٩٣ —Payment delayed—Fruits.—A preemptor who has not tendered the price of the immovable, cannot claim an indemnity for the fruits which it has produced before delivery; since it would be inequitable that he should profit both by the fruits and by the interest on the purchase money. (Sum. Trib. Minia-el-Kamh, 29 Nov. 1906; No. 33, p. 19.)

٩٤ —Proceedings set aside—Time limit for renewal.—When a preemption suit has been instituted within the limited period, but, on default by the plaintiff, the proceedings are set aside, the claim cannot be renewed if 30 days have elapsed since the service of the declaration of intention to preempt. The setting aside has the effect of avoiding all the procedure, including the process instituting the suit. (Trib. App. Tanta, 15 Jan. 1907; No. 112, p, 82.)

٩٥ —Sale by preemptor before final judgment.—The Court will not set aside a sale by a preemptor effected after judgment in first instance had been given in his favour, on the ground that he sold before final judgment. (App. 11 March 1906; No. 60, p. 45.)

—Wakf—Rents and Profits; v. Wakf, 130.

—Non-Execution—Instructions to execute; v. Judgment by default, 57.

—Civil claim—Jurisdiction; v. Civil claim, 16.

٩٨ —Interruption—Adjournment of action pending civil proceedings.—Where, in a prosecution, an adjournment is ordered pending the decision of a preliminary question by the Civil Court, the time limited for the prescription of the public action does not begin to run until such Court has given judgment. (Sum. Trib. Minia el Kamh, 30 June 1906; No. 8, p. 3.)

٩٩ —Interruption—Civil investigation.—An investigation ordered to be made by the civil Court does not interrupt the prescription of the public action. (Sum. Trib. Simbillawain, 1 July 1906; No. 20, III, p. 11.)

١٠٠ —Interruption—Proceedings before Mehkemeh.—The Cadi of a Mehkemeh not being qualified to take "proceedings of investigation" within the meaning of art. 280 C.Cr.Pr., the prescription of the public action cannot be interrupted by any proceedings commenced before him. (Sum. Trib. Itai, 9 Oct. 1906; No. 12, p. 4.)

١٠١ —Interruption—Uttering a forgery.—The uttering of a forgery is not an offence of a continuous nature and the period of limitation for the public action consequently runs from the time when the document alleged to be forged was last uttered. (Sum. Trib. Simbillawain, 1 July 1906; No. 20, II, p. 11.)

١٠٢ —When to plead.—The limitation of prosecution proceedings is based on public policy and, therefore, need not necessarily be pleaded in limine litis. (Sum. Trib. Simbillawain, 1 July 1906; No. 20, I, p. 11.)

—Stay of proceedings—Lapse of 15 years—No prescription; v. Appeal, 5.

—Light and Air—Limit of prescriptive right; v. Light and Air, 80.

٩٦ —Just title—Administrative seizure—Sale—Irregularity of procedure.—The fact that the administrative authority has become purchaser by adjudication under Decree of 25 March 1880 does not constitute a just title enabling such authority to acquire ownership by five years' prescription, if the expropriation proceedings preceding adjudication were irregular. (Trib. App. Zagazig, 14 Nov. 1906; No. 61, III, p. 45.)

٩٧ —Just title—Sale by infant.—A person who, without complying with the requisite formalities, has purchased an immovable from an infant, cannot maintain that the document of sale is a just title enabling him to acquire the ownership by five years' prescription. (Trib. App. Cairo, 20 March 1906; No. 29, p. 18.)

—v. Appeal, 3-5, 7-11. Assignment, 13. Collision, 17. Evidence in civil cases, 21-25. Execution, 26. Expropriation for public utility, 27. Improbation, 34,-37. Infant, 39-40. Judgment, 51-52. Judgment by default, 53-57. Judgment, revocation of, 58-59. Jurisdiction of Native Tribunals, inter se, 60, 62-64. Jurisdiction of Native Tribunals, Restrictions on, 66-77. Lease, 79. Partition, 84. Res judicata, 117, 118. Retrospective effect of law, 119. Revindication, 120. Seizure, administrative, 123.

—v. also:— Adultery of wife, 2. Appeal, 6. Cassation, 14, 15. Civil claim, 16. Costs, 19. Forgery, 30. Infant, 39. Judgment, 41-50. Jurisdiction of Native Tribunals inter se, 61. Jurisdiction of Native Tribunals, Restrictions on, 65. Prescription of public action, 98-102. Public action, 113, 114.

١٠٣ —Advocate—Scope of mandate—Alteration of charge—Consent to immediate trial.—The accused had been charged under P. C. art. 198, § 1, with wilful homicide committed without premeditation or lying in wait. At the hearing, the charge was, on the demand of the State Representative, altered to that of wilful homicide with premeditation under P.C. art. 194. The advocate of the accused consented that the trial should proceed without adjournment and the Assize Court passed sentence of death. Held, that it was within the implied authority of the advocate to consent to immediate trial and that the accused could not maintain that his advocate had committed a breach of his duties by so consenting. This is more especially so because, in the present case, his consent might reasonably have been considered favourable to the interests of the defence. Conviction affirmed. (Cass. 23 March 1907; No. 86, p. 66.)

