JEWS
(contd.)
593 16.
Counsel then read a letter from Mr. Danby, architect, to Messrs. Leigh and Orange, in further support of the contention that the whole Lot was not meant, when the word 'site' was used.
Mr. Pollock referred to a meeting attended by Belilios, Raymond, David, Silas and the architects for the trustees. Mr. Pollock said he would show that the object of this meeting was to arrange for the selection of a site for the Synagogue.
An area was marked off and agreed upon. It included part of Land Lot 1381 and part of 1382 which had been purchased by Mr. Belilios previously.
Counsel then made a startling accusation. Mr. Belilios, he said, required a right of way through Land Lot 1381. The trustees knew this and on the strength of an indiscreetly worded letter, written by a clerk, were trying to squeeze money out of the defendant in a manner that would never be approved by the Court.
The Hon. Mr. E. R. Belilios then entered the witness box and told how he came to purchase the land. He swore he purchased the two lots on his own account. Part of one lot was to go to the Jewish community as a site for a new Synagogue and he intended building two villas, convertible into one residence, on the remainder.
The evidence given during the case was voluminous. The action dragged on through December and finished early in January. The most important point in all the evidence was that when Mr. Belilios first asked for the land to be put up for auction, it consisted of two blocks, 1216 and 1217. Later these areas were combined and sold as Lot 1381.
In his final address, Mr. Pollock said it was quite clear from the reports of three different firms of architects that the combined areas were more than sufficient for a Synagogue. Mr. Belilios, he said, never intended to transfer more land than would be sufficient, and it could not be suggested that the Jewish community would take more land than they required.
The Chief Justice, Sir John Carrington, reserved judgment, and a month later gave his verdict in favour of Mr. Belilios. The judgment itself covered 72 foolscap pages.
The witnesses for the defence, said Sir John, had been more confident and more precise than those brought by the plaintiffs.
In his letter asking that the land be put up for auction, Mr. Belilios was the avowed agent of the Jewish community in Hongkong, and it was quite clear that the land was to be for the erection of a Synagogue.
An important change in the locus in quo took place in April 1896 when two old lots, 1216 and 1217 were thrown together and became Land Lot 1381. Mr. Belilios never told the trustees of the Jewish community that he intended purchasing Land Lot 1381 for them, and they had never asked him to purchase this new lot. He did not know whether they would take the land or pay for it, if he did purchase it.
Sir John entered judgment for the defendant, with costs.
A few weeks ago I devoted a good deal of space to the famous Synagogue Case, in which Messrs. D. Gubbay, A. J. Raymond and A. J. David, acting on behalf of the Jewish Community in Hongkong, sued the Hon. Mr. E. R. Belilios for the recovery of certain land which the plaintiffs alleged was being held in trust for the Jewish Community, as the site for a new Synagogue.
Judgment in this case was delivered in February, 1898 and under the terms of this judgment, the site was declared to be the sole property of the Hon. Mr. Belilios. This set-back, however, did not prevent the Jewish Community from going ahead with the idea of a new Synagogue, although it delayed its erection for a few years.
The first Synagogue had been situated in Staunton Street, and for some years had proved most satisfactory, but as an undesirable class of people began to settle in the vicinity, it was decided to erect a new building in a better neighbourhood.