—Interdict—Appointment of guardian by Patriarchate—Validity—Court of urgent measures—Jurisdiction; v. Jurisdiction of Native Tribunals, inter se, 64.

—Preemption by infant—Guardian vendor—Guardian “ad litem”: v. Infant, 40.

—Adultery of wife—Right of husband to withdraw prosecution: v. Adultery of wife, 2.

—Stifling prosecution: v. Contract, 18.

٣٤ 34. —Dismissal—Action for damages.—When final judgment has been given dismissing an improbation action, the Court may, without awaiting judgment in the principal suit, hear and determine an action for damages alleged to have been occasioned by the improbation proceedings. In order that the right of improbating documents may not be vexatiously exercised, the law has prescribed (art. 291 C.C.C.Pr.) that in the event of an improbation action being dismissed, the plaintiff shall incur a fine. As regards, however, the award of damages against him, the C.C.C.Pr. does not contain any special provision similar to that of art. 246, French C.C.Pr. In order to obtain damages, it is, therefore, necessary to show that the action was brought in bad faith or that it amounted to a frivolous defence under art. 115 C.C.C.Pr. The dismissal is merely prima facie proof of the vexatious character of the action, and a judicial discretion must be used in determining whether the claim of damages has been made out. (Trib. App. Zagazig, 5 Dec. 1906; No. 62, I, II, p. 46.)

٣٥ 35. —Dismissal—Appeal—Compromise—Discharge from fine.—Where, on appeal lodged against a principal judgment and a judgment dismissing an interlocutory improbation action, a compromise is made and approved by the Court, the plaintiff in the improbation action is discharged from payment of the fine provided by art. 291 C.C.C.Pr. If he has already paid such fine into Court, its restitution will be ordered. (Sum. Trib. Mousky, 27 Oct. 1906; No. 46, p. 28.)

٣٦ 36. —Forfeiture of right of action—Subsequent withdrawal—Fine.—Where, in an improbation suit, the plaintiff has become liable, by virtue of arts. 279, 280 C.C.C.Pr., to forfeiture of the right to proceed, he cannot, by a subsequent withdrawal of the suit, deprive the Court of power to declare the forfeiture and to sentence him to the fine fixed by art. 291 C.C.C. Pr. (Trib. App. Tanta, 27 Nov. 1906; No. 41, p. 26.)

٣٧ 37. —Interlocutory action—Adjournment of principal suit.—Art. 273 C.C.C.Pr. differs from art. 214 French C.C.Pr., in that it does not empower the Court to immediately dismiss an interlocutory improbation action. It follows that, where such an action has been brought within the limited period, the Court should order the adjournment of the principal suit and it cannot enquire as to whether or not the improbation is sought bona fide. (App. 26 Feb. 1907; No. 100, p. 74.)

—Management of estate—Claim for arrears of maintenance—Jurisdiction; v. Jurisdiction of Native Tribunals, Restrictions on, 73.

—Sale by infant—Purchaser's title—Acquisitive prescription; v. Prescription, Acquisitive, 97.

٣٨ 38. —Administration of property—Voidable lease—Unauthorized sale—Rights of parties.—The guardian of several infants was co-owner with them of a piece of land. By a contract of lease made during their infancy she demised the land for a term of three years renewable, at the option of the lessee, for a further term of one year. She subsequently, during her guardianship, sold the land without obtaining the permission of the Meglis Hasby. The sale took place during the fourth year of the tenancy. The plaintiff, who was the purchaser, now sought to recover possession of the land and to have the lease set aside. Held, that the refusal by the tenant to give possession to the plaintiff is sufficient declaration of his intention to renew the lease for the fourth year, but that the lease is voidable by virtue of Art. 364 C.C., as against the infants, and since the plaintiff takes under them, he is entitled to exercise their right to have it set aside. The fact that the sale was not authorized by the Meglis Hasby cannot be pleaded against the plaintiff: the infants or their representatives have the sole right to claim its rescission on this ground. (App. 2 Dec. 1906; No. 54, p. 35.)

٣٩ 39. —Personal liability in tort—Court of criminal jurisdiction.—An infant is personally liable to be sued in tort before a court of criminal jurisdiction for damages arising out of an offence with which he is charged. (Trib. App. Cairo, 23 May 1907; No. 101, p. 74.)

٤٠ 40. —Preemption—Guardian vendor—Guardian ad litem.—An infant can not institute a preemption suit except by his guardian. Where such guardian is also vendor, an application should be made to the Mehkemeh to appoint a guardian ad litem. (Trib. App. Tanta, 19 Dec. 1906; No. 16, p. 10.)

—Guardian, appointment of by Patriarcal validity: v. Jurisdiction of Native Tribunals inter se, 64.

—Improbation proceeding—Adjournment of principal suit: v. Improbation, 37.

—Retrospective effect: v. Retrospective effect of law, 119.

—Service by person not authorized; v. Forgery, 30.

٥٦ —Opposition—Statement of grounds unnecessary.—It is not necessary for the validity of opposition to state the grounds on which it is based. (Sum. Trib. Mahalla, 16 Jan. 1907; No. 47, III, p. 28.)

٥٧ —Peremption for non-execution—Instructions to execute.—Mere instructions, given to a bailif, to execute a judgment by default are not sufficient to prevent such judgment from becoming void by the lapse of six months. (Sum. Trib. Mahalla, 16 Jan. 1907; No. 47, II, p. 28.)

—Appeal from—Effect of subsequent opposition: v. Appeal, 6.

