The objections of the defendants to the physical description and operation of the machines introduced in evidence, given by witnesses who had examined, studied and tried them in operation, are without merit. Of the same character is the objection to the testimony of White relating to the physical changes necessary to convert, or we should properly say in view of the evidence, reconvert the machines into coin slot operated machines.

The feature of the trial defendants more strongly challenge as objectionable relates to the testimony of White that the change could be made in 15 or 20 minutes and what they contend was his failure, or demonstration, that it could not be accomplished at all. The appellants contend that his estimate of the time required was incompetent as opinion evi *555 dence, and even so bis demonstration was tantamount to a failure of tbe State’s evidence on the critical issue, justifying a nonsuit on the demurrer.

We cannot agree to either proposition.

The witness was testifying as to matters within his knowledge, upon facts of his own observation, and not as an expert within the ordinary legal acceptation of that term who bases his findings on the testimony of others,—hypotheses of fact, the truth of which he must assume. His statement is made in connection with the simple physical changes he saw necessary to effect the conversion; and we should say the defendants, if there should be some technical doubt as to the competency of the evidence, could hardly be prejudiced by the witness’ estimate of the time it would take to solder connections in three or four wires.

The evidence tends to show that the adaptation of the machines to use as slot machines under the definition given in G.S. 14-306 could be readily and easily made; and the motion for judgment of nonsuit was properly declined.

Other exceptions are not regarded as meritorious.

We find

No error.