١٠٤ —Civil claimant—Omission to summon—Defect covered by appearance.—A civil claimant cannot demand to have a judgment quashed on the ground that he was not summoned to appear at the sitting on appeal, if he in fact appeared and was represented by an advocate. (Cass. 13 Oct. 1906; No. 49, p. 33.)

١٠٥ —Committing Magistrate—Omission to keep record of proceedings.—A committing magistrate obtained explanations of certain facts from the Parquet and the accused, but no procès-verbal of such explanations was made. Held, that the absence of procès-verbal did not amount to a substantial nullity of procedure. (Cass. 9 Feb. 1907; No. 97, p. 73.)

١٠٦ —Committing magistrate—Order—Time limit.—By Art. 11 of the law establishing Assize Courts it is provided that the order of the committing magistrate shall be made within eight days of the time when the documents of the case have been delivered to him. The fact that a committing magistrate did not make the order until after the lapse of the limited time does not, however, amount to a substantial nullity of procedure. (Cass. 27 Oct. 1906; No. 51, p. 34.)

١٠٧ —Experts—Comparison of documents—Absence of accused.—The fact that experts appointed in a prosecution for forgery did not observe the rules of procedure governing expert evidence in civil causes is not a good ground for cassation. The judgment will not, therefore, be quashed on account of the investigation by comparison of documents not having been made in the presence of the accused. (Cass. 27 Oct. 1906; No. 50, p. 34.)

١٠٨ —Death penalty—Opinion of Moufti.—In criminal causes, the literal construction of the law must be adhered to. The judgment of an Assize Court should therefore be quashed if, before passing sentence of death, it took the opinion of the Moufti of the Ministry of Justice instead of that of the local Moufti. (Cass. 9 June 1906; No. 36, p. 25.)

١٠٩ —Record of sitting—Proof of proceedings—Case for defence stopped by Court.—A person convicted of a criminal offence cannot be heard to aver, as a ground of substantial nullity, that the tribunal had prevented his advocate from completing the defence, if the fact does not appear on the record of the sitting. (Cass. 9 Feb. 1907; No. 84, p. 65.)

١١٠ —Witnesses for defence not heard.—Where witnesses for the defence failed to attend in Court, the accused person cannot appeal in cassation on the ground that their evidence was not taken, unless he requested that they should be called. (Cass. 28 June 1906; No. 26, p. 18.)

١١١ —Witness not secluded—Assize Court.—The fact that witnesses heard before an Assize Court were not led into a room set apart for them in accordance with art. 166 C.Cr.Pr., does not amount to a substantial nullity of procedure, if the accused did not take objection to their being called, in view of the provision of art. 46, Law No. 6, 1905 empowering the Court to call and hear any person. (Cass. 9 Feb. 1907; No. 108, III, p. 81.)

١١٢ —Witness unsworn—Corroboration by other sworn evidence.—The Court will not quash a conviction on the ground that one of several witnesses for the prosecution was not sworn, if the other witnesses have given evidence on oath in support of the facts alleged by the prosecution. (Cass. 23 Feb. 1907; No. 98, p. 74.)

—Breach; v. Marriage, 82.

—v. Evidence in civil cases, 21-25. Expropriation for public utility, 27. Procedure, criminal, 107, 110-112.

—Collision at sea—Time limit for protest; v. Collision, 17.

—Adultery of wife—Power of husband to withdraw prosecution; v. Adultery of wife, 2.

— Direct summons by alien — Jurisdiction; v. Jurisdiction of Native Tribunals, Restrictions on, 65.

—Prescription—Civil claim—Jurisdiction; v. Civil claim, 16.

—Prescription—Interruption; v. Prescription of public action, 98-101.

—Prescription—When to plead; v. Prescription of public action, 102.

١١٣ —Order to file, what constitutes an.—The representative of the Chef de parquet, at the end of the procès-verbal of investigation of a charge of forgery, stated that it had not appeared which of the documents in question had been forged, that, in accordance with the request of counsel, the proceedings had been stayed for two weeks and that the civil claimant had been advised to institute direct prosecution proceedings. Held, that there had not been any definitive order to file within the meaning of art. 42 C.Cr.Pr. (Cass. 24 Nov. 1906; No. 52, I, p. 34.)

١١٤ —Withdrawal of civil claimant.—When criminal proceedings have been put in motion, the Court is bound to give judgment, and it can convict the accused even although the civil claimant withdraws his claim for damages. (Trib. App. Tanta, 14 Jan. 1907; No. 30, p. 19.)

—Forgery—Daftar el Ahwal; v. Forgery, 32.

١١٥ —Disuse.—The fact that the Government has relinquished an immovable and ceased to regard it as part of the public domain of the State is sufficient to deprive it of that character. It thereupon becomes part of the private domain of the State and thereby subject to alienation and prescription. (App. 17 Jan. 1907; No. 110, p. 82.)

—Agreement to stifle prosecution; v. Contract, 18.