٥٣ 53. Execution against surety—Time limit.—The time limited for the execution of a judgment by default is not prevented from running in favour of a surety by the fact that satisfaction of such judgment must first be sought against the principal debtor. (Sum. Trib. Mahalla, 16 Jan. 1907; No. 47, I, p. 28.)

٥٤ 54. —Execution on immovables—Expropriation action dismissed—Opposition.—The provision of art. 559 C.C.C.Pr. § 1 does not apply to a judgment dismissing an expropriation action. Opposition to such judgment is therefore admissible. (Trib. App. Assiout, 12 June 1907; No. 92, p. 67.)

٥٥ 55. Judgment wrongly so designated.—Where a defendant who appeared at the first hearing failed to do so at the second, and judgment was entered against him, he is debarred, by virtue of Art. 125 C.C.C.Pr., from making opposition, notwithstanding the fact that it was erroneously stated in the said judgment that it had been delivered by default. The Court can, moreover, raise the point of its own motion as a matter of public policy. (Sum. Trib. Minia-El-Kamh, 20 March 1907; No. 104, p. 75.)

٥٨ —Contradictory grounds.—The mere averment that a judgment is contradictory in its grounds is insufficient to support a petition for the revocation thereof. (App. 25 March 1906; No. 1, p, 1.)

٥٩ —Personal deceit.—Personal deceit, constituting one of the grounds of a petition for revocation of judgment under art. 372 C.C.C.Pr., may consist in a mere untruthful statement unaccompanied by any fraudulent device, but nevertheless capable of misleading the Court. (Sum. Trib. Abu-Tig, 23 May 1907; No. 118, p. 84.)

—Costs; v. Costs, 19.

—Mehkemeh—Execution: v. Execution, 26.

—Suspensive effect of appeal: v. Appeal, 9.

٤١ 41. —Appeal judgment—Omission of grounds.—A judgment on appeal is liable to cassation for substantial nullity if its grounds be not mentioned therein and it fail to adopt the grounds of the judgment of the inferior Court. (Cass. 9 June 1906; No. 25, p. 17.)

٤٢ 42. —Contents—Age of accused.—A judgment in which the ages of the accused are not mentioned is liable to cassation for substantial nullity, since the omission prevents the Court from determining the validity of the sentences. (Cass. 23 March 1907; No. 87, p. 66.)

٤٣ 43. —Contents—Age of accused.—A conviction will not be quashed for substantial nullity on the ground that the age of the accused is not mentioned in the judgment. (Cass. 13 Aug. 1907; No. 73, p. 57.)

٤٤ 44. —Contents—Costs.—The Court of Cassation will not quash a conviction by an Assize Court on the ground that such Court has not dealt with the costs. (Cass. 24 Nov. 1906; No. 37 in fine, p. 25.)

٤٥ 45. —Contents—Particulars of offence—Complicity.—The form of complicity consisting in assistance given to a principal offender is constituted by overt acts which must be stated in the judgment of conviction under penalty of substantial nullity. Where, however, the complicity consists in the accessory having been a party to an arrangement having for its object the commission of the offence, it is sufficient to state in the judgment that the arrangement was made and that the offence resulted therefrom. This is because such arrangement is not manifested by overt acts. (Cass. 9 Feb. 1907; No. 108, II, p. 81.)

٤٦ 46. —Contents—Particulars of offence—Forgery—Complicity.—A judgment convicting for forgery should, on pain of nullity, contain a statement of the acts constituting the offence. If an accessory be also convicted, the judgment must, similarly, shew the manner of his participation. (Cass. 24 Nov. 1906; No. 52, II, p. 34.)

٤٧ 47. —Contents—Penalty—Deduction of preventive arrest.—The Court of Cassation will not quash a conviction by an Assize Court on the ground that such Court has not ordered the deduction, from the term of the sentence, of the period spent under preventive arrest. (Cass. 24 Nov. 1906; No. 37 suit, p. 25.)

٤٨ 48. —Contents—Recidivism—Aliases.—Where a recidivist has been previously convicted under different names, the Court should, in view of the requirements of the “casier judiciaire,” state all the names under which he has been convicted. (Cir. No. 11 of 28 May 1906; No. 83, p. 60.)

٤٩ 49. —Contents—Text of law—Art. 310 P.C.—In a judgment convicting for poisoning an animal under art. 310 P.C., the number of that article was cited, but reference was not made to the paragraph applied. Held, that the omission did not amount to a substantial nullity (Cass. 13 Oct. 1906; No. 48, p. 33.)

٥٠ 50. —Form—Sealing.—The fact that a judgment of conviction was not sealed within eight days of its delivery constitutes a substantial nullity. (Cass. 13 Oct. 1906; No. 96, p. 73.)

٥١ 51. —Omission of executory formula—Rectification.—Where the executory formula has been omitted from a judgment directing a measure of investigation, the Court which gave such judgment can, on the application of the party concerned order it to be affixed thereto, notwithstanding the fact that an appeal has already been lodged. (Sum. Trib. Attarin, 25 July 1906; No. 44, p. 27.)

٥٢ 52. —Power of Court to rectify—The power of the Court to amend its judgments is confined to clerical errors and such other alterations as do not affect the actual decision in question. The Court cannot, consequently, allow an application for the amendment of a judgment, on the ground that it has therein failed to adjudicate on the claim made against one of the defendants. (Sum. Trib. Minia-El-Kamh, 2 May 1906; No. 31, p. 19.)