THE SYNAGOGUE CASE.
The following is the full report of Mr Francis' address to the Court, on behalf of the plaintiffs, the Jewish Community, in the Synagogue Case:-
Mr. Francis said:-May it please your Lord- ship: ttseeins to me that the best way in which I can deal with this case is by reviewing the whole facts and circumstances in the order in which they occur. And in stating the facts as they appear in evidence and in referring to the correspondence will be able, more clearly than in any other way, to deduce the necessary. arguments as to the legal effects and what is correct. To commence, therefore, at the begin. ning it seems perfectly clear titat for a very long time, for many years past, the members of the Jewish Community-leading members in cular-have been anxious to move the Synago gue from its present plage in Staunton Street and to transfer it to a more suitable site. Your Lordship will see from the evidence that the building in Staunton Street, and the property vested in the trustees on behalf of the Jewish Community, was not originally built or intended as a Synagogue. I think it was built as a Parsee Club and not for a Synagogue and it was only so taken for certain respects, and it was never intended by the architects as a place of wor- ship. Your Lordship has also heard from the evidence that this movement was taken for the neighbourhood, once a very fashionable one, with the Union Church near, and now it is futi of Chinese houses of not the very best class Therefore, as a matter of better position it became apparent to the members of the Com munity that they could shift the Synagogue to
|
more suitable site and consequently they contemplated and thought it advisable to move to a more suitable place as was required for their use. Therefore, as we have heard, in 1890 and in 1891 the leading members of the Jewish Community, represented for practical and busi- ness purposes by Messrs. E. D. Sassoon & Co., were making application to the Government "for a piece of Ludin Kennedy Road which- it was agreed or which it was at least believed to be a very appropriate site for a Synagogue. M. JUS. Moses, who appears to be the manag- ing partner at that time; made application, as we know, to the Government for a piece of land, which we have frequently described during the course of the case, which was between the tramway and the nullah in its natural course, and the Government were perfectly willing to put it up for purchase by the Jewish Community for a Synagogue and the land was surveyed in the ordinary course and also laid out, and the Government were perfectly willing to put it up for sale at 30 cents per square foot and the site was lots 1216 and 1217. We have it absolutely clear on the evidence that Mr. Belilios, un- doubtedly a leading member and probably the wealthiest member of the Jewish Coinniunity in the place, himself had his attention particu larly drawn to this site as most suitable for a Synagogae and he actually pressed on Mr. Moses and the other members the advisability of getting it. Not merely did they approve of it but Messrs. Danby, Leigh and Orange were called on in March or April, 1891, to prepare plans and estimates for the information of the leading members of the Jewish Community with the view of the erection of a Jewish Synagogue somewhere in that neighbourhood, and on 28th April, 1891, Messrs, Danby, Leigh and Orange reported on the sites 1216 and 1217, which i have just referred to and which lay to the west- ward of the Union Church, and 1226 and 1227, to the east of the Union Church. Of course we are bound to assume that Mr. Belilios and other members of the Community whi called on Messrs. Danby, Leigh and Orange for this purpose, furnished them with full information as to what were their requirements for the Synagogue, what rooms, how many seats, etc.. they wanted. Messrs. Danby, Leigh and Orange's report says "We strongly recommend you to purchase the two lots 1216 and 1217. One alone is almost too small for your require menis. You can, however, erect & Synagogue and sell the remaining portion for a villa site and you, being the vendor, can lay down con- ditions so that the building will not depreciate your new Synagogue." ask your Lordship's immediate attention to these words because they are repented afterwards in Mr. Lemm's report and because they are of importance in view of the rights of the "parties. In Messrs. Danby, Leigh, and Orange's report although they recognise the fact that both lots were larger than necessary for the magnificent Syna gogue, they recommended both lots and pointed out the undoubted advantage of then purchas ing the whole of the lots, as they could sell the portion that they did not require and, far more important than for the money they could obtain for that lot, they would have it in their own power to regulate the conditions on the lot so sold, how it would be occupied and what kind of building was to be built. In that same report it was suggested that Mr. Danby should interview the Governor, direct, with the object of reducing the price on the lots. The report contained no recommendation or suggestion as to applying for