SCHENCK

v.

UNITEI)

STATES.

41.-

Syllabus.

Colombia

act

specially

concerning

the

empresarios

of

railroads,

we

do

not

discuss

a

suggestion,

made

only,

it

is

said,

to

show

that

the

act

is

inapplicable,

to the

effect

that

the

charter

of

the

Railroad

Company

did

not

grant

the

power

to

operate

the

omnibus

line.

The

company

was

acting

under the

authority

and

direction

of

General

Goethals

and

we

do

not

understand

that

the

defence

of

ultra

vires

is

set

up

or could

prevail.

In

view

of

our

conclusion

upon

the

main

point

but

little

need

be

said

with

regard

to

allowing

pain

to

be

con-

sidered

in

fixing

the

damages.

It

cannot

be said with

certainty

that

the

Supreme

Court

of

the

Zone

was wrong

in

holdin

that

under

the

Civil Code

damages

ought

to

be

allowed

for

physical

pain.

Fitzpatrick

v.

Panama

R.

R.

Co.,

2

Canal

Zone

Sup.

Ct.

Rep.

111,

129,

130;

McKenzie

v.

McClintic-MarshalI

Construction

Co.,

id.,

181,

182.

Physical pain

being

a

substantial

and

appreciable

part

of

the

wrong done,

allowed

for

in

the

customary

compensa-

tion

which

the

people

of

the

Zone

have

been

awarded

in

their

native

courts,

it

properly

was

allowed

here.

Judgment

affirmed.

SCHENCK

v.

UNITED

STATES.

BAER

v.

UNITED

STATES.

ERROR

TO THE

DISTRICT

COURT OF

THE

UNITED

STATES

FOR

THE

EASTERN DISTRICT

OF

PENNSYLVANIA.

Nos.

437,

438.

.\rgucd

January

9,10,1919.-Decided

March

3,

1919'

Evidence

/hld

tuificient

to

connect

the

defendants

with'the

mailing

of

printede

ircul'rs

in

pursuance

of

a

conspiracy

to

obstruct

the

re-

cruiting and

clistment

service,

contrary

to

the

Espionage

Act

of

June

15,

1917.

P.

49.