v. File (Order to—).

v. Guardianship.

v. Extenuating circumstances.

The interval of three clear days between the citation and the first hearing, except in the case of flagrant délit (Art. 156 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) is obligatory. Consequently, it is the duty of the Tribunals to verify the regularity of the citation before giving judgment by default, and in case of irregularity they must suspend judgment until the proceedings have been amended. (Cir. No. 12, 11 June 1902, No. 33, p. 25).

v. Prescription (Interruption of—).

v. Criminal action; Dieh.

v. Criminal action, 2°.

v. Res judicata, 2° II.

v. Criminal action, 1°.

v. Criminal action, 2°.

v. Cassation (Substantial nullity of procedure), 5°.

v. Bar regulations.

v. Distribution proceedings.

v. Revocation of judgment (Petition for—), 1° I.

v. Revocation of judgment (Petition for—), 1° II.

١ 1° The authority of a master over his servant is of a character to render him liable as accomplice in a crime or misdemeanour which his servant commits by his order (P.C. 68). It is not necessary, as in the case of article 224 of the Penal Code, that he should dispose of means of compulsion. (Cass. 17 May 1902; No. 37, I, p. 34).

٢ 2° If an Omdeh orders one or more of the inhabitants of his village to commit an assault, he thereby becomes an accomplice in the offence and it is not necessary to enquire whether the principal offenders might or might not have refused to obey him. The authority he exercises over them by virtue of his office is sufficient to render him liable under Art. 68 of the Penal Code. (Cass. 17 May 1902; No. 46, p. 45).

٣ 3° v. Cassation (Substantial nullity of judgment), 5°; Cassation (Substantial nullity of procedure), 11°; Recidive, 1°.

v. Cassation (Substantial nullity of procedure), 8°.

١ 1° A compromise as to the ownership of immovable property in consideration of the payment of a sum of money, cannot be regarded as a sale on which a claim to preempt may be based. Such a compromise does not in fact constitute a transfer of ownership, and to recognise it as being capable of so doing would be to decide that the person who paid the sum of money was not the owner, whereas the latter question was not decided by the compromise. Again, the sum of money paid by way of compromise does not represent the true value of the immovable property in question, the said sum being in reality only the valuation by the parties of their respective chances of winning the action thus compromised. (App. 25 April 1901; No. 26, p. 22).

٢ 2° v. Reconciliation (Procès-verbal of—).

v. Preemption, 2°.

The individual who in the course of an action produces a forged instrument which if genuine would prove his case, is guilty of uttering a forgery, and the offence remains a continuing one until either the document is withdrawn, or a judgment admitting or setting it aside is rendered. Consequently the period of prescription for criminal proceedings only begins to run from this moment. Improbation proceedings commenced with respect to a document before the Court do not alter the continuing nature of the offence, for, until the individual against whom the improbation proceedings are directed withdraws the document, he is taken to uphold its authenticity and thereby to deceive the Court. (Cass. 29 November 1902; No. 47, V, p. 45).

Where the contract sued upon is commercial as regards one of the parties and civil as regards the other by reason of the respective characters of the parties the character of the suit depends on that of the defendant. Consequently, where the defendant is a trader, the rules laid down for commercial suits must be followed, in particular as regards the admissibility of proof by witnesses. (App. 13 January 1903; No. 73, p. 63).

v. Forgery, 2°.

v. Gaming.

v. Physician.

v. Interdiction, 1°, III; Jurisdiction of judge of personal law.

v. Interdiction, 1°, I, III; Prescription (Acquisitive) 2°. (Note).

v. Transcription.

v. Sale by licitation.

v. Document (Private—Copies of—).

v. Jurisdiction of Coptic Council.

v. Jurisdiction of Native Tribunals, 2°.

The law having laid down rules in the matter of claims for judicial costs these cannot be demanded by a separate action. (Sum. Trib. Beni-Souef, 28 April 1903; No. 111, p. 87).

v. Jurisdiction of Native Tribunals, 2°.

v. Bar regulations; Representative (Legal), 1°.

In the case of a supplementary investigation in a criminal affair the absence of the accused's counsel does not nullify the investigation, the nullity pronounced by the Code of Criminal Procedure, Art. 197, referring only to the proceedings in open court. (App. 17 October 1901; No. 5, p. 3).

v. Cassation (Substantial nullity of procedure), 8°.

v. Oath (Decisive), 2°.