Adams v. . Murphrey

Pee CuRiam.

One member of the Court, Schenck, J., not sitting, and the remaining six being evenly divided in opinion whether, in the circumstances, error was committed in allowing the jury to view the premises of the defendants and to observe the processes of operation, Highway Com. v. Hartley, 218 N. C., 438, 11 S. E. (2d), 314, the judgment of the Superior Court stands affirmed as the disposition of this appeal without becoming a precedent, accordant with the usual practice in such cases. Outlaw v. Asheville, 215 N. C., 790, 1 S. E. (2d), 559.

Affirmed.