TRIBUNAL OF CAIRO. (Judgment on Appeal.) 24 OCTOBER 1923. MM. Hassan Sadek Rasheed Bey (Pres.); Muhammad Tewfeek Sirry Bey, Ameen Zaky Bey (JJ.); Saba Habashy Eff. (State Rep.). STATE REPRESENTATIVE AND ANOTHER v. MOSTAFA EL FOOLY EFF. I. Abuse of confidence—Cause of obligation—Alteration therein.—(Art. 296 P.C.). II. Abuse of confidence—Alteration of the cause of obligation—Effect. (Art. 296 P.C.). I. Where in respect of a purely civil transaction such as the sale of an immovable, the purchaser, owing to the pressing of the vendor as regards the payment of the price, was compelled to acknowledge in a bill that he received in deposit an equivalent sum, in order to be subject to a criminal penalty, the purchaser, if such circumstances be proved, shall not be considered responsible for the offence of abuse of confidence punishable under Article 296 P.C. II. If the contracting parties have stipulated in the agreement, that the obligation had for cause a contract of deposit while in fact it is not so in the case, the agreement is illegal, as it provides for a criminal penalty in case of non-performance of a purely civil obligation other than those mentioned in Article 296 P.C. Consequently, the real cause of the obligation can be proved by all means of proof.