٩١ 91. —"Appearance at the first hearing."—The appearance of a defendant at the sitting for distribution of causes is not an appearance "at the first hearing" within the meaning of art. 125 C. C. C. Pr., and judgment subsequently given in his absence is, consequently, not to be regarded as given in a contested suit. (Trib. Cairo, 28 August 1907; No. 92).

٩٢ 92. —Default of accused after appearance.—In a case of misdemeanor, the Summary Court ordered an adjournment of the hearing in order that the civil claimant and the accused might submit conclusions. At the next sitting the civil claimant submitted conclusions and some of the accused appeared and replied thereto but others of the accused failed to appear. Held, that the judgment given against those of the accused who failed to appear must be deemed to be a default judgment and subject to opposition. (Trib. App. Assiout, 5 September 1907; No. 32).

٩٣ 93. —Delivery before day named in summons—Partial satisfaction—Waiver of opposition.— A judgment by default will be set aside on opposition if it was pronounced before the date on which the defendant was summoned to appear. The fact that, in order to avoid seizure, he partly satisfied the judgment does not constitute acquiescence therein. (Sum. Trib. Mina-el-Kamh, 29 May 1907; No. 69).

—Delivery before day named in summons; v. Judgment by Default, 93.

٧٢ 72. Contents.—Claim not decided.—Amendment of claim.—To obtain the revocation of a judgment on the ground that the Court has failed to adjudicate on one of the counts of the claim, the petitioner must shew that judgment has not been given on one or more of the issues raised by the final conclusions in the action. The judgment will not be revoked because it does not deal with issues raised in the earlier, but omitted from the final conclusions. (App. 3 Nov. 1907; No. 101).

٧٣ 73. —Contents—Claim not decided—Claim to produce evidence.—A petition for revocation of judgment based on omission to give judgment must show that one or more of the claims for relief in the action have not been dealt with. Mere omission to give judgment on a claim to employ a particular method of proof is not a good ground for revocation. (App. 10 April 1907; No. 29).

٧٤ 74. —Contents—Inconsistency.—The fact that the grounds of a judgment are inconsistent, or that the grounds and the operative part are inconsistent, is not sufficient to justify revocation of the judgment under art. 372, § 6, C.C.C.Pr. Even where the operative part is inconsistent the judgment will not be revoked unless the contradiction is such as to render execution impossible. (App. 10 April 1907; No. 71).

—Contents—Locality of the offence; v. Jurisdiction of Native Tribunals inter se, 95.

—Contents—Particulars of offence—Libel—Legal participation of persons sentenced ; v. Press Offences, 121.

— Extract.—Failure to deliver; v. Cassation, 32.

٧٥ 75. —Appeal judgment—Grounds.—When a sentence of a Summary Court is increased on appeal the reasons for such increase need not be stated in the judgment given on appeal. (Cass. 28 Dec. 1907; No. 40, II).

٧٦ 76. — Contents — Age of accused.— The age of an offender ought to be stated in a judgment of conviction in order to satisfy the Court of Cassation that he is not a juvenile offender within the meaning of Title I Ch. IX P.C. The omission to do so is a substantial nullity. The mention of the age of the offender in the official record of the sitting does not remedy the omission. (Cass. 13 April 1907; No. 1). [مدخلة تمتد من ص11 إلى ص12]

٧٧ 77. — Contents — Age of accused. — The Court of Cassation requires to be satisfied that a convicted offender is not a juvenile offender within the meaning of Title I, Ch. IX, P.C. When the age of the offender is not stated in the judgment, the Court is entitled to refer to the facts of the case, to the appearance of the accused and to his occupation. If these are inconclusive, the judgment must be quashed. (Cass. 10 July 1907; No. 8).

٧٨ 78. — Contents—Date of offence.—The omission from a judgment of conviction of the date on which the offence was committed is not a substantial defect, if the Court of Cassation is able to satisfy itself, from the judgment itself, that the offence was committed within the period of prescription; e. g. when, from the findings in a judgment of conviction for the offence of bringing a false charge, it appears that the false charge related to acts alleged to have been done upon a date which is itself within that period. (Cass. 1 Feb. 1908; No. 95).

