We think tbe case is one for tbe jury. True, there is evidence tbat tbe eaves of defendant’s building do not extend over any portion of tbe sidewalk. There is also evidence tbat they do. This presents a conflict in tbe testimony of plaintiff’s witnesses, solvable alone by tbe jury. Franck v. Hines, 182 N. C., 251, 109 S. E., 21; Shell v. *197 Roseman, 155 N. C., 90, 71 S. E., 86; Evans v. Cowan, 194 N. C., 273, 139 S. E., 434.
Tbe general rule is, tbat when a landlord or owner “knowingly demises premises in a ruinous condition or in a state of nuisance,” or “where he authorizes a wrong,” he renders himself liable to third persons for injuries resulting therefrom. Knight v. Foster, 163 N. C., 329, 79 S. E., 614; Bucher v. Willey, 174 N. C., 42, 93 S. E., 379; Brooks v. Mills Co., 182 N. C., 719, 110 S. E., 96; Price v. Travis, 149 Va., 536, 140 S. E., 644, 56 A. L. R., 209; 13 R. C. L., 404; 25 Am. Jur., 566.
Applying this principle to the facts in hand, it would seem that the evidence is sufficient to carry the ease to the jury.