a smaller piece of ground but it does recommend them to apply for the whole. On the 28th July Messrs. Danby, Leigh and Orange wrote further (exhibit 45). "In 'accordance with your instructions (it would appear that after the letter of 28th April and the recommendations of the land, they were called on to prepare plans) we send you here-- with sketch plans. The suggested site is two lots of ground in Kennedy Road and are the first lets from the bridge and are without exception "the most suitable lats in this Colony?! Again your Lordship will remember, that that time they did send in plans, which re before the Court, in which are indicated the lots to the west of Union Church, 1216 and 1217, as site A and the two enst of Union Church as site D. In their report. they say "We most strong- ly recommend that the Synagogue, be erected on the site A. Although the upset price of this is to cents more than the other, however, it will cost much more by the leveiling on site B, thus making the actual cost greater than site A, which is already nearly levelled by the Government and, should you decide to take this, the cost of levelling will be proportionate- ly little compared with site B. The size of both lots is somewhat kåger than required for your purpose. One lot only, as laid out by the Government would be much too small. How ever we strongly recommend you to purchase the two lots forming site A.. If the Synagogue is erected you can then sell the remaining portion and prevent annoyance to the worship pers at the Synagogue." Again Mr. Danby does not write to find a smaller one but he points out as probably of much more importance the immense advantage that they would have in being able to direct the terms in which any building could be put up on that land. Before. parting with Messrs. Danby, Leigh and Or ange's reports, I will, although it is a little out of the chronological order, refer to their supple mentary report of January 11th, 1873, (ex 46). Your Lordship will remember that an interval clapsed between 1891 and 1893 in which no thing was done and in the beginning of 1893 the persons interested in the Synagogue refers. red back to the reports of "Messra Danby, Leigh and Omnge to see in some way if they could reduce the expenses. Messrs. Danly, Leigh and Orange then sent in a report point- ing out that a suitable Synagogue could be erected for $10,000. This report showed
THE HONGKONG TELEGRAPH, FRIDAY, JANUARY 21, 1898.
Messi. Danby, Leigh and Orange's view that although it would be necessary for them, be
ause of the want of funds at the moment, to ¡-put up a smaller building than originally con templated and which they originally advised, still their recommendation is that they should arrange the building so that there could be no difficulty in enlarging or embellishing the the place. In that last report there is no sug- gestion as to whether they should acquire any ether portion or in any other position. There fore, my Lord, I submit that so far as 1890 and 1891 are concemed, it is perfectly clear that Mr. Belilios, who was actually interested in the matter and urging Mr. Moxes un die advisabi lity of the ground did not say that the whole of the area was not absolutely necessary for the purpose of the Synagogue and the trus tees, were strongly recommended to purchase the whole for their own protection. Now, my Lord, nothing was done till 1893 and have already referred your Lordship to the first step taken in 1893. Tu 1893 Me Lemm was con- sulted, and in that year also a representative committee of the Jewish Community was appointed and of, that committee Mr. Belilies was a member. We are told that there was a committee and a sub-commitive and that Mr. Raeburn, who is now absent from the Colony, was acting as honorary secretary and all this correspondence, of Messrs. Danby, Leigh and Orange is addressed to Mr. Raeburn as also the correspondence and reports sent in by Mr. Leiti. Now in Ms. Lenin's report of September, 1893, he writes that "In accordance with instructions 1 beg to forward a plan of the new Synagogue in Hongkong. The site referred to is the two lets, 1216 and 1217:" He does not say that the site for the Synago gue is a portion of the lot or the castern half. He writes that the site selected is on the West of Kennedy Road and gives the area as 43,055 square feet. Mr. Lemm's report says further, "It is possible to build the new Synagogue on either of these two lots but to place the rabbi's residence on the same lot would necessitate cramming. I suggest that both lots be pur chased and the north-east block could be sold
;
with the Land Investment Co., and he as sumes, without a shadow of evidence for that assumption, that whatever was in that letter was communicated by Mr. Ezekiel to the other. members of the Conimmunity. He wants us to assume that that letter from him to the Land investment Company on a private matter must have come to the knowledge of the trustees and that Mr. Ezekiel was a leaky vessel and he must have communicated it. That was the only way in which Mr. Belilios, could søge gest that his intention could have been known by the other members of the committee.
