v. Garuka.

v. Jurisdiction of Criminal Tribunals, 2°, 3°.

v. Jurisdiction of Criminal Tribunals, 2°, 3°.

v. Cassation with order for new trial.

v. Forgery, 1°; Forgery and uttering of forgery.

v. Jurisdiction, 1°.

v. Cassation (Substantial nullity of judgment), 7°.

١ 1° It is a rule of law that a creditor secured by a pledge may not derive from it any gratuitous advantage. An agreement to the contrary is, therefore, inoperative in so far as it tends to confer such advantage. The second paragraph of Art. 545 C.C. which alludes to a contrary agreement only refers to the obligation of the pledgee to make the thing pledged render its fruits. (Sum. Trib. Guirgueh, 16 July 1904; No. 46, II, p. 28.)

٢ 2° v. Sale with right of redemption, 1°.

v. Cassation (Substantial nullity of procedure), 6°; Oral evidence, 2°; Service of judgment, 2°.

v. Bail.

١ 1° As soon as a sale of immovable property takes place, as many rights of pre-emption are created as there are co-owners or neighbouring owners, and the causes of action are separate and distinct. Accordingly a person whose claim to pre-empt, as co-owner, has been rejected, can still claim to do so as neighbouring owner. The exception of res judicata is inadmissible, the cause of action not being the same. The rules of the Pre-emption Law as to forfeiture of right for not taking action within a given delay do not apply to cases before the enactment of this law. (App. 17 March 1904; No. 14, p. 10.)

٢ 2° Art. 462 C.C., giving co-owners the right, up to the time of partition, to redeem an undivided share sold by one of them to a third person, upon the conditions therein mentioned, has, although not expressly repealed, been deprived of effect, as regards immovable property, by the Pre-emption Law which has fixed a limit of time for the exercise of the right of pre-emption. (App. 7 June 1904; No. 16, p. 10.)

٣ 3° Proceedings instituted against some of the vendors by the pre-emptor within the period fixed by law will be valid when the pre-emptor, previously unaware of the existence of other vendors, joins them as parties immediately on becoming aware of their existence, even though they be added after the period of 30 days fixed by art. 15 of the Pre-emption law. (App. 6 April 1905; No. 101 p. 75.)

v. Cassation (Admissibility), 2°.

v. False charge, 2°.

v. Forgery (Official registers).

v. Cassation (Misapplication of law); Cassation (Substantial nullity of judgment), 2°, 5°; Continuing contravention; Forgery (Uttering), 2°; Pre-emption, 1°, 2°, 3°; Recruiting law; Wakf, 2°, 3°.

A husband who, in the capacity of manager, is in possession of land belonging to his wife, cannot, since he is without "animus domini" acquire a prescriptive title thereto. (Trib. App. Cairo, 7 March 1905; No. 67, III, p. 47.)

v. Wakf, 2°.

v. Wakf, 3°.

v. False pretences.

v. Cassation (Misapplication of law); Cassation (Substantial nullity of judgment), 1°, 2°; Jurisdiction of Summary Tribunals, 2°.

v. Gift, 2°; Sale, 1°.

v. Public indecency, 1°.

١ 1° When a document of title is a private contract the original document is alone admissible as proof and a copy thereof has no probative force. Such copy is therefore inadmissible as a commencement of proof in writing. (Sum. Trib. Guirgueh, 16 June 1904; No. 45, p. 27.)

٢ 2° v. Denial of authenticity of document; Gift; Acknowledgment of Seal, 1°.

v. Lease, 1°.

v. Act of execution.

v. Appeal by Procureur général or substitut.

v. Novation.

v. Jurisdiction of Native Tribunals, 1°; Oral evidence; Vis major.

v. Mandate; Mandate (Proof).

v. False charge, 1°, 2°.

v. Contract (Construction).

v. File (order to—).

v. Jurisdiction of Native Tribunals, 1°.

Opposition puts the case back to its original state. Consequently there is nothing to hinder the granting of provisional execution, in cases where this can be done, especially when such execution, not having been granted before by reason of the absence of the party making opposition, is accorded as the result of an admission made by him. (Appeal 28 January 1904; No. 6, p. 2.)

١ 1° The public nature of an act of indecency is to be determined according to the place where it is committed and to the possibility of its being seen by third persons. A prison is a public place and the fact that entrance cannot be made without permission does not alter its character. It follows that an act of indecency is public when it takes place in a room in the prison, particularly if third persons were there present. (Appeal 14 June 1904; No. 52, p. 34.)

٢ 2° Annoying ladies by following them in the street, touching them, accompanying them into a house, and speaking to them, in spite of remonstrance, if not sufficient to constitute a public act of indecency, can at any rate be punished as the misdemeanour of insult, as such conduct affects the honour of the ladies. (Cassation 21 July 1904; No. 3, p. 2.)