The plaintiff sued for the recovery of damages for an injury alleged to have been sustained through the negligence of defendant in permitting a defect in the street to remain unrepaired and in a dangerous condition. The plaintiff recovered a verdict, and -from the ensuing judgment the defendant appealed. Upon consideration of the appeal the Court was evenly divided — three to three — Justice Schenck not sitting. Therefore, the judgment of the court below stands affirmed, and this decision does not become a precedent. Smith v. Bottling Co., ante, 202, 19 S. E. (2d), 250; Adams v. Murphrey, ante, 165, 19 S. E. (2d), 250; Seay v. Ins. Co., 213 N. C., 660, 197 S. E., 151.

Affirmed.