٥١ Appeal by an agent.—The advocate of an accused person may, by virtue of his mandate, give notice of appeal from a judgment convicting his client. (Cass. 6 January 1906, No. 37, p. 25.)

٥٢ Appeal by Parquet.—The appeal of the Parquet from a judgment by default must be brought, on pain of forfeiture, within ten or thirty days from the day on which it is pronounced. (C. Cr. Pr. Art. 177). In case only, where, on opposition, the judgment is modified or reversed, there being, in fact, a new judgment, the right of the Parquet revives and it can appeal therefrom within the legal limits of time. (Cir. No. 5, 5 March 1906, No. 79, p. 51.)

٥٣ Appearance.—v. Cassation (Substantial nullity of judgment), 2°; Judgment by default, 1°.

٥٤ Architect. (Responsibility of—).— A, the owner of a house, wishing to build an upper storey, consulted B, an architect, who warned him that the building might not sustain the additional weight and advised him not to build. A, however, persisted, and B then prepared a plan which A agreed with C, a contractor, to execute. B did not enter into any agreement to superintend the building operations, but he inspected the house from time to time whilst they were in progress, without receiving any remuneration. The house subsequently collapsed, causing the death of A's wife. In a criminal prosecution against B and C, in which A appeared as civil claimant, expert evidence was given to the effect that the accident was due to the weakness of the original building, to the nature of the soil and to the fact that certain iron pillars, fixed in accordance with B's plan, were of insufficient strength :— Held, that B and C were not punishable under art. 202 P.C. But, held, also, that B and C were jointly and severally liable in damages under art. 409 C.C. (Trib. App. Alexandria, 18 April 1906 : No. 64, p. 42.)

٥٥ Arrestment (Conservatory).—v. Execution (Provisional), Jurisdiction of summary tribunal.

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

٥٧ Assault (Adjournment of prosecution proceedings).—Where, in a prosecution under art. 206 P.C., it is doubtful whether the injuries sustained may cause illness or inability to work during more than twenty days, the Court may, nevertheless, convict under that article, unless :— (a) It be of opinion that, in case the offence should ultimately become punishable under art. 205 P.C., the maximum penalty provided by art. 206 P.C, would be inadequate. (b) Where, premeditation being proved, it be of opinion that, should the offence not ultimately become punishable under art. 205 P.C., the imposition of a fine would suffice. Postponement of trial until the recovery of the person injured should not be ordered, except when the Court is unable to form an opinion as to the nature of the injuries with sufficient accuracy to permit of its determining the penalty, or in cases (a) and (b) when the Court considers that it may be essential to convict under art. 205 P.C. The same principles are applicable to cases brought before the Markaz Tribunals, provided that the judge be satisfied that the penalty which he is empowered to inflict is of sufficient severity. (Cir. No. 7, 18 March 1906; No. 80, p. 51.)

٥٨ Assignment in order to confer jurisdiction.—v. Jurisdiction (Assignment to confer).

٥٩ Assize Courts.—v. Jurisdiction of Assize Courts.

٦٠ Attempted theft.—v. Recidivism.

٦١ Authority, special.—v. Opposition by an agent.

٦٢ Bail.—1° Where a convicted person gives security under art. 155 C.Cr.Pr. but makes default on appeal, he forfeits the security so given, even though he be acquitted at the hearing. (Cir. No. 12, 25 June 1905 ; No. 70, p. 44.)

٦٣ Bail.—2° A person sentenced to a term of imprisonment who, in pursuance of articles 155, 180 C.C.P., has been admitted to bail, forfeits the sum furnished as security if he make default in appeal, although his sentence be reduced to a fine. (Sum. Trib. Mousky, 8 October 1905 ; No. 11, p. 4.)

٦٤ Bail.—3°.—v. Sitting (Perjury committed in the—).

٦٥ Baïram.—v. Holidays (National and local).

٦٦ Banishment (Doubt as to lawfulness).—v. Vagrancy.

٦٧ Bar (Regulations).—v. Jurisdiction (Assignment to confer).

٦٨ Bill of exchange.—v. Jurisdiction (Domicil of defendant).

٦٩ Breach of convenant.—v. Default, 1°.

٧٠ Brothels.—v. Prostitution (Infant under 14 years).

٧٢ Camera "Trial in camera" — v. Trial in camera.

٧٣ Capacity.—v. Prostitution (Infant under 14 years).

٧٦ Cassation. (Effect).—Where the Court of Cassation has quashed a decision on opposition, given in the presence of the accused, and has directed a new trial and the accused then fails to appear at the hearing, judgment must be again entered by default, since the effect of the cassation was to quash both the judgment by default and the judgment on opposition. (Cass. 11 November 1905 ; No. 16, p. 10.)

٧٤ Cassation (For judgments of the Court of Cassation indexed elsewhere).—v. Appeal by an agent, Civil claimant (Evidence of—), Forgery. 1°; Judgment by default, Jurisdiction of Assize Courts, 1°; Jurisdiction of Native Tribunals, 2°; Prescription in criminal cause, Quasi-tort, Recidivism, Tomb (Defilement of—) Trial in camera.

