re-examined the record. All assignments of error were considered and disposed of in the opinion of Britt, J., in State Bar v. Temple, 2 N.C. App. 91, 162 S.E. 2d 649, and no useful purpose would be served by a second opinion discussing the assignments of error and reaching the same conclusion. We, therefore, deem it sufficient to say that each of respondent's assignments of error has been considered and found to be without merit.
Affirmed.
Campbell and Britt, JJ., concur.