The defendant says in his brief: “There is a conflict in the testimony of Williams and Lawson. Of course, if Williams is to be believed, Lawson is guilty. On the other hand, if Lawson is to be believed he is not guilty, and he is entitled to have a jury pass upon the facts.”

It must be conceded, we think, that the evidence is sufficiently equivocal, if not contradictory, to require its submission to the jury without peremptory instruction. S. v. Anderson, 208 N. C., 771; S. v. Hicks, 200 N. C., 539, 157 S. E., 851; Strunks v. Ry., 187 N. C., 175, 121 S. E., 436; Overall Co. v. Holmes, 186 N. C., 428, 119 S. E., 817.

In the absence of some admission or incriminating testimony on the part of the defendant, it is seldom that a verdict of guilty can properly be directed in a criminal case. S. v. Singleton, 183 N. C., 738, 110 S. E., 846; S. v. Hill, 141 N. C., 769, 53 S. E., 311; S. v. Riley, 113 N. C., 648, 18 S. E., 168.

New trial.