Tbe only question raised by tbe defendant is whether the evidence justifies the finding that the plaintiff has an easement in the driveway described in the complaint as appurtenant to his land. It is insisted that the user must be “adverse and of right,” as pointed out in Mebane v. Patrick, 46 N. C., 23; that the plaintiff has failed to show that the defendant had knowledge of any claim of right to the asserted easement; and that the action should have been dismissed. We think there is sufficient evidence to sustain the finding; and the charge as to adverse user is clear, explicit, and free from error.

No error.