WEEKS V. PANAMA RAILROAD COMPANY.21

Although the amendment was allowed defendant's counsel did not plead surprise nor did he accept the court's offer of an adjournment to secure additional evidence to meet the new allegations.
In his brief in this court counsel for the appellant company makes four assignments of error.
1. That the lower court erred in refusing to grant defendant's motion for a nonsuit at the close of the plaintiff's case.
2. That the court erred in allowing the amendment to the complaint hereinbefore noted.
3. That the court should have granted judgment to the defendant on the law and the facts at the conclusion of the whole case.
4. That the award of damages was excessive.
The conclusion which we have reached with respect to the third assignment of crror obviates the necessity of any consideration of the first and last assignments. Appellant's counsel, however, urges so insistently that it was error to allow the amendment to the complaint that we think it wise to discuss the assignment of error referring to such amendment.
Sections 102 and 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure which relate to amendments of pleadings are broad and liberal in their scope. Section 102 provides that where there is a material variance between the allegations of a pleading and the proof that "Courts shall not dismiss the action by reason of the variance, but shall upon such terms as may be just order the pleadings to be forthwith amended in accordance with the facts, and determine the action upon the actual facts established." Such -amendments may be made at any stage of the action either in the Circuit Court or in the Supreme Court. Section 103 likewise provides that in furtherance of justice and on such terms as may be be proper, at any stage of the action either in the Circuit Court or the Supreme Court, the court shall allow a party to amend any pleading by correcting- any mistaken allegation or description in any respect "so that the actual merits of the controversy may speedily be determined without regard to technicalities, and in the most inexpensive and expeditious manner." In other words these provisions with reference to the allowance of amendments, conform to the general scheme of procedure of the Codes of Procedure in force in the Canal Zone which is that technicalities shall not interfere with the accomplishment of a speedy and inexpensive conclusion of' controversies. The sections provide against any injustice to the party objecting to the amendment

215