into the open central cargo space.  Though in effect the rail was continuous, there was evidence that it was composed of sections of varying length.


3
Haywood testified that, while standing on the gunwale, he undertook to pull in a line thrown from another vessel.  In so doing and without looking down he placed one foot back against the low rail behind him to brace himself.  At that juncture he says a section of the rail gave way causing him to fall back into the hopper injuring himself.


4
Immediately thereafter Haywood left or was assisted from the scene to obtain medical attention and no one else seems to have inspected the point from which he fell.  As a result, though the physical condition of the railing immediatelyafter the accident must have been apparent at the time, there is no direct testimony in this record either to corroborate or contradict the plaintiff's statement that a section of the rail gave way under the pressure he exerted against it with his foot.  However, in view of such testimony as there was of the nature, construction, and attachment of the railing, a reasonable mind might well have viewed the plaintiff's account standing alone as incredible.  Indeed, during the plaintiff's case, and immediately after Haywood had stated his version of the accident, a juror asked about the rail, 'How could it break off?'


5
In this context, plaintiff's counsel tried to elicit from plaintiff himself and from another seaman, a witness for the defense who had certain barge