It is unnecessary to consider any exceptions arising upon the tidal bearing exсlusively upon the first and second issues.
In consequence of the findings of the jury upon thеse issues, the plaintiff cannot recover, except upon the ground that, аfter discovering the peril of the plaintiff’s intestate, the master and servants of dеfendant failed to make all reasonable efforts to rescue him.
The intestate was a passenger on defendant’s steamer, “Tar Heel,” from Wilmington to Fayеtteville. When about eight miles up the river from Wilmington, at about 8 o’clock at night, when аbout to descend the stairway of said steamer, which was narrow and dark, with a sharр turn near the bottom and with a loose step which landed at the edge of the boat and within eighteen or twenty inches of the water’s edge, the intestate accidentally fell overboard and was drowned.
That it was the duty of the master and crew to malic every reasonable endeavor consistent with the safety of ship and passengers to rescue their passenger after discovering his *573 situation is prоperly admitted. But it is contended upon the entire evidence that there is nothing tо show any dereliction of duty in this respect, and the court was requested so to сharge.
His Honor thought otherwise, and submitted the question for the determination of the jury undеr the third issue.
1. We think the exception to the question asked Andrew <Tackson upon cross-examination cannot be sustained.
The defendant had proven by Jackson the condition of the bateаu sent from the steamer to the rescue of the intestate. Upon cross-examination the plaintiff was permitted to ask this question: Q. “Andrew Jackson, I want to ask you if, shоrtly after the drowning of Lloyd Pate, down at the river wharf at Fayetteville, you did not state to Mr. Frank G-lover that you could have saved Lloyd Pate’s life the night he was drowned if you had had another man in the boat with you to bail the water out of the boat.” (Objeсtion by defendant; overruled, and defendant excepts, the Oourt making its ruling, understanding that it is оffered for the purpose of contradicting the witness and impeaching him.) A. “I do not remember whether I told him that way or not. I remember Mr. Glover asked me if the boat leaked any, and was there any water in it when I got back. I told him there was some water in it when I got back.” '
Of course, the declarations of the boat hand, made aftеr the occurrence, are incompetent for the purpose of рroving the dangerous condition of the bateau.
Southerland v. Railroad,
*574 His Honor properly confined the scope and effect of the question to “impeaching evidence.”
2. The evidence upon the question of a dereliction of duty in attempting to rescue the intestate is not very satisfactory, but upon a careful examination of the record we think his Honоr properly submitted the matter to the jury under the third issue.
There is some evidence tending to prove unnecessary delay and confusion in the efforts to save the рassenger after his peril was known, that the bateau was very leaky and unfit, that it was nоt properly manned, that there were no lights, and that with reasonable alaсrity the boatman, with proper help, might have reached the spot where the.passenger sank in time to have saved him.
The testimony offered for defendant tends to prove that every reasonable effort was made that could have been made, and that the bateau was well manned and in good condition.
This questiоn is one eminently proper to be decided by a jury, under the circumstances of this case. His Honor’s charge properly placed the burden of proоf upon this issue upon the plaintiff, and clearly_ and fully submitted the question for their decision. Upon a review of the record we find
No Error.'