Do the findings of fact of the municipal court in the judgment of 26 November, 1941, support the conclusion of the court that the defendant violated the terms of the suspended sentence? We are of-opinion they do not. Sentence was suspended “conditioned upon the defendant’s being law-abiding and of good behavior for a period of five years; . . . and conditioned further that no woman be allowed to reside on any farm controlled by the defendant unless such woman dwell with mentally competent male members of her family.”
While the court finds as facts, in the judgment entered 26 November, 1941, that Naomi Wheeler has lived with the defendant since said judgment was entered; that she had her clothes in the house of the defendant on the farm of the defendant, and that she ate at the same place; that the defendant frequently spent the day on his farm with only Naomi Wheeler present, and when no male member of her family was present; the court fails to find as a fact that the defendant has violated any law or that he has not been of good behavior. Neither does the court find as a fact that the defendant has allowed a woman to reside on any farm controlled by him and that said woman has not dwelt with mentally competent male members of her family.
To legally impose a sentence on account of the violation of a condition in a suspended judgment, the court must find as a fact that some expressed condition in the judgment has been violated. S. v. Hardin, 183 N. C., 815, 112 S. E., 593.
The findings herein are lacking in essentials to show a violation of the conditions relied on in the judgment. Naomi Wheeler may have been residing on a farm controlled by the defendant and she,may not have *465dwelt on said farm witb mentally competent male members of ber family, but tbe court did not so find.
His Honor erred in sustaining tbe judgment of tbe municipal court of tbe city of 'Winston-Salem, and tbe judgment of tbe court below is