Publication Date
30/07/1867 — 28/03/1284
Subject
Stores wheat lawsuits
Type
belge
Language
Arabic
Digital
Yes
Manuscript
No
Library
King Abdul-Aziz Al Saoud Foundation for Islamic Studies and Human Sciences
Record ID
display13342
Date
30/07/1867 — 28/03/1284
Notes
Praise be to God, Sidi Muhammad bin Sidi Ahmed Al-Omrani claimed on behalf of Al-Makki bin Al-Hajj Al-Arabi Bennani against Al-Sayyid Abdel Qadir bin Sidi Ahmed Al-Jabbar that the person representing him in the lawsuit was and all the defendants were for the receipt of fourteen hundred the weight of dirhams, with a people’s dirham due to him in the case, and for the sale of a shop in Al-Qasariyah, there in the vicinity of the shop of Ibn Muftah and the shop of Sidi Ahmed Ayad, and for the sale and irrigation of wheat in Al-Kabir, as he mentioned, and the price of that was received in it with a hand from him, except as he may have mentioned, and the accounting work in the receivables. His performance, and the answer, was known as his value, attested to in full and by his knowledge, and on the twenty-eighth of Rabi’ al-Awwal al-Nabawi al-Anwar in the year one thousand and eighty-four. Praise be to God, the representative of the defendant above, Sidi Muhammad bin al-Hajj Idris bin Haidah, from the plaintiff above, asked him to explain to him the date of the agency claimed above, and to name for him the people mentioned in the above article, and to explain to him what is owed by each one, and to show him that the wheat above arrives in batch for him to sell, and he said to him, “It is seized, so who has it?” Or from a place in which he is, and to limit his claim in a complete manner whose value is known and is fully attested to and established in history. Praise be to God, the plaintiff makes it clear that it has been issued that the history of the agency mentioned in it and that it is under the hand of the aforementioned defendant. God has called it only people, and what is the responsibility of each one of them is shown by the drawing that is under the hand of the defendant. It is also mentioned that the aforementioned wheat was in the hands of the aforementioned defendant in trust and he ordered it to pay, or even to sell it, and he limited his claim in the above article in a detailed and comprehensive manner, ensuring that he knew its value and attested to it. In the second of Rabi’ al-Thani in the year above, the right manoub was correct. Praise be to God, Sidi Muhammad bin Boujaida, the representative of the above plaintiff, responded by denying all of his faults. The above article, what a denial of going too far against it. A complete answer. He knew his worth. He testified against him in full and with his knowledge, and in the above date it follows.
