v. Public indecency, 1°.

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

v. Sale with right of redemption, 2°.

v. Seizure, 2°.

v. Jurisdiction of Criminal Tribunals, 4°.

v. Criminal intention.

v. Public officer.

v. Composition (Bankruptcy).

It is well established that the accessory follows the principal action and that the judge of the principal action is the judge of the accessory. Consequently an action for the appointment of a judicial receiver of property already subject to litigation cannot be brought before a tribunal other than the one before which the principal action is pending. (Sum. Trib. Guirgueh, 10 July 1904; No. 93, p. 68.)

v. Cassation (Misapplication of law); Cassation (Substantial nullity of judgment), 1°, 2°; Jurisdiction of Criminal Tribunals, 3°, 5°; Jurisdiction of Summary Tribunals, 2°.

v. Denial of authenticity of document; Acknowledgment of Seal.

The omission from the annual recruiting lists of the names of persons liable to military service constitutes a continuing misdemeanour and the omda and sheikhs guilty of the offence remain punishable until three years have elapsed from the time when the persons liable to such service attained the age of 27 years. (Sum. Trib. Abou Tig, 12 February 1905; No. 80, p. 56.)

v. Forgery (Official registers).

v. Forgery, 2°.

١ 1° There is in the law no provision, express or implied, from which it may be inferred that joint owners represent each other. Therefore a judgment given against one of them will have no effect as regards the others. (App. 18 April 1905; No. 102, I, p. 75.)

٢ 2° v. Cassation (Substantial nullity of judgment), 3°; Interlocutory judgment, 1°; Pre-emption, 1°.

v. Pre-emption, 1°; Appeal (Amount of Claim), 1°, 2°.

v. Appeal (Time for); Seizure.

v. Execution, 1°.

v. Res judicata, 1°.

v. Cassation (Substantial nullity of procedure), 6°.

v. Servitude of view.

v. Cassation (Substantial nullity of judgment), 4°.

v. Servitude of view.

١ 1° Violence as an aggravating circumstance of theft consists in the employment of forcible means to overcome the victim's power of resistance, in order to facilitate the theft. A theft committed after the administration of narcotics to the victim in order to enable the thief to steal without encountering opposition is robbery with violence, and must be distinguished from the case of theft from a person in a natural sleep. The latter is a case of simple theft, since the victim's condition renders the theft possible, while in the former case, the thief has deliberately attempted, by the administration of narcotics to the victim, to prevent him from offering any resistance. (Cass. 14 January 1905; No. 72, p. 53.)

٢ 2° v. Theft, 1°.

١ 1° The cancelling of a sale necessarily entails the annulment of all rights created by the purchaser in favour of third persons over the property sold. The provision in the Mixed Code that the dissolution of the sale is not to affect the rights of hypothecary creditors, must be taken to mean that it will not affect them if they were ignorant of the cause which brought it about. If, however, the contract of sale has been transcribed and it is expressly stated therein that part of the purchase money is still due, the rights so acquired and safeguarded by law cannot be sacrificed to hypothecary charges subsequently inscribed. It follows that, in this last alternative, the vendor cannot refuse to pay back the portion of the purchase money which he has received, on the ground that he will require it to meet the hypothecary charges made by the purchaser. (App. 12 October 1904, No. 29, p. 19.)

٢ 2° v. Gift, 1°, 2°.

v. Ownership (Joint).

١ 1° A contract for the sale of land with right of redemption is to be construed as a contract of pledge if the circumstances be such as to indicate that the intention of the parties was merely to constitute a security for the repayment of a debt. Such circumstances would be (1) the inadequacy of the purchase money (2) that the purchaser did not enter into possession of the thing sold (3) that he let it at a high rent to the vendor and (4) that it is agreed that the right of redemption should only be forfeited on failure to pay the rent. (Sum. Trib. Guirgueh, 16 July 1904; No. 46, I, p. 28.)

٢ 2° According to Art. 338 of the C.C., any sale made with a reservation of a right for the vendor to recover the thing sold, is deemed to be a sale with right of redemption. The rule of Egyptian law for the construction of agreements is to be found in Art. 138 of the C.C., which lays down that every agreement, whatever may be the literal meaning of the terms used, must be construed according to the purpose which the parties had in view, the nature of the contract and custom. Two persons were co-owners of an immovable, the purchase price of which was partly payable by instalments at fixed periods. Before all the instalments were paid one co-owner sold his undivided share to the other in consideration of the payment of a sum of money down and of a further sum payable by instalments at fixed periods, reserving nevertheless the right to recover such share at any time before the payment of the last instalment, on repayment to the purchaser of all instalments paid, together with an indemnity of L.E. 10 per feddan. Held that the transaction constituted a sale with right of redemption, and was subject to the rules of law applicable to such a sale, and particularly to the rule laid down in Art. 341 of the C.C. with regard to the maximum period for which the vendor may stipulate within which to exercise his power of redemption. (App. 11 May 1905; No. 111, p. 86.)

v. Denial of authenticity of document; Acknowledgment of Seal.

v. Garuka.

١ 1° It is essential that an action for recovery of objects seized should be brought against all having an interest therein, and the execution debtor must be made a party even when he is a minor, for he can be legally represented by others. (Sum. Trib. Guirgueh, 2 February 1903; No. 23, p. 12.)

٢ 2° The owner of a movable seized and sold by public auction cannot revindicate it from the purchaser at the auction who has acted in good faith, for the judicial sale constitutes a just title for such purchaser. His only recourse is against the debtor to whose assets the price has been added. If the purchase money has not been distributed among the creditors, he has no privilege and can only rank with them pari passu. If it has been distributed among the creditors, or handed over to the execution creditor, he has no recourse against any of them, the only exception being where the execution creditor has acted in bad faith, in which case the owner has a recourse, on general principles, for the price and damages. Fruits of a tree when seized follow the rules applicable to movable property. (Sum. Trib. Kena, 16 January 1905; No. 59, I, II, p. 37.)

v. Cassation (Substantial nullity of judgment), 4°.

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

v. Public officer.

v. Interlocutory judgment, 2°.

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.)