In this maintenance and cure case appellant objects to a part of the award on the ground that the particular time it covers was a period during which the *959 seaman refused to avail himself of hospital care and treatment. The trial court who saw and heard the seaman found that his failure to seek medical assistance on the specified occasion was not wilful and that his actions were not of such nature as to warrant a forfeiture of his right to maintenance and cure. The record bears out the correctness of this con-elusion.

The judgment of district court will be affirmed. D.C., 129 F.Supp. 225.