٧٩ 79. —Contents—Date of offence—Continuing offence.—Wilful omission to perform the duty imposed by art. 52, Recruiting Law, is a continuing offence and the date of such omission need not, therefore, appear, on pain of nullity, in a judgment convicting thereof under art. 121 of the said Law. (Cass. 28 March 1908, No. 121, I).

٨٠ 80. —Contents—Date of offence—Forgery and uttering.—In a judgment convicting the same person of falsifying and of uttering a document it is not a substantial defect to omit to state the date of falsification if the date of the uttering is stated. (Cass. 14 March 1908 ; No. 107, II).

٨١ 81. —Contents—Finding of guilt—Assize Court.—The finding of guilt required by art. 50 of the Assize Court Law (No. 6, 1905) is sufficiently implied by the passing of sentence without being expressly set out. (Cass. 1 Dec. 1907; No. 26, I).

٨٢ 82. —Contents—Guilty knowledge—Uttering a forgery.—In a judgment convicting the same person of falsifying and of uttering a document it is not a substantial defect to omit specifically to state that the document was uttered with the knowledge that it was false. (Cass. 14 March 1908; No. 107, II).

٨٣ 83. — Contents — Name of state representative — Markaz Tribunal. — The judgment of conviction of a Markaz Tribunal must contain, on pain of nullity, the name of the officer who, under art. 5 Markaz Tribunal Law (No. 8, 1904) exercised the powers of the state representative in the prosecution. (Trib. App. Kena, 6 Feb. 1908; No. 63).

٨٤ 84. — Contents — Particulars of offence — Attempt. — The fact that the completion of a crime was prevented by circumstances independent of the will of its author may be implied from the facts contained in a judgment convicting him of the attempt and need not, in such case, be expressly set out. (Cass. 15 Feb. 1908; No. 43).

٨٥ 85. — Contents — Particulars of offence — False information — Bad faith.—A judgment convicting of laying a false information, under art. 264 P.C., must contain, on pain of nullity, a finding that the information was laid in bad faith. (Cass. 28 March 1908 ; No. 118).

٨٦ 86. —Contents—Particulars of offence—Indignity to public servant.—A judgment convicting under art. 117 P.C., of offering an indignity to a public servant must, on pain of nullity, contain a statement of the words or threats, or a description of the gestures constituting the indignity. It must, also, under a like pain, contain mention of the fact that the indignity was offered to the public servant whilst he was engaged in the performance of his duties. (Cass. 1 Feb. 1908 ; No. 94.)

٨٧ 87. —Contents—Particulars of offence—Public insult.—On a conviction for public insult under P.C. arts. 148, 265 both the words constituting the insult and the circumstances constituting publicity must be stated in the judgment on pain of nullity. (Cass. 28 Sept. 1907 ; No. 25, I).

٨٨ 88. —Contents — Particulars of offence — Theft of crops.—The fact that a judgment convicting of theft of crops does not contain a statement as to whether such crops were still attached to the soil, is not a substantial defect in the judgment, if the theft was accompanied by one or more of the aggravating circumstances mentioned in art. 274 P.C. (Cass. 25 Jan. 1908 ; No. 83.) [مدخلة تمتد من ص12 إلى ص13]

٨٩ 89. Delivery—Absence of judge—Signature.—A judgment is not invalidated by its delivery in the absence of one of the judges, even though he has not signed it, if before delivery he has signed the draft thereof. (Cass. 20 Aug. 1907; No. 11.)

٩٠ 90. —Delivery—Adjournment.—The failure, in a case of misdemeanor, when the accused is under arrest, to give judgment immediately or at the next following sitting, in pursuance of art. 171 C. Cr. Pr., does not constitute a substantial defect of procedure. (Cass. 1 Feb. 1908; No. 96).