The Court then adjourned till Friday, 31st instant, a jó am
FOURTEENTH DAY-December 31st.
put
it
the sale in order that there will not be any competition as several people have their eyes on the lot." In the first place with reference to the word "site" for the proposed Synagogue. I submit that word is there used and must have been used in the same sense in which it appeared in all the previous correspondence" and all the previous architects' reports. It is. clear that in
many matters the trustees were depending mainly upon the architects as to which was the nest suitable location, what was the most advisable method of cutting it and what was to be buik on it. At that time when that letter was written Mr. Belilios was a member of the comunitice specially appointed for the selling of the old Synagogue and secur ing a new one. "Site of the Synagogue,” when that letter was written muust, have meant, and could only mean 1216 and 1217. If Mr. Deli- lies had been, as he said, from May, from the previous month of May, under the ingres? that the principal members of the Jewish munity were opposed entirely to the use of this site for a Synagogue and if he was, dis- tinctly and deliberately contemplating the use of the three sites together for himself, as he and Mr. Danby tells us, for three villas capable of being converted into one; how comes he to to write that letter all? How comes it that Mr. Belilios Tought it necessary, if he thought that the conditions of the sale prevented the building of a Synagogue, to write that letter? Afr. Belilios, a wealthy member of the Commu nity, saying that there was a want of funds is. absurd. If he wants us to believe that the prin- cipal members of the Community were opposed to the site and had given up the idea of pur- chasing it, why does he send the nete to Mr. Silas? In that letter he hopes that the trus tees, the three of them, will be present at the sale in order that there would not be any outs side competition." Now what was outside and what was "inside" competition? "Inside" was inside the members of the Jewish Cont: munity and "outside" was anybody else who might bid and could interfere with the Jewish Community getting the ground at a little over upset price. What an absurdity for Mr. Belilios that the Jewish Community would not take over the ground and if he had planned that the ground should be used for villas, or for handsome building for himself? If he had any such idea in his mind he was betraying the confidene, of the trustees in inviting thêm to attend the sale in order to prevent outside competition and to enable him to get the
-and the proceeds would-go far for the building on for the ground, Mr. Telitios, by his clerk it. Mr Danby has-tried-to-persuade us over to write that letter if he thought at that time
and the forming of roads and enclosures." I call special attention to this as Mr. Belilios said that the north-east block was always intended for the Synagogue. We find that Mr. Helilios is not merely active in recommending the location, in Kennedy Road, he is not merely a member of the Committee of the Jewish Community which was appointed for the matter, but we find him an active agent in applying to the invern ment to put up these two particular lots as a site for the Synagogue, with the full knowledge of Messrs. Danby, Leigh and Orange's reports and the recommendations they had made that both lots should be purchased although hath were not required for the Synagogue, and with the full knowledge that it would be in the interest of the Community to purchase the whole even if they did not require it, for the sake of the advantage they could get. There is then the communication.sent by the trustees or by the committee to Mr. Jacob Sassion under date 3rd October, 1893, (ex. 27). It is stated in that letter that a general meeting of the Jewish Community had been called and that the signatories, including Mr. Behlios, had been appointed a general committee.
