¶1 The single question for decision is whether proper foundation or predicate was laid for the introduction in evidence of the dying declarations of the deceased. The defendant relies upon S. v. Stewart, 210 N. C., 362, 186 S. E., 488, for a negative answer. We agree with the Attorney-General that the case is controlled by the decisions in S. v. Triplett, 211 N. C., 105, 189 S. E., 123; S. v. Carden, 209 N. C., 404, 183 S. E., 898; S. v. Beal, 199 N. C., 278, 154 S. E., 604, and cases there cited. The foundation is sufficient. S. v. Wallace, 203 N. C., 284, 166 S. E., 716; S. v. Mills, 91 N. C., 581; Wigmore on Evidence, sec. 1440.
¶2 Moreover, the dying declarations of the deceased appear to have had but little, if any, weight with the jury. The shooting was admitted and the jury returned the following verdict: “We find the defendant not guilty of murder in the first degree; not guilty of murder in the second degree; but we find him guilty of manslaughter.”
¶3 The exceptions are not such as to vitiate the trial.
¶4 No error.