444
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
[December 8, 1897.
His Lordship allowed the evidence provided counsel asked the opinion of the co-trustee, Mr.
D. R. Sassoon.
Mr. Pollock said he intended to do that. Witness-Mr. Darid was opposed to the site up to the 15th March this year, when a meeting was held in Mr. Danby's office. Mr. D. R. Sassoon was also deridedly opposed to the site of the Union Church up to March last, when he left Hongkong. I tried to persuade him that it was suitable and Mr. Silas asked me to so persuade Mr. Sassoon so as to complete the affair. I withdrew from the control of the funds after the receipt of Mr. J. E. Sassoon's letter at the beginning of 1897. I objected to the erec- tion of a marble tablet to the memory of his mother as he had proposed.
March and had said that nothing of importancethe 12th March Mr. Belilios clearly pointed out transpired, but it would be proved by evidence that he required a right of way through the that very important business was transacted. | lower lot to get to the upper lot and the pro- There were present at the meeting Mr. Belilios,perty on the upper lot would considerably Mr. Raymond, Mr. David, Mr. Silas, aud Mr. depreciate if he did not have that right of way. Danby, and a site was selected for the syna- The trustees could see that by trying to catch gogue, including of course the Rabbi's resi- Mr. Belilios because he had been indiscreet in dence. An area of ground was agreed upon the expressions he and his clerk had used and between the parties and it included about by trying to make out that they were entitled half of lot 1,381 and a portion of the upper to the whole lot they could try to squeeze him lot bought by Mr. Belilios in August, 1896. and obtain money from him in a manner which The area of the lot 1.381 agreed upon was counsel thought would not be approved of by 23,668 square feet, while the area of the whole
the Court. They had understood all ́along that lot was 46,073 square feet. The area of the the whole lot was not for the purposes of a portion of the upper lot agreed upon was 1,962 synagogue and they must have been trying to square feet. Connsel would also be able to show catch Mr. Belilios in a kind of trap because he that plans were drawn of the buildings and the had used language which was not discreetly Crown rent was apportioned between the parties expressed, and they saw that Mr. Belilios as $171.58 for the portion of the lower lot and wanted to have a right of way through the 814.22 for the portion of the upper lot. So that lower lot in order to get to the upper lot; other-17th Jaunary I had an interview with Mr. Silas the parties agreed upon the site, upon the divi- wise the upper property would depreciate in sions of the buildings, and upon the Crown rent. value. The total area that was required for the syna- gogue and the Rabbi's residence was 25,5430 square feet and two of the plaintiff's agreed that that area was sufficient. The other plaintiff was not present; in fact he seemed to have been
I
Evidence was then called.
Hon. E. R. Belilios, the defendant, said-
a member of the Legislative Council resident in the colony and have been
24131
#
The Court then adjourned for luncheon. After the usual interval witness said-On the
about the value of the land. I thought he said the community could afford only $4,000, but I have learnt since that he himself says he men. tioned $45,000. My recollection is that he said him. In my letter of the 8th March to Messrs. 84,000, bnt to save argument I will give in to Sassoon, Ezekiel, and David I said that eight
kept in the background altogether. After these since 1862 and am the oldest resident of mouths out of the twelve during which I agreed
details had been agreed upon between the par ties and their architects the question arose as to the erection of a retaining wall between the area agreed upon and the remaining portion of the lots. There was some discussion as to the cost of the wall and the parties and their architects could not agree as to the cost, as naturally very careful estimates had to be given.
the Jewish community Here. Since I came
to hold the site had expired. Mr. Moses here I have always taken a very great interest
wrote that letter and I signed it. I do in the affairs of the Jewish community. The
not remember saying anything about twelve present synagogue is in Staunton Street and the members of the Jewish community haveable time and I cannot account for the use months. What I mentioned Was ទ reason- been anxions to move from the present locality of the words "twelve mouths." The meeting It was my suggestion that they should remove to a more respectable site. That idea was mooted office. There were present Mr. Danby, Mr. on the 15th March was held in Mr. Danby's some time before 1891 I censider the site is
and myself.
From the 15th to the 25th March the parties | unsuitable, as it is surrounded by Chinese / Raymond, Mr. David, Mr. Silas, Mr. Orange,
were still intending that the sito agreed upon on the 15th March should be the site for the
synagogue and that would be proved to be the case by Mr. Danby, Counsel then put in correspondence between Messrs. Leigh and Orange and Mr. Danby to show that the trustees were fully agreed up to the 25th March that the site chosen should be used for the synagogue and that the only difficulty was as to the cost of building the retaining wall. On the 25th March Mr. Danby wrote to Messrs. Leigh and Orange stating that he had worked out the cost of the wall at about $5,000, that was about 20 feet above the Kennedy Road level. If carried lower the cost would of course be increased. Messrs. Leigh and Orange wrote to Mr. Danby stating that Mr. Silas had asked them about the level and they decided to allow a level of 10 feet above Kennedy Road for the retaining wall and they could fill up to the higher level
without fear. The next letier was from Messrs. Deacon and Hastings to Mr. Belilios, dated 1st April calling his attention to the correspon- dence that had taken place and informing him that the contract between him and the other
complete.