— Compétence — Opposition contre un mandat d'arrêt ; v. Détention préventive, 43.

— Ordonnance contradictoire au jugement du tribunal correctionnel — Devoir du parquet ; v. Procédure pénale, 126.

— Partie civile — Audition ; v. Procédure pénale, 124, 125.

— Extrait — Omission de remettre ; v. Cassation, 28.

— Mentions — Compétence territoriale des juges sommaires — Lieu de l'infraction ; v. Compétence des tribunaux indigènes entre eux, 36.

— Mentions — Eléments de l'infraction — Diffamation — Participation légale ; v. Presse, 115.

٦٩ 69. — Jugement d'appel — Motifs. — Lorsque la peine prononcée par un tribunal sommaire est aggravée en appel, il n'est pas nécessaire de constater les motifs de cette aggravation dans le jugement d'appel. (Cass, 28 décembre 1907, N° 40, II).

٧٠ 70. — Mention — Age de l'inculpé. — L'âge du condamné doit être mentionné dans le jugement, pour que la Cour de cassation puisse être à même de savoir qu'il ne s'agit pas d'un jeune délinquant aux termes du titre I, ch. IX, C.P. L'omission de cette mention est une cause de nullité substantielle. — La mention de l'âge du condamné dans le procès-verbal de l'audience ne suffit pas pour remédier à cette omission. (Cass. 13 avril 1907, N° 1).

٧١ 71. — Mention — Age de l'inculpé. — Il est nécessaire que la Cour de cassation sache que le condamné n'est pas un jeune délinquant dans le sens du titre I, ch. IX, C.P. — Lorsque l'âge de l'accusé n'est pas mentionné dans le jugement, la Cour de cassation peut se référer aux faits de l'instance, à l'état physique de l'accusé, et à sa profession. Si ces indications sont équivoques le jugement doit être cassé. (Cass. 10 Juillet 1907, N° 8).

٧٢ 72. — Mention — Constatation de culpabilité — Cours d'assises. — La constatation de culpabilité requise par l'art. 50 de la loi sur les Cours d'assises (N° 4, 1905), résulte implicitement à suffisance de droit, de la condamnation sans que cette constatation soit expressément énoncée. (Cass. 1er décembre 1907, N° 26).

٧٣ 73. — Mentions — Date de l'infraction. — L'omission dans un jugement de condamnation de la date à laquelle l'infraction a été commise ne constitue pas une nullité substantielle si, d'après le jugement lui-même, la Cour de cassation est en mesure de s'assurer que l'infraction a été commise dans les limites du délai de la prescription ; p.e. lorsque, d'après les constatations d'un jugement condamnant pour dénonciation calomnieuse, il appert que les faits faisant l'objet de la dénonciation se seraient passés à une date qui se trouve elle-même comprise dans les limites du dit délai. (Cass. 1er février 1908, N° 95).

٧٤ 74. — Mentions — Date de l'infraction — Délit continu. — L'omission volontaire de se soumettre à l'obligation imposée par l'art. 52 de la loi sur le recrutement militaire constitue une infraction continue ; en conséquence il n'est pas nécessaire, à peine de nullité, que la date de l'infraction soit mentionnée dans un jugement prononçant une condamnation en vertu de l'art. 131 de la dite loi. (Cass. 28 mars 1908, N° 121).

٧٥ 75. Mentions — Date de l'infraction — Faux et usage de faux. — Ne constitue pas une nullité substantielle d'un jugement condamnant un individu pour faux et usage de faux, l'omission de mentionner la date de la fabrication du faux si la date du fait d'usage s'y trouve indiquée. (Cass. 14 mars 1908, N° 107, II).

٧٦ 76. — Mentions — Eléments de l'infraction — Dénonciation calomnieuse — Mauvaise foi. — Un jugement condamnant par application de l'art. 264 C.P., pour dénonciation calomnieuse doit contenir, à peine de nullité, la mention que la dénonciation était faite de mauvaise foi. (Cass. 28 mars 1908, N° 118).