Then
we have a letter of 14th November, 1893, (ex, 47) from the Director of Public Works to Mf. Belilios and asking him if he was still pre- pared to purchase the ground for the Jewishy Community. Mr. Belilios. replied to that and asked that the sale should be delayed as it was necessary to communicate to Bombay. On 20th November, 1895, Mr. Chatham writes agreeing to postpone the sale. There is a letter of 20th November, 1893, from Mr. Jacob Sassoon in which he proposes to sell the present Synat gogue and he promises to add the sum .of $5,000; and then, to conclude the transactions. of 1893, we have Mr. Belilias' letter to Mr. Cooper in which Mr. Belilios requests that the sale of the ground may be indefinitely post- poned until they heard from him as there were certain financial difficulties in connection with the purchase. 1894 begins with ex 29 in which, evidently as the result of the receipt of Mr. Jacob Sassoon's letter, there is a referênce back by the committee to Mr. Lemnm to see if he could not make some reduction in his esti mates, and in his reduced estimate your Lord ship will see that there is no suggestion of any change of site nor any suggestion that a smaller site should be looked for anywhere else. The only suggestions that are contained are sug- gestions for alterations in the building and the material with which the building should he constructed and he further reduced the esti mate to $7,200. Now,, my Lord, nothing dond apparently by anyone till 1895 and. then ME Silas succedis Mr. Raeburn as the person actively working in connection with the construction of a new Synagogue. When. Mr. Silas came the committed did not meet but there was no evidence of entire dissolution, There was a renewed activity in 1895 with the arrival of Mr. Silps. He tells us he took up the matter rather warmly when he came here, and without occupying any official position he nade enquiries to see if anything could be dune. The first thing in 1895 was that Messrs. Leigh and Orange, who were apart from Mr. Danby, were consulted. Why that was sa Mr. Silas sufficiently, explained they were acting as architects for Messrs, D. Sassoon, Son & Co., in which firm he was employed. In Messrs. Leigh and Orange's report of 19th October, 1895, the first words are The site on which the Synagogue, is proposed to be re- erected is the same as suggested in 1891 when the project of the new Synagogue was first mooled! Now, my Lord, what was the site. suggested 1892 The site, the word is re- peatedly used in the reports, was two lets com- bined, Nos. 1216 and 1217, and the site was, not limited in the correspondence to the actual piece of ground on which the Synagogue was to be erected. The site was with the recoin- mendation that both lots should be purchased by the Jewish Community and if there was any surplus ground they could sell it to their advantage. Messrs. Leigh and Orange report- ed in 1895 that the site that they contemplated and on which they reported was the same as the one in 1891. Now, my Lord, what did Messrs. Leigh and Orange mean when they wrote that?" They meant the whole of 1216 and 1217, between the tramway and the nullah, The area was 43,050 square feet. Messis, Leigh and Orange wrote in their report "These are. larger than absolutely required and we would recommend that a smaller it be applied for: 30,000 square feet will be enough for The purpose." Whether the application was
!
1-
wise have got it. If that is the case he so acted in order to lead the public who attended the
sale to believe that the purchase was made for the purpose of building the Synagogue and to let them see that Mr. Ezekiel, Mr. David, Mr. Sassoon and Mr Belilios himself, were on the ground and that the lot was wanted for the purpose of a Synagogue. I refuse to believe
box that he bought the ground for himself. It would be a dishonour and discredit to him self if it turned out to be true, In inviting the trustees to be present in order to prevent ontside colpetition Mr. Belilios was doing a discreditable action if he was not at that time deliberately intending to purchase that ground for the Jewish Community, if he was at there as the representative of the Jew
I refuse to take his own ish Community.
April, 1896, Mr. Danby on behalf of Mr. Beli-known his intention is by his communications. trustees, the three of them, will be present at lius, us he has told us his good client-and a very good client he has been to Mr. Danby applies to Mr. Cooper to put up the piece of ground for sale and on the following day, 29th April, Mr. Delillus, by his clerk, writes to Mr. Silas telling him that the piece of ground which Mr. Danby applied for was the site for the Synagogue and that further delay was inadvisable. Now, my Lord, what was Mr. Helios position on that day? Mr. Delilios was a leading member of the Jewish Commu nity and he had been active all though 1890, 1891, 1892, 1893, 1894, in taking steps to obtain for the Jewish Community a better site for the, Synagogue. He was a member of the com. mittee which had been appointed for the special purpose of securing suitable ground for the
