v. Preemption, 1° 3°.

v. Citation (Regularity); Judgment by default 1°; Judgment by default on opposition.

v. Appeal (Time for), 4°.

v. Criminal action, 1°.

v. Promissory note to order.

v. Cassation (Substantial nullity of procedure), 1°, 3°, 11°.

v. Prescription (Acquisitive), 1°.

v. Jurisdiction (Forum rei), 1°.

v. Document (Private—Denial of authenticity of—).

The action for damages brought against a murderer by the heir of the victim is governed by Art. 151 C.C. Such action is to be distinguished from the action for payment of the Dieh or blood-money (C. Cr. Pr. Art. 47) which is governed by the principles of Mohammedan law. (Trib. Assiout, 7 October 1901; No. 21, p. 12).

v. Criminal action, 2°.

v. Oath (Decisive—), 2°.

I. In distribution proceedings the opposition creditors are served by the registrar, at the domiciles elected by them in the process of arrestment, with a formal demand to produce their titles (C.C.C.Pr. Art. 515). The demand to produce served at the domicile elected in the process of arrestment by one of the creditors and the subsequent distribution proceedings are not therefore null and void, if the creditor has without notification of the fact changed his domicile. II. A creditor who has produced his title within the legal limit of time without having his right to do so contested by the other creditors, although no demand to produce had been served on him in conformity with Art. 515 C.C.C.Pr., does not on that account forfeit his right to produce his title, and cannot be ordered to refund the amount allotted to him in the course of distribution proceedings. (App. 27 November 1902; No. 58, p. 53.)

The declaration of a Provincial Council that the voting for the member delegated to the Legislative Council took place by ballot is an official document and as such can only be contested by proceedings in improbation. (App. 25 November 1902; No. 69, II, p. 62).

v. Forgery, 2°.

Copies of private documents have no probative force; they have not even the value of a commencement of documentary proof. Art. 231, C. C. applies only to copies of official instruments. (Trib. App. Kena, 31 March 1903, No. 92, p. 76.)

If a person recognises as his own the seal affixed to a private document but denies that it was affixed by himself, the document does not thereby come under the same category as a private document the handwriting and signature whereof are not denied. Improbation proceedings are consequently unnecessary for attacking the document. The recognition that the seal is genuine is, however, a presumption that it was affixed by its owner, but on proof to the contrary being shown by the latter or any other interested person, this presumption may be defeated. (App. 23 December 1902; No. 63, p. 55).

v. Distribution proceedings.

v. Distribution proceedings, Revocation of judgment (Petition for—), 2°.

v. Interdiction, 1°; Jurisdiction of Native Tribunals, 2°.

v. Distribution proceedings; Revocation of judgment, 2°.

v. Document (Official).

The fact of membership of a Provincial Council implies the possession of all the qualifications required therefor. Consequently the delegation to the Legislative Council by the members of a Provincial Council of one of their number cannot be attacked on the ground either that the member delegated or that one of the members delegating him does not possess certain qualifications which are among those required for election to a Provincial Council. (App. 25 November 1902; No. 69, I, p. 62).

v. Investigation.

v. Transcription.

v. Proof by witnesses.

v. Cassation (Substantial nullity of procedure), 10°.

v. Cassation (Substantial nullity of procedure), 9°. File (Order to—).

v. Res judicata, 3°.

If an expert witness, appointed by the Court to enlighten it on certain specified points, such as the condition and extent of the property subject to litigation, goes beyond the limits of his mandate and investigates the question of possession, the Court is bound to disregard his report on that question. (Sum. Trib. Chibin el Kom, 16 March 1902; No. 30, p. 24).

v. Cassation (Substantial nullity of judgment), 10°.

A judgment of expropriation based on another judgment ordering the payment of a sum of money cannot be annulled on the score of the nullity of the judgment, on which the expropriation proceedings are based, so long as this judgment stands. (App. 12 December 1901; No. 19, I, p. 12).

١ 1° Art. 352 of the Penal Code relating to extenuating circumstances only regards principal penalties. Consequently the judge, even if he finds extenuating circumstances, cannot inflict the accessory penalty of police supervision for a term less than the minimum fixed by the article which he applies. (Cir. No. 11, 11 June 1902; No. 23, p. 13).

٢ 2° v. Hard labour (Imprisonment with—).

١ 1° The following offence is an attempt to obtain property by false pretences (P.C. Art. 312) and not a forgery of a private document (P.C. 193). Primus pays over the sum of £40 to Secundus who gives him a receipt without mentioning the exact sum received. Primus writes on the back of this receipt, antedating the mention, that the sum actually paid over was £400. He does this with the fraudulent intention of proving that the loan to which the receipt refers amounted to £400 and subsequently brings an action, though without success, for the payment of the pretended debt of £400 in the course of which he produces these two pieces of written evidence in support of his claim. (Cass. 19 April 1902; No. 12, p. 9).

٢ 2° v. Cassation (Substantial nullity of judgment), 3°.

v. Physician.

Evidence of witnesses who have not been heard although their names were mentioned in the course of the investigation of the parquet, must be considered as a fresh charge, allowing of the resumption of the prosecution after the issue of an order to file without further proceedings. (Cass. 27 December 1902; No. 78, p. 69).

v. Jurisdiction of Native Tribunals, 1°.

v. Appeal (Admissibility of—), 1°.