v. Counterfeit coin, 23 January 1900.

١ When several offences have been committed for the same purpose and as the result of the same criminal intention, the penalty of the most serious offence must alone be applied. When, for instance, it is found that a person charged with forgery of a private document has, in order to furnish a document for comparison, forged an official deed, the penalty to be applied is that of the last-mentioned offence alone. (App. 11 October 1899, p. 22).

٢ The forgery of a document and the uttering of such forgery are two separate offences, for which separate punishments are to be inflicted, whether the two offences are committed by different persons or by the same person. (App. 8 February 1900, p. 220).

٣ Although the forgery of a document and the uttering of such forgery are separate offences, only one punishment is to be inflicted when both offences have been committed by the same individual. The two offences in such a case constitute the realisation of one and the same criminal intention, since in uttering the forged document the culprit merely accomplished the purpose which he had in view in committing the forgery. (Cass. 10 March 1900, p. 215).

٤ When a person is convicted of two or more criminal acts, which are so connected by identity of the object in view as to form a complex offence (délit collectif), the single punishment to be inflicted is that of the most serious offence, and not necessarily that of the offence the commission of which formed the primary object of the convicted person. When therefore a public official is convicted of the offence of embezzlement (Art. 100 P. C.) and of having perpetrated a forgery (Art. 191 P. C.) with a view to the commission of such offence, the punishment to be inflicted is that provided for forgery. (Cass. 21 April 1900, p. 307).

Having regard to the general principle contained in Art. 2 of the O. D., ignorance of law is not a ground for impugning a compromise, especially since Arts. 535 and 536 of the C. C. contain an exhaustive enumeration of the cases where a deed of compromise may be impugned. (App. 4 May 1899, p. 11).

v. Official deed, 11 October 1899.

v. Illegal consideration, 8 February 1900.

The offence committed by a person under Police supervision, who changes his place of residence in breach of the regulations of the law, is a continuing offence. For the prescription, therefore, of criminal proceedings, time runs from the date when the offence ceased, and not from that when it began. (Cass. 17 June 1899, p. 115).

When a bilateral contract contains no provision that, in the event of non-performance by one of the parties of his obligations, the contract shall be ipso facto rescinded without the necessity of a judicial decision, the Court has a discretion to rescind the contract or not, and in the latter case to grant an extension of the time for performance. (App. 23 January 1900, p. 283).

v. Complex offence, 21 April 1900; Fraudulent conversion, 10 June and 1 November 1899; Jurisdiction (of Criminal Courts) 11 January 1900.

The mutual rights of co-owners, in respect of repairs to an immovable held in co-ownership, executed by one or some of such co-owners, are determined by Musulman Law, when such repairs were previous to the promulgation of the Egyptian Native Codes. By Art. 655 (Arabic text) of the Mourshid El Hairan and Art. 1311 of the Megalla, a person who, without the authority of his co-owner or the Court, repairs property held in co-ownership, is taken to have intended a gift to his co-owner, and cannot claim from the latter a contribution towards the outlay proportional to his share in the property. The fact that the co-owner raised no objection to the repairs at the time of their execution, is to be construed as an acceptance of the gift, and not as an implied authority for the execution of the repairs. (Sum. C. Beni Souef, 25 November 1899, p. 73.)

v. Marital power, Cir. 28 June 1899.

v. Jurisdiction (of Criminal Courts) 1 March 1900.

To support a conviction for making counterfeit coin, it is not necessary to prove that the counterfeit coins exactly resemble current coins. When counterfeit coins are seized while in process of manufacture, already bearing a sufficient resemblance to current coin to enable them to pass as such, although they do not as yet present all the characteristics of current coin, the offence of making counterfeit coin must be held to have been committed and not merely attempted. (App. 23 January 1900, p. 312).

v. Paulian Action, 31 December 1899; Jurisdiction (of Civil Courts) 5 January 1899.

v. Civil claimant (Partie civile) 22 February 1900.

v. File (Order to).

v. Continuing offence, 17 June 1899.

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

v. Jurisdiction, 31 August 1899.

v. Jurisdiction (of Criminal Courts) 28 January 1899, 11 January 1900, and Cir. 14 May 1900.

v. Prescription (Acquisitive) 5 January 1899.

v. Revision of Judgment 4 May 1899.

v. Opposition (in criminal proceedings) Cir. 11 February 1900.

The only articles of the Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure which are, in the absence of express provision to that effect, applicable in criminal proceedings, are those which contain principles of a general nature. The rule, laid down in Art. 125 C.C.C.Pr., that a judgment, given against a party, who (having already appeared at a previous hearing) fails to appear after an adjournment, is to be considered as given in a defended suit, is a disposition of a special and not a general nature, and is consequently not applicable in criminal proceedings. (App. 18 April 1900, p. 322).

When, in exceptional cases, an adjournment is found to be necessary to allow the parties to adduce further evidence, the Court should not dismiss the case provisionally on the existing evidence (rejeter en l'état) but should name a time within which further evidence is to be adduced, and after the expiration of such time, should decide the case finally. (Cir. 14 May 1900 N° 6, p. 239).

v. Civil claimant (Partie civile), 10 April 1899.

١ When one partner sues another for a sum less than P.T. 1,000 as balance due on the partnership account, parol evidence is admissible, in spite of the fact that the partnership capital exceeds P.E. 1,000, if the partnership is not disputed; for the parol evidence cannot in such a case affect an interest superior in value to P.T. 1,000. (Sum. C. Beni-Souef, 17 April 1900, p. 296).

٢ v. Jurisdiction (of Criminal Courts) 11 January 1900.

v. File (Order to).

١ A plea of objection to the jurisdiction based on Arts. 15 and 16 O. D. is founded on considerations of public policy, and may therefore be raised by the Court of its own motion. (App. 5 January 1899, p. 191).

٢ A plea of objection to the locus standi of the plaintiff may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, even on appeal. (App. 5 January 1899, p. 4).

٣ The plea of objection that an appeal cannot be heard since the time limited for appealing has expired, is founded upon considerations of public policy. Such objection may therefore be raised by the respondent at any stage of the proceedings or by the Court of its own motion. (Trib. App. Beni-Souef, 3 December 1899, p. 69).

v. Jurisdiction (of Criminal Courts), 31 December 1898 and Cir. 4 April 1900.

v. Co-ownership, 25 November 1899; Monition of execution, 11 February 1900.

v. Appeal (Limits of time), 11 April 1899.

When an application for the sale of immovable property by the Court is made before the expiration of thirty days after the monition of execution (commandement), and the defendant fails to appear, the Court must of its own motion, under Art. 539 C. C. C. Pr., declare the application null and void. (Sum. C. Beni-Souef, 1 August 1899, p. 335).

v. Cassation (Substantial ground of invalidity), 10 March 1900.

v. Cassation (Substantial ground of invalidity), 20 January 1900; Jurisdiction (of Criminal Courts), 13 February 1900.