JUDGMENT

Norman, Officiating C.J.

1. This is a claim for pre-emption on the ground of vicinage. The evidence shows that when the pre-emptor heard the news of the sale, he was at his own house, which was adjacent to the lands whereof pre-emption is claimed; and that he went from his own house to the land in dispute, and then made the demand. The Judge holds that though the delay was very short, on the plaintiff's own evidence it appears that there was not an instant demand; and, therefore, that the preliminary formality of tulub-mawasabat had not been performed according to the Mahomedan law, and accordingly be dismissed the suit. From that decision there is an appeal. We think it clear that the decision of the Judge is correct.

2. In Macnaghten's Precedents of Mahomedan Law, page 187, it is said: The right of pre-emption cannot exist without proof of the tulub-mawasabat, or immediate claim. For this there is no specific period assigned, but all authorities agree in declaring the necessity of its being made by the person claiming the right to pre-emption on the instant of his becoming acquainted with the sale, without the least delay. This is absolutely requisite, so much so that if an