If an expert witness, appointed by the Court to enlighten it on certain specified points, such as the condition and extent of the property subject to litigation, goes beyond the limits of his mandate and investigates the question of possession, the Court is bound to disregard his report on that question. (Sum. Trib. Chibin el Kom, 16 March 1902; No. 30, p. 24).

v. Cassation (Substantial nullity of judgment), 10°.

A judgment of expropriation based on another judgment ordering the payment of a sum of money cannot be annulled on the score of the nullity of the judgment, on which the expropriation proceedings are based, so long as this judgment stands. (App. 12 December 1901; No. 19, I, p. 12).

١ 1° Art. 352 of the Penal Code relating to extenuating circumstances only regards principal penalties. Consequently the judge, even if he finds extenuating circumstances, cannot inflict the accessory penalty of police supervision for a term less than the minimum fixed by the article which he applies. (Cir. No. 11, 11 June 1902; No. 23, p. 13).

٢ 2° v. Hard labour (Imprisonment with—).

١ 1° The following offence is an attempt to obtain property by false pretences (P.C. Art. 312) and not a forgery of a private document (P.C. 193). Primus pays over the sum of £40 to Secundus who gives him a receipt without mentioning the exact sum received. Primus writes on the back of this receipt, antedating the mention, that the sum actually paid over was £400. He does this with the fraudulent intention of proving that the loan to which the receipt refers amounted to £400 and subsequently brings an action, though without success, for the payment of the pretended debt of £400 in the course of which he produces these two pieces of written evidence in support of his claim. (Cass. 19 April 1902; No. 12, p. 9).

٢ 2° v. Cassation (Substantial nullity of judgment), 3°.

v. Physician.

Evidence of witnesses who have not been heard although their names were mentioned in the course of the investigation of the parquet, must be considered as a fresh charge, allowing of the resumption of the prosecution after the issue of an order to file without further proceedings. (Cass. 27 December 1902; No. 78, p. 69).

v. Jurisdiction of Native Tribunals, 1°.

v. Appeal (Admissibility of—), 1°.

v. Preemption, 1°, 3°.

v. Distribution proceedings.

١ 1° If in a document of sale with legally established date the boundaries and extent of the land sold are altered by common consent of the contracting parties with the fraudulent intention of depriving a third party of his right to preempt, this alteration amounts to a forgery falling under Arts. 193 and 189 P.C. (Cass. 9 May 1903; No. 91, p. 76).

٢ 2° A sells to B by means of a fictitious contract an immovable belonging to A. A then manufactures a document purporting to be a contract of resale of the same immovable in favour of himself and his wife. The making of this document is not punishable as forgery because there is no prejudice resulting from it, either for B since the immovable has at no time belonged to him, the first contract of sale being fictitious, or for the creditors of A since for the same reason the immovable has never ceased to be A's property and consequently has at no time ceased to be the pledge of his creditors. (App. 25 February 1901; No. 13, p. 10).

٣ 3° v. Cassation (Substantial nullity of judgment), 1°, 8°; False pretences (Obtaining property by—); Improbation proceedings, 1°; Res judicata, 1°, 2°, II.

v. Improbation proceedings, 1°.

v. Cassation (Substantial nullity of judgment), 6° I, 8°.

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

v. Cassation (Substantial nullity of judgment, 6°, 8°); Continuing offence.

v. Contract (Civil or commercial); Jurisdiction (forum rei).

v. Preemption, 2°.

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

v. Judgment by default, 1°.

١ The possessor in good faith of an immovable is not liable for the fruits of the property by application of the general principles contained in the articles 145 and 146 C.C. His liability will only date from the commencement of revindication proceedings. (App. 16 December 1902; No. 71, I, p. 62).

٢ The purchaser of an immovable who evicts the possessor may, if such possessor is in bad faith, claim the fruits not only from the date of the transcription of his purchase but from the date of the purchase itself. (App. 3 February 1903; No. 84, p. 71).

٣ The possessor in good faith of an immovable, holding under a just title, only becomes liable for the natural fruits of the property or their money equivalent, from the date on which the revindication proceedings are commenced. (Sum. Trib. Kena, 21 April 1902; No. 31, p. 24).

v. Prescription (Extinctive).

v. Wakf, 1°, II.

Gaming is contrary to public order and good morals although not expressly forbidden by law; consequently a contract based solely on gaming has no lawful cause and must be declared null and void. A debtor may bring witnesses to prove that gaming is the sole cause of his debt and in some cases even strong presumption may suffice. (Sum. Trib. Tantah, 1 April 1903; No. 77, p. 64).

v. Sale, 1°.

١ May be considered a possessor in good faith the person put into possession of an immovable by a judgment, notwithstanding opposition to his entry on the part of the evicted occupant. (App. 16 December 1902; No. 71, II, p. 62).

٢ v. Fruits, 1°, 3°.

v. Theft, 2°.

v. Resistance.

v. Cassation (Grounds).

v. Cassation (Grounds), 1°, 2°, 4°.

v. Improbation proceedings, 1°.

v. Cassation (Substantial nullity of judgment), 3°, 9°, 10°, 11° I.

v. Guardianship.