v. Forgery, 2°.

v. Interdiction (Person under—); Wakf, 2°; Wakf (Revenues), Wakfieh, 1°.

A conspiracy by five persons to rob their victim, effected by waiting for him after midnight and on his arrival throwing him to the ground, pressing his head down, kneeling on him till he expires and then taking his purse, falls under Art. 213, par. 3 of the old Penal Code and not Art. 208, the intention being to steal and the murder being only committed for the purpose of completing the theft. (App. 28 April 1904; No. 28, I, p. 18.)

v. Robbery with violence, 1°.

v. Jurisdiction of Native Tribunals, 1°.

v. Wakf, 3°; Wakf (Revenues).

v. Vis Major.

v. Cassation with order for new trial.

v. Malicious wounding of animals.

Novation is not presumed but must result from an express declaration. Consequently, the intention to make novation cannot be inferred from the fact that the debtor has given to his creditor a promissory note for the sum due to the latter in virtue of a previous agreement. Therefore the sureties who guaranteed the discharge of such agreement are still liable to the creditor. (App. 23 February 1905; No. 76, p. 54.)

v. Cassation (Substantial nullity of procedure), 2°.

v. Cassation (Substantial nullity of procedure); Writ of summons, 1°, 2°.

A party who tenders or tenders back the oath to the other party, who accepts it, is bound by a judicial contract. He is therefore not allowed to establish the falsity of the oath in order to annul the judgment based on the oath, or to set aside the judicial contract, by bringing an action directly before the correctional tribunal. His only remedy is to denounce the matter to the Parquet. On the other hand, when the oath has been tendered by order of the Court, since there is in this case no judicial contract, the party injured by the falsity of the oath can institute proceedings as civil claimant directly before the correctional tribunal. (Sum. Trib. Mellawi, 30 May 1905; No. 106, p. 76.)

v. Cassation (Substantial Nullity of judgment), 1°, 2°, 3°, 5°, 9°.

v. Jurisdiction of Criminal Tribunals, 2°.

v. Jurisdiction of Court of Appeal.

v. Forgery, 1°.

v. Forgery and uttering of forgery; Forgery (Uttering), 2°.

v. Youthful offenders.

v. Public officer.

v. Domicile.

v. Gift, 1°, 2°; Mandate (Proof).

v. Official document.

١ 1° An appeal lodged by the State Representative from a judgment by default is rendered void by the subsequent opposition of the accused, but is valid if the period of time limited for making opposition elapses without opposition having been made. (App. 27 February 1902; No. 41, p. 26.)

٢ 2° v. Act of execution; Cassation (Substantial nullity of procedure), 4°; Interlocutory judgment, 2°; Provisional execution; Service of judgment, 1°, 2°, 3°.

١ 1° A condition in an obligation for 400 piastres, that the debtor can only claim to be liberated on obtaining the document itself or else a receipt sealed by the creditor, and that oral evidence shall not be admitted, must be held to be valid. The law, in distrust of oral evidence, has fixed a limit for its admissibility. In the cases in which the law allows it, it is in the interest of the parties, and they can waive this benefit. (Sum. Trib. Guirgueh, 13 October 1902; No. 10, p. 3.)

٢ 2° An agreement in a note for P.T. 500 that discharge of the obligation should be proved by writing only and that oral evidence should be of no value, should be upheld as it is not contrary to public policy. (Sum. Trib. Luxor, 16 December 1903; No. 11, p. 4.)

٣ 3° When in a contract, even of a commercial nature, it is agreed that payment shall only be proved by the return of the document or by a written receipt, oral evidence of payment cannot be given. (Appeal 16 February 1904; No. 7, p. 3.)

٤ 4° v. Acknowledgment of seal; Adultery, 1°; Contract (Construction); Tender; Trader.

v. Appeal (Admissibility).

The sale by one co-owner of a portion of the property held in undivided shares cannot confer upon the purchaser any greater rights over the portion sold than his vendor himself possessed. It follows that the other owners may obtain a declaration, to the extent of their share, that they are co-owners of the portion sold, and that the sale is void as regards their shares. The judgment so obtained has no effect on the validity of the sale as between the purchaser and vendor, and full effect will be given to the sale if the portion sold falls to the vendor's share as the result of a partition. (Trib. App. Alexandria, 16 March 1905; No. 103, p. 76.)

v. File (Order to); Service of judgment, 1°, 2°, 3°.

v. Cassation (Substantial nullity of procedure), 4°; Appeal (Parquet).

v. Service of judgment.

v. Ownership (Joint).

v. Jurisdiction, 1°.

A, being X's debtor, makes a fraudulent conveyance of property to B, who subsequently reconveys the same property to C. The fact that X has obtained the avoidance of the conveyance from A to B by the Paulian action will not avail him against C, in the absence of proof that the latter is a volunteer or acted mala fide. (Trib. App. Cairo, 29 November 1904; No. 21, p. 12.)

v. Mandate.

v. Jurisdiction (ratione loci).

v. Garuka.