Hinkle v. . Scott

Stacy, O. J.,

dissenting: The only suggestion of illegality of the slot machines in question is the bare i¡osi dixit of the sheriff, “it is denied that said machines are legal.” Thus, upon this denial, which is a mere conclusion, it is presumed by the majority “that the court found sufficient facts to support the judgment.” No such presumption can be indulged when all the evidence is before us and there is none to support it. Dunn v. Wilson, 210 N. C., 493. Even findings without evidence are unavailing. Howard v. Board of Education, 189 N. C., 675, 127 S. E., 704. The present holding is at…