١ 1° The appeal a minima of the State Representative from a judgment of conviction by default, must be suspended if the person convicted has not been personally served with the judgment, since he has the right of making opposition to such judgment, service on the Parquet not being sufficient. (App. 26 July 1904; No. 42, p. 27.)

٢ 2° No special provision having been made by the C. Cr. Pr. for service of judgments in case of the absence or domicile unknown of the person to be served, the rules of civil procedure should be applied. The Governor or Chef de Parquet served in this way has the duty cast on him of searching for the person to be served and informing him of the service, and the rule of civil procedure, that opposition may be made against judgments by default up to the time that the defaulting party has knowledge of their execution, should be applied in criminal matters, it being of public policy for no one to be convicted definitely until he has had an opportunity of defending himself. Accordingly, a person against whom a judgment of conviction by default has been served on the Parquet, preserves his right of opposition until the execution of the judgment. (Cass. 6 October 1904; No. 13 p. 9.)

٣ 3° Opposition to criminal judgments by default is, in the absence of special provisions, governed by the rules of civil procedure. A person who has been convicted by default and condemned to a term of imprisonment may consequently make opposition to the judgment until such time as he may become aware of its existence. If he be without any known domicile, the service of the judgment previously made on the Parquet will not affect his rights. (Cass. 4 February 1905; No. 63, p. 46.)

Apertures made in the wall of a house do not give rise to any right of servitude over the neighbouring tenement, however long they may have been in existence. The owner possesses the right to make them as an incident of the unrestricted enjoyment of his own property. His neighbour cannot prevent him from making them but may, on the other hand, in the exercise of his own right of ownership, erect buildings which obstruct such apertures. (App. 18 April 1905; No. 102, II, p. 75.)

v. Acknowledgment of seal.

v. Forgery, 1°; Forgery and Uttering of Forgery.

v. Appeal (Parquet), Opposition, 1°; Service of judgment, 1°, 2°, 3°.

v. Jurisdiction, 1°.

v. Costs; Execution (Stay of—), 1°.

v. Lease.

v. Cassation (Substantial nullity of judgment).

v. Cassation (Substantial nullity of procedure).

v. Appeal by Procureur général or Substitut.

v. Appeal by Procureur général or Substitut.

v. Jurisdiction of Summary Tribunals.

v. Jurisdiction of Summary Tribunals.

v. Writ of summons.

v. Civil claimant (Direct summons); Oath (Decisive and supplementary).

v. Writ of summons.

v. Novation.

v. Gift, 1°.

v. Contract (Construction).

v. Appeal (Admissibility).

Tender cannot be proved by witnesses, the law having laid down special rules of procedure in regard thereto. (Sum. Trib. Mellawi, 6 February 1905; No. 119, p. 89.)

v. Cassation (Substantial nullity of judgment), 3°, 6°, 10°.

١ 1° An act of violence committed after the perpetration of a theft does not constitute the aggravating circumstance of robbery with violence when it has not been resorted to as a means of carrying out the offence. (Trib. Cairo, 14 March 1904; No. 43, p. 27.)

٢ 2° Anyone fraudulently taking a thing of which he is joint owner is liable to be punished for theft. (Cass. 21 July 1904; No. 2, I, p. 1.)

٣ 3° v. Jurisdiction of Criminal Tribunals, 5°; Murder (Unpremeditated); Robbery with violence, 1°.

v. Appeal, 1°.

v. Opposition.

v. Interdiction (Person under).

The fact that a person is an advocate or advocate's agent does not prevent his being considered as a trader, if he habitually carries on a trade even during part of the year only. The status of trader is a question of fact capable of proof by witnesses. (Sum. Trib. Tahta, 25 July 1904; No. 47, I, II, p. 28.)

v. Criminal intention.

v. Forgery, 1°; Forgery (Uttering), 1°; Sale, 1°.

A person entering a house for an immoral purpose at the invitation of a woman whose husband is absent cannot be punished under art. 325 P. C. (Sum. Trib. Aboutig, 2 April 1905; No. 83, II, p. 57.)

v. Jurisdiction of Criminal Tribunals, 4°; Jurisdiction of Summary Tribunals, 1°.

v. Contract (Construction).

v. Jurisdiction, 2°, 3°; Appeal (Amount of Claim).

v. Lawful defence (Conditions); Theft, 1°; Indecent assault; Robbery with violence, 1°.

A person who claims to be released from a legal obligation on the ground that performance has become impossible is bound to establish that such impossibility is not the result of his own negligence or fault. Accordingly a depositary who is remunerated is accountable for the loss by theft of the object entrusted to him, if the theft was the result of his negligence in leaving open the door of the room in which the object was placed. (Sum. Trib. Mellawi, 10 April 1905; No. 104, p. 76.)