٧٥ Cassation (Order for new trial).—v. New trial after cassation.

٧٧ Cassation (Substantial nullity of judgment).—1° (a) The fact that a judgment on appeal affirming a conviction merely adopts the grounds of the judgment of the Court below does not amount to a substantial nullity giving rise to cassation, (b) The failure, in a judgment of conviction, to state the day of the month on which the offence was committed does not constitute a substantial nullity if the month and the year are mentioned therein. (But see note). (Cass. 6 January 1905 ; No. 25, p. 17.)

٧٨ Cassation (Substantial nullity of judgment).—2° A judgment which fails to give any decision on the demands of a civil claimant who has appeared at the hearing and put in pleadings, is, to the extent of the interest of such claimant, liable to cassation for substantial nullity. (Cass. 1 April 1905; No. 1, p. 1.)

٧٩ Cassation (Substantial nullity of judgment).—3° A judgment committing a juvenile offender to a reformatory is not liable to cassation for substantial nullity for failure to fix the term of his confinement. The term is, in such case, the minimum fixed by the law. (Cass. 1 April 1905 ; No. 36, p. 25.)

٨٠ Cassation (Substantial nullity of judgment).—4° A judgment of conviction for assault, under article 205 P.C., is liable to cassation for substantial nullity if it fails to state that the assault has resulted in an illness or incapacity for work for more than twenty days. (Cass. 10 June 1905 ; No. 4, p. 2.)

٨١ Cassation (Substantial nullity of judgment).—5° A judgment on appeal in a criminal suit, which, while quashing the conviction adjudged in first instance, affirms the award of damages, is liable to cassation for substantial nullity if it fail to set out the facts on which such damages are based. (Cass. 10 June 1905 ; No. 5, p. 2.)

٨٢ Cassation (Substantial nullity of judgment).—6° The failure of a judgment of conviction to deal with the payment of the costs does not amount to a substantial nullity giving rise to cassation. (Cass. 14 October 1905; No. 6, p. 2.)

٨٣ Cassation (Substantial nullity of judgment).—7° The fact that a judgment of conviction does not contain any statement, as to whether the accused was asked if he pleaded guilty to the charge, does not amount to a substantial nullity giving rise to cassation. (Cass. 3 March 1906 ; No. 82, p. 57.)

٨٤ Cassation (Substantial nullity of judgment).—8° The failure, in a judgment of conviction, to state the date on which the offence was committed, is a substantial nullity rendering the judgment liable to cassation. The date must be inserted in order that the Court may ascertain whether or not the prosecution be barred by lapse of time. (Cass. 3 March 1906 ; No. 83, p. 57.)

٨٥ Cassation (Substantial nullity of judgment).—9° A conviction for laying a false charge is liable to cassation for substantial nullity, if the authority before whom the charge was made is not mentioned in the judgment. (Cass. 14 April 1906 ; No. 86, p. 58.)

٨٦ Cassation (Substantial nullity of judgment).—10° Although it be stated in a judgment of conviction that the charge has been proved by the evidence of witnesses, whereas in fact none had been heard, yet such judgment is not therefore liable to cassation for substantial nullity. (Cass. 28 April 1906 ; No. 107, p. 73.)

٨٧ Cassation (Substantial nullity of judgment).—11° Where, on appeal, the Court affirms a judgment dismissing a motion in opposition, but, at the same time, modifies the sentence against which opposition was made, the judgment is liable to cassation for substantial nullity. (Cass. 28 April 1906; No. 108, p. 74.)

٨٨ Cassation (Substantial nullity of procedure).— 1° The Court to which an appeal is brought has no power to alter the designation applied to the charge by the Court below, except on condition that the defence is not thereby prejudiced. A judgment on appeal convicting for the same facts under a new designation is, consequently, liable to cassation if it does not appear from the record of the sitting nor from the judgment that the accused had been informed of the charge so as to have been in a position to deliver his defence. (Cass. 30 December 1905 ; No. 27, p. 18.)

٨٩ Cassation (Substantial nullity of procedure).—2° When the last day of the week within which judgment must be signed, happens to be the first of several consecutive holidays, the period is extended until the first sitting day next following such holidays. (Cass. 17 March 1906; No. 84, p. 58.)

٩٠ Cassation (Substantial nullity of procedure).—3° A conviction by an Assize Court is not liable to cassation on the following grounds : 1.—That the form of oath administered to the witnesses is not mentioned in the record of the sitting. 2.—That the depositions of the witnesses were not read to them. (Cass. 17 March 1906; No. 85, p. 58.)

٩١ Cassation (Substantial nullity of procedure).—4° A judgment given on appeal in a prosecution for misdemeanour, is not liable to cassation for substantial nullity of procedure, on the mere ground that there is nothing in the record of the sitting to shew that the case for the defence was heard last in accordance with the provisions of Art. 185 C. Cr. Pr. (Cass. 28 April 1906; No. 106, II, p. 73.)