trustees
was
houses and houses of ill fame.. In 1891 Messrs. E. D. Sassoon and Co. kept the funds of the synagogue. When the question of a new site came up an appeal for inquey was sent home from the Jewish communityto Mr. J. E. Sassoon, but he would not contribute more than $5,000, which he had promised, and the result was that in 1894 the scheme fell throngh. I think there was a deficiency of $20,000. In May, 1896. Mr. David, Mr. D. R. Sassoon, and I again wrote to Mr. J. E. Sassoon.. I also wrote to him in ('et. and received an answer on the 23rd December, but he still declined to offer any, further sum. I am not aware that he has since oilered any more money. At that time we had selected 4 new site. In reference to lot 1.381 it, Dauby told me the Government were selling land in that neighbourhood at a lesser rate than hitherto, and he advised to acquire lots to He told me the west of the Union Church. the land could be bought for 15 cents a foot. I told him then and there to apply on my Lots 1.216 and 1.217 were subsequently, behalf. plus another piece of land, called 1,381. I told Mr. Dauby to make out an application and
I knew at
apply for the land on my account. that time it had been contemplated to erect a synagogue on part of the lot. I applied for as much land as the Government would put up between the Tramway and the nullal near Garden Road. The portion contemplated as the site of the new synagogue was to the
about the
between
The letter con- claded :- We need hardly point out that the contract was then (on the 8th March) complete and nothing which has been done since has altered or varied it. Under these circumstances the trustees reluctantly feel that the duty lies on them to carry out the arrangement agreed upon even though, in so doing, they will be
east side of the lot and to the west of the Union Church.
Mr. compelled to seek the aid of the Court. They
In speaking to trust, however, that
1 lower lot said I on fuller cousideration Danby you will alter your views and see your way to should require the whole lot between Kennedy carry out without delay the contract that has Road and Macdonald Road and been come to." The position then taken up by In the letter to the Director of Public Works, the Tramway and the Garden Road nullah. the solicitors was different from the position at present taken up, as it was now alleged that Mr.
dated 18th June, 1896. Mr. Danby asked that the Belilios bought the lot as one of the trustees.
upper lots should be sold at the same time as the What motive could there be for these gentlemen lower lots. My idea was to build two villas to trying to squeeze Mr. Belilios out of the whole
be converted, if I wished it, into one, the build- lot ? Counsel suggested that the motive was—
ings to be in the centre of the three lots. I Mr. Francis objected that the question of intended to give the community the piece of motive, was immaterial and irrelevant. The ground near the Union Church and to utilize question was what were the legal arrangements the remainder as an approach to the honses to between the parties and not what were the be built on the upper lots. At the time I ap- motives that induced them to act in that partic-plied for the lots I knew that only a portion
ular way.
His Lordship said Mr. Pollock was endea vouring to make out that the plaintiffs had shifted their ground.
Mr. Francis said that was a question of fact and not of motive.
His Lordship ruled that if there was a motive that might strengthen the evidence as to the shifting of ground it was relevant to mention it. Mr. Pollock then said that in the letter of
would be required for the synagogne. I meant by the worl site 30,000 square feet required for the synagogue. used in my letters the Noue of the trustees or Mr. Silas were present at the sale of the land, nor did a telegram I asked for in a letter of 20th May arrive from Mr. J. E. Sassoon. Mr. David had decide.l bb. jections to the synagogue being erected there.,
Mr. Francis objected. Individual likes or dislikes had nothing to do with the question at issue,
An arrangement was come to be-' tween the parties as to the site for the synago and the Rabbi's residence. The site was quite agreed upon and Mr. Orange marked it out on the plan. The site included about half of lot 1,381 and a small portion of the upper
lot. The Crow rent was discussed by Mr. Danby fixed the Crown rent in proportion. After that and Mr. Orauge, who calculated the area and
had been settled there was some talk about the cost of the retaining wall, but no settlement could be arrived at until surveys had been made. After the meeting the negotiations as to the cost of the retaining wall were continued and correspondence went on between Messrs. Leigh and Orange and Mr. Danby up to as late as the
20th of March.
forty of the Jewish community and asked the Counsel then put in a document sigued by witness what was the occupation of each one.
Mr. Francis submitted that such a course was irrelevant.
Mr. Pollock said he merely wanted to show that they were nearly all connected with the plaintiffs in the snit. It was like a saying to his employés," Look here, sign this
document."
nan
His Lordship said it would perhaps only in. question were proceeded with. crease the bitterness between the parties if the
Mr. Pollock thoreupon said he would not go on with the question.
Cross-examined by Mr. Francis.--The syn. agogne was opened in Staunton Street in the seventies. I did not like the site and I did not frequent it or took any active part in the affairs. Some time in 1893 I first took an Inetive part in the affairs of the synagogue. Ip that a new site should be obtained. The people 1890 and 1891 I made suggestions as an outsider
came and consulted me about the site, but they
did not bring plans or a report. I did not see Messrs. Danby, Leigh, and Orange's report
made in 1891 nutil 1893. Some time in 1893 a
general meeting of the community was held in Mr. Ellis's house with the object of raising funds for the new synagogue. The site in Kennedy Road was not mentioned at the time. A committee was appointed and then a working sub-committee was appointed to manage the details. Mr. Lemm's report and plan were discussed at the meeting and I agreed to them. I do not know that Messrs. Danby, Leigh, and Orange's report was sent Mr. Lemm before he made his report. I now remember that the reports and plans of all the architects mentioned were placed before the meeting. On the 3rd October, 1893, I wrote, to the Director of Public Works applying on behalf of the Jewish community of the colony for lots 1,216 and 1,217 to be put up for public auction. The