v. Monition of execution, 11 February 1900.

Abandonment of Appeal.—v. Appeal (Abandonment) 7 March 1900.

Abuse of Confidence.—v. Fraudulent conversion, 10 June and 1 November 1899.

Acquittal (Damages).—v. Jurisdiction (of Criminal Courts), 11 January 1900.

Acts of Government.—v. Jurisdiction, 11 January 1900.

Adjournment.—v. Dismissal, Cir. 14 May 1900.

Administration.—v. Production of documents, 2 December 1899.

Administrative Measures.—v. Jurisdiction, 11 January 1900.

Advocate.—v. Mandate, 8 June 1899.

Amount in Dispute.—v. Jurisdiction (of Civil Courts), 5 February 1898 and 25 January 1900.

Appeal.—v. Appealable amount, 12 January and 11 April 1899; Jurisdiction (of Criminal Courts), 31 December 1898 and Cir. 4 April 1900; Notice of Appeal, 1 June 1899.

In the case of abandonment by a person of an appeal which he has entered against a judgment condemning him in criminal proceedings, it is the duty of the Parquet to mention the fact to the Court which would have heard the appeal, and to apply for an entry on the record of the judgment declaring the abandonment; but the attendance before the Court of the person in question is not indispensable. (Cir. 7 March 1900, No. 3, p. 175).

The fact, that the cross appeal of a respondent has been introduced by notice of appeal served on the appellant, does not divest the cross appeal of its inherent character. Such an appeal is consequently in time, if brought before the abandonment of the principal appeal or at any time up to the close of the hearing prior to judgment. (Cir. 14 May 1900 No. 7, p. 272).

١ In the case of a judgment deciding on a claim of ownership raised by a third party in the course of proceedings for compulsory sale before an administrative authority, in virtue of an Elam Sharieb, the ordinary rules as to the time for appealing are to be observed. The limits fixed by Art. 600 C.C.C.Pr. are applicable only in the case of proceedings by a creditor for a compulsory sale in accordance with the provisions of such Code. (Trib. App. Zagazig, 11 April 1899, p. 164).

٢ v. Appeal (Cross), Cir. 14 May 1900.

Appeal (Out of time).—v. Exception, 3 December 1899.

١ When an action for an amount, exceeding the limits of jurisdiction of a Summary Court, is brought before a Tribunal of First Instance, and the plaintiff in the course of the trial so reduces his claim as to bring it within the jurisdiction of a Summary Court, subject to a right of appeal, the decision of the said Tribunal, allowing the amount finally claimed, is to be considered as a judgment of first instance and consequently as subject to appeal. (App. 12 January 1899, p. 136).

٢ When a claim is brought by several heirs, the value of the share of each of whom is less than the appealable amount, an appeal will lie, if the aggregate of the sums claimed by the appellants is not inferior to such amount. (Trib. App. Zagazig 11 April 1899, p. 164).

Assault.—v. Marital power, 28 June 1899; Participation (Criminal), 7 and 15 November 1899.

Attempted Offence.—v. Counterfeit coin, 23 January 1900.

Auction (Sale by).—v. Illegal consideration, 8 February 1900.

Authority (Implied).—v. Co-ownership, 25 November 1899.

Balance (of disputed debt).—v. Jurisdiction (of Civil Courts), 25 January 1900.

Balance (of partnership account).—v. Evidence, (Parol) 17 April 1900.

Bankrupt (Actions relating to person of).—v. Civil claimant (Partie Civile), 22 February 1900.

[تكملة فقرة بدأت في صفحة الفهرس السابقة] …separate application for cassation, are those which terminate the criminal proceedings. A judgment of any other kind can only be brought before the Court of Cassation simultaneously with the judgment on the merits; any application to the said Court made prior to such last mentioned judgment is premature and cannot be entertained. When, therefore, a Court of Appeal, in the exercise of its right of evocation, has ordered the institution of criminal proceedings, and objection is taken to the validity of such proceedings on the ground that the said Court was not duly constituted, the judgment of the Court of Appeal, dismissing such objection, is not open to separate review by the Court of Cassation. (Cass. 13 January 1900 p. 179).

