١ The party who, without contesting the relevancy or admissibility of the decisive oath when tendered to him, has refused to take it and has not tendered it back, cannot be permitted to change his mind on appeal. (Trib. App. Kena, 4 February 1903; No. 92, p. 76).

٢ The Court may refuse an application for permission to tender a decisive oath if it considers the oath unnecessary. (Sum. Trib. Tantah, 1 February 1903; No. 95, p. 77).

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

v. False pretences.

v. Recidive, 1°, 3°.

v. Pension.

v. Cassation (Substantial nullity of judgment, 10°, 13°); Resistance.

v. Document (Official—).

v. Complicity, 2°.

v. Cassation (Substantial nullity of procedure), 6°; Revocation of judgment (Petition for—), 1°, I, II.

v. Good faith, 1°.

v. File (order to—).

v. Cassation (Substantial nullity of judgment), 9°.

v. Wakf, 3°.

v. Proof by witnesses.

v. Recidive, 2°.

v. Criminal action, 2°.

v. Investigation, 1°.

v. Cassation (Grounds), 3°.

v. Sale by licitation.

v. Jurisdiction (Forum rei), 2°.

v. Prescription (Extinctive, Interruption of—).

v. Hard labour (Imprisonment with—); Police Supervision, 2°; Theft; Theft (Attempt).

v. Extenuating circumstances, 1°.

The decree of 17 October 1888 amended by that of 10 December 1891 applies only to officials dismissed or placed on the retired list, and, since the state of captivity cannot be considered as involving the dismissal or retirement of the officials prisoners in the Soudan, the provisions of these decrees cannot be held to apply to them. They can therefore claim pension from the date of their return to Egypt. (App. 10 December 1901; No. 18, p. 11).

v. Guardianship; Jurisdiction of judge of personal law.

v. Revocation of judgment (Petition for—).

A private medical adviser engaged to attend a patient at a regular salary, is not bound by the terms of the contract to embalm his client in the event of the latter's death, the contract being cancelled and the process of embalming not coming within the duties of a private medical adviser. In the event, therefore, of his performing the operation he may, under certain circumstances, have a right to a special fee. (App. 5 December 1901; No. 28, p. 23).

v. Jurisdiction (Forum rei), 2°.

v. Incidental claim.

١ In calculating the term of police supervision undergone by an individual no period must be counted, during which he failed to comply with the conditions of the penalty. (Cass. 25 May 1901; No. 67, p. 61).

٢ It follows from the imperative language of paragraph 3 of Article 2 of the Decree of July 13th, 1891, relative to vagabondage that police supervision is an obligatory and not discretionary measure in the case of persons sentenced for vagabondage. The expression "les uns et les autres" refers quite as much to the vagabonds dealt with in the first paragraph of this article as to those dealt with in the second. The letter and the spirit of the law are alike opposed to restricting the disposition to the vagabonds dealt with in paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 1. Such restriction would result in treating more severely, as regards police supervision, those whom the law has treated more leniently, as regards the principal penalty. (Cir. No. 13, 6 July 1902; No. 34, p. 25).

٣ v. Extenuating circumstances, 1°.

v. Prescription (Acquisitive), 2°.

v. Fruits, 2°; Prescription (Extinctive).

v. Fruits, 1°, 3°; Good faith, 1°.

v. Guardianship.

١ Prior to the promulgation of the Law on Preemption of 23 March 1901 a simple declaration by an intending preemptor of his intention to preempt, made within 15 days of the official notification of the sale, kept alive his rights, and he could not be deprived of such rights on the ground that he had not brought his action within any particular time. Nevertheless if, after the sale, a long period had elapsed during which he had had knowledge of the sale, without having declared his intention to preempt, he might be considered as having waived his rights, even though he had not been called on to make such declaration. Such knowledge may be presumed from the circumstances of the case; as for instance, from the fact that the preemptor and the purchaser are neighbours and relations; that the purchaser has managed the property as its owner; that the teklif has been transferred into his name; and that he has paid the taxes. (App. 19 November 1901; No. 27, p. 22).

٢ A neighbour is not deprived of his right to preempt, if, on the sale of property adjoining his own, a narrow strip of land between the property sold and that of the neighbour has been excluded solely for the purpose of depriving the neighbour of his right to preempt. (App. 6 January 1903; No. 72, p. 63).

٣ An intending preemptor does not forfeit his right to preempt by reason of his failure to declare his intention within fifteen days from his knowledge of the sale unless he knew the name of the purchaser, the price and other conditions of the sale. (App. 3 March 1903; No. 85, p. 71).