The interpretation of the policy in suit, as announced in the court below, that plaintiff’s injury is not within its terms, finds support in the following eases: Whitaker v. Ins. Co., 213 N. C., 376, 196 S. E., 328; Headen. v. Ins. Co., 206 N. C., 860, 175 S. E., 282; Gilmore v. Ins. Co., 199 N. C., 632, 155 S. E., 565; Jolley v. Ins. Co., 199 N. C., 269, 154 S. E., 400; R. R. v. Casualty Co., 145 N. C., 114, 58 S. E., 906. The nonsuit would seem to be correct.

But for another reason, the appeal must be dismissed. The Court is without jurisdiction to entertain it. The attempted appeal is in forma pauperis, and the supporting affidavit is defective, in that, it does not contain the averment, required by C. S., 649, that appellant “is advised by counsel learned in the law that there is error of law in the decision of the Superior Court in said action.” This is a jurisdictional requirement. Lupton v. Hawkins, 210 N. C., 658, 188 S. E., 110; Powell v. Moore, 204 N. C., 654, 169 S. E., 281; Hanna v. Timberlake, 203 N. C., 556, 166 S. E., 733; McIntire v. McIntire, ibid., 631, 166 S. E., 732; Riggan v. Harrison, ibid., 191, 165 S. E., 358; Honeycutt v. Watkins, 151 N. C., 652, 65 S. E., 762.

There is no authority for granting an appeal in forma pauperis without proper, supporting affidavit. Lupton v. Hawkins, supra.

Appeal dismissed.