The only judgments, which can be made the object of a [تتمة المدخلة في الصفحة التالية بالترتيب المعكوس: صفحة الـPDF 417، خارج نطاق هذه الدفعة]

١ The action of the civil claimant (partie civile), although of necessity joined to criminal proceedings, is none the less a separate suit, so that a decision upon one of these joint actions cannot be considered as containing an implied decision upon the other. The judgment which does not contain an express and separate decision upon each action, is therefore open to cassation, as being vitiated by a substantial ground of invalidity. (Cass. 10 June 1899, p. 310).

٢ The omission by the Court of First Instance to decide upon certain claims raised by the accused cannot be relied upon as a ground for cassation, unless such claims were formally renewed upon appeal. A person condemned cannot be heard to allege, as a ground for cassation of a judgment, the fact that such judgment omitted to decide upon the appeal of the party intervening as civil plaintiff (partie civile). (Cass. 30 December 1899, p. 117).

٣ The publicity of trial must be proved by a statement in the judgment or in the official record of the trial (feuille d'audience). The absence of such statement is a substantial ground of invalidity, within the meaning of Art. 220 (3°) C. Cr. Pr., and constitutes a reason for cassation. No other evidence of publicity is admissible. (Cass. 20 January 1900, p. 149).

٤ When a judgment in criminal proceedings states that the accused is not proved to have committed the act upon which the charge is based, the fact that the judgment further contains the erroneous statement, that such an act does not constitute a legal offence, is not a substantial ground of invalidity within the meaning of Art. 220 (3°) C. Cr. Pr., and does not therefore afford a ground for cassation. As regards the claim of a party intervening as civil plaintiff (partie civile), a declaration, that the accused is not proved to have committed the act in question, constitutes a sufficient statement of the reasons of a judgment dismissing such claim. (Cass. 20 January 1900, p. 185).

٥ A judgment condemning a person for bringing a false charge is null and void, if it does not state that the charge was brought before an administrative or judicial authority. The omission of such statement constitutes a substantial ground of invalidity within the meaning of Art. 220 (3°) C. Cr. Pr. and affords a ground for cassation. (Cass. 20 January 1900, p. 188).

٦ The extract of the judgment, which the Registrar is required by Art. 221 C. Cr. Pr. to furnish within eight days from the delivery of judgment to a party who demands the same in view of an application for cassation, must contain the reasons of the judgment. Non-compliance with this requirement constitutes a substantial ground of invalidity. An acquaintance with the reasons of the judgment is indispensable to such party, since the article above cited declares that his application for cassation, which must be made within eighteen days, cannot be entertained unless it states the reasons upon which it is based. (Cass. 10 March 1900, p. 211).

v. Judgment charge, Cir. 17 December 1899.

v. File (Order to).

v. Notice to appear (Assignation) 8 May 1900.

١ A person prejudiced by a criminal offence, who has intervened as civil claimant (partie civile) in the criminal proceedings, is nevertheless a competent witness upon oath, even on the question of the innocence or guilt of the accused, without prejudice however to the discretion which the Court has to appreciate the weight to be attached to his evidence. (App. 10 April 1899, p. 225).

٢ A person to whom a criminal offence has caused prejudice, may intervene as civil plaintiff to claim damages in the criminal proceedings, even though the criminal act was not originally directed against him. (App. 27 September 1899, p. 97).

٣ The general rule, stated in Art. 217 Com. C., that no action relating to movable or immovable property of a bankrupt can be brought otherwise than against the syndics, is qualified by Art. 219 Com. C., which allows actions relating exclusively to the person of the bankrupt to be brought by or against him. In virtue of the last quoted article, and of Arts. 396 follg. Com. C., a person may intervene as civil plaintiff in a prosecution for criminal bankruptcy, to claim damages for prejudice he has suffered by reason of the offence upon which the prosecution is based. (App. 22 February 1900, p. 328).

٤ v. Cassation (Substantial ground of invalidity) 10 June 1899, 30 December 1899, 20 January 1900; File (Order to) 27 December 1899; Jurisdiction (of Criminal Courts) 28 January 1899, 11 January 1900, Cir. 14 May 1900; Opposition, 15 February 1900.