FITZ PATRICK V. PANAMA RAILROAD COMPANY. 12

The appellant contends that, notwithstanding such might be the rule of law, the court should have admitted the testimony of J. A. Smith, to prove the qualifications of engineer Falkner, in charge of engine No. 658, and refers to the case of Jaramillo vs. Davila, decided by the Supreme Court of Bogota, where like evidence was admitted, but this objection may be disposed of by saying that, under our view of the ruling of the court below in excluding that defense from the issues of the case, such evidence would clearly have been incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, and, under our view of the law, there was no error or abuse of discretion on the part of -the court in excluding such evidence.
Appellant's remaining assignments of errors relate to the question of damages which were assessed to the plaintiff in the sum of $7,000, and the action of the court in overruling the motion for a new trial. It is the contention of the appellant that the court below should not have allowed damages for physical pain and suffering, and, in this connection, reference is made to article 2341 of the Civil Code of Panama as follows:He, who shall have been guilty of an offense or fault which has caused another damage, is obliged to repair it without prejudice to the principal penalty which the law imposes for the offense committed.
In support of his contention appellant relies upon a similar article 1902 of the Civil Code of the Philippines as follows:
A person who, by an act or omission, causes damage to another, when there is fault or negligence, shall be obliged to repair the damage so done.
And to the decisions of the Supreme Court of the Philippines construing said article. In Marcello vs. Velasco, decided September 17, 1908, the Supreme Court of the Philippines says:
Under article 1902 of the Civil Code no damages can be recovered for the pain suffered by an injured person at the time of or subsequent to the accident causing the injury.
We think the Supreme Court of the Canal Zone in the case of Reese vs. Shay has laid down a contrary rule. In that case it was held that an action of slander could be maintained in the Canal Zone without allegations of any special or pecuniary damages arising therefrom. It may be said that the codes of Louisiana, Porto Rico, the Philippines, and the Canal Zone, are practically identical in this respect, and, if it were necessary to look beyond the decision of this court in the case of Reese vs. Shay,, we find abundant authority in Porto Rico and Louisiana in support of the appellee's contention that damages for pain and suffering were

129