v. Preemption, 1°, 3°.

v. Distribution proceedings.

١ 1° If in a document of sale with legally established date the boundaries and extent of the land sold are altered by common consent of the contracting parties with the fraudulent intention of depriving a third party of his right to preempt, this alteration amounts to a forgery falling under Arts. 193 and 189 P.C. (Cass. 9 May 1903; No. 91, p. 76).

٢ 2° A sells to B by means of a fictitious contract an immovable belonging to A. A then manufactures a document purporting to be a contract of resale of the same immovable in favour of himself and his wife. The making of this document is not punishable as forgery because there is no prejudice resulting from it, either for B since the immovable has at no time belonged to him, the first contract of sale being fictitious, or for the creditors of A since for the same reason the immovable has never ceased to be A's property and consequently has at no time ceased to be the pledge of his creditors. (App. 25 February 1901; No. 13, p. 10).

٣ 3° v. Cassation (Substantial nullity of judgment), 1°, 8°; False pretences (Obtaining property by—); Improbation proceedings, 1°; Res judicata, 1°, 2°, II.

v. Improbation proceedings, 1°.

v. Cassation (Substantial nullity of judgment), 6° I, 8°.

v. Cassation (Substantial nullity of judgment), 8°.

v. Cassation (Substantial nullity of judgment, 6°, 8°); Continuing offence.

v. Contract (Civil or commercial); Jurisdiction (forum rei).

v. Preemption, 2°.

v. Revocation of judgment (Petition for—), 1°, III.

v. Judgment by default, 1°.

١ The possessor in good faith of an immovable is not liable for the fruits of the property by application of the general principles contained in the articles 145 and 146 C.C. His liability will only date from the commencement of revindication proceedings. (App. 16 December 1902; No. 71, I, p. 62).

٢ The purchaser of an immovable who evicts the possessor may, if such possessor is in bad faith, claim the fruits not only from the date of the transcription of his purchase but from the date of the purchase itself. (App. 3 February 1903; No. 84, p. 71).

٣ The possessor in good faith of an immovable, holding under a just title, only becomes liable for the natural fruits of the property or their money equivalent, from the date on which the revindication proceedings are commenced. (Sum. Trib. Kena, 21 April 1902; No. 31, p. 24).

v. Prescription (Extinctive).

v. Wakf, 1°, II.

Gaming is contrary to public order and good morals although not expressly forbidden by law; consequently a contract based solely on gaming has no lawful cause and must be declared null and void. A debtor may bring witnesses to prove that gaming is the sole cause of his debt and in some cases even strong presumption may suffice. (Sum. Trib. Tantah, 1 April 1903; No. 77, p. 64).

v. Sale, 1°.

١ May be considered a possessor in good faith the person put into possession of an immovable by a judgment, notwithstanding opposition to his entry on the part of the evicted occupant. (App. 16 December 1902; No. 71, II, p. 62).

٢ v. Fruits, 1°, 3°.

v. Theft, 2°.

v. Resistance.

v. Cassation (Grounds).

v. Cassation (Grounds), 1°, 2°, 4°.

v. Improbation proceedings, 1°.

v. Cassation (Substantial nullity of judgment), 3°, 9°, 10°, 11° I.

v. Guardianship.

Where a man has by will placed his children by one wife under the guardianship of their mother, this guardianship does not extend to a posthumous child by another wife. The appointment by the Cadi of another guardian for this child is valid. (Sum. Trib. Abdine, 8 December 1902; No. 43, p. 36).

The decree of 19 November 1896 having fixed the age of majority at eighteen, a minor who has not reached this age cannot obtain the withdrawal of guardianship on any ground whatever. (App. 25 November 1902; No. 70, p. 62).

v. Cassation (Substantial nullity of judgment), 6° III.

Hard labour must be included in all sentences to imprisonment for theft and vagabondage by virtue of paragraphs 2 and 3 of Art. 44 P.C. (Modified by the Decree of 9 February 1901). Nothing, therefore, contained in Article 352 P.C. relating to extenuating circumstances, can justify a judge in omitting to sentence to hard labour in these two cases. (Cir. No. 2, 22 January 1903; No. 56, p. 48).

v. Wakf, 3°.

v. Sale by licitation.

v. Physician.

v. Appeal (Time for), 1°.

v. Gaming.

v. Hard labour (Imprisonment with—).

١ The plaintiff in improbation cannot be required to include in his statement of grounds evidence as to the circumstances in which the defendant obtained possession of objects employed in the alleged forgery. It is sufficient if he shews how the forgery was committed. (App. 3 February 1903; No. 83, p. 70).