The judgment under review should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion of Chief Justice Brogan, *486 reported in 131 N. J. L. 1, reserving, however, the question of liability udder the doctrine of the maritime law for maintenance and cure of the plaintiff as a seaman. The case was not decided by the jury on that theory, and it is not necessary to pass upon that phase of the case.

The judgment is affirmed.

For affirmance — Tiie Chancellor, Parker, Case, Donges, Iíeher, Persiste, Porter, Wells, Rafferty, Hague, Thompson, Dill, JJ. 13.

For reversed — None.