Mr. Francis continued his address when the new Synagogue and erecting a Synagogite on it. He and the other members of the committee Court resumed to-day. He said-I think be- have been in communication with Mr. Jacob fore the Court closed yesterday afternoon Sassoon who agreed to transfer the old Syna- had endeavoured to demonstrate from the gogue and funds and his contribution of $5,000 documents in the case and from the evidence for a new Synagogue. The report of Messrs. which has been put before the Court, of the Leigh, and Orange was laid by Mr. Silas circumstances at the time that Mr. Belilios before Mr. Belilies and the other leading instructed Mr. Danby to apply for the grad members of the Community. My first point between the tramway and the nullah to
up for public auction sale, that he was doing is this, that apart from any alterations or com munications that were subsequently written, as agent for and as representative of the Jewish, on the day Mr. Belitios instructed Mr. Danby Community and of the committee of which he to send in that application, he was in fact and was a member and to which he was appointed in law the agent or representative of the Comto build a new Synagogite, and in the construc munity for that ground. Can your Lordship, tion of law alone that he was a trustee for them. lave ny doubt that when he gave these in think the last letter I referred to was the structions to Mr. Danby and that when Mr. letter of 27th May, 1896, to Mr. Jacob Sassoon. Muses wrote that letter, that Mr. Belilius was The next letter 1 find in the correspondence is then and there acting as the representative of the letter from Mr. Cooper, addressed to Mr. the Jewish Community for the purpose of Danby, and dated 12th June, 1896, infanning getting for them the site for the Synagogue? I him that his Excellency the Governor hail submit that is clear law if your Lordship approved of the ground in question being put for sale and in that document the conditions an finds that is a fat, quite apart from subsequent letters, you are bound to declare that Mr. Besi- which the Government were prepared to sell the lies declared bimself a trustee or agent in land were included. Now, my Lord, I ask your applying for that land. Mr. Belilus was acting in attention to this, that the Governor and Mr. no other capacity, le was still a member of the Coup understood Mr. Danby's application undissolved committee appointed in 1893. He for the ground between the tramway and the had applied for that land for the fewish Commu nullah, known as the Synagogae site in the niky and he applied now for the same identical same, sepse in which Mr. Danby himself and sle. On the day following Mr. Danby's apph Mr. Belilios and all other parties understood wrote to Mr. Silas that Mr. Danby had applied and over again to believe that he was not for the site of the proposed Synagogue and applying for the site or sites for the proposed Synagogue; that he did not at all mean the old that further delay would be inadvisable. Now, my Lord, what dickhe mean by "site" The
lots 1216 and 1217; that he was thinking of the whole lot from the tramway to the nullah and meaning of the word "site" varies according In the context. The word "site" is in itself
from Kennedy Road to Macdowell Rol Of course he contradicted himself in indetihite. But what, and what alone, coul
many be intended by "the site of the Synagogue?", i places but that was in the main what he insist
I subunit that in, ed upon. Although Mr. Danby does not property at a cheaper rate than he would ather- The whole of 1216 and 1217. these two letters alone, Mr., Helios had in.. fess to having any communication with "Mr. structed Mr. Danby as the agent and as the Comer, the Government understood it as being.
the two did lots and that is precisely the ground representative of the Jewish Community and his application is for both lots to be a site for which they put up for sale in answer to his the Synagogue. Why should Mr. Belilios say request. Tais letter, combined with the thru father delay would be inadvisable? Why notice in the Gazette which as been put in, is did he write to Mr. Silas at all if he applied for absolutely clear on that point. Now, my Lord, the land for himself? If he was ne, their agent with reference to the special conditions. If why did he communicate to Mr. Sikes what he it struck Mr. Danby or Mr. Belitios at the timer. Belilios statements made in the witness had done?—He was still anxious for that site of the receipt of this letter that there was any- in be used for the Synagogue. He was still thing in that special condition which prevented under the inpression that it was the best site in or would tend to prevent the erection of a the colony. Whatever opposition there was Synagogue on that ground or on any portion of any members of the Jewish Community to of it, why did'nt Mr. Belilios communicate it. the site, who was it that overpowered them?14 to his co-irustees? If that was his opinion at Mr. Belilios. Whatever opposition there was the time why did he write the subsequent he naturally had his own way and so much did letters and why does he reiterme up to the be consider that he was entitled to have his present moment that he was willing to give a portion were it not for those conditions? Mr. own way that he at once instructed Mr. Danby to apply for it, and it was not for himself, Pollock for the defence has drawn attention to the fact that the special conditions provide for because if it was he would not have comuni cared to Mr. Silas or any of the members of the the erection of houses known only as the Jewish Community, He writes that he did not European class. Now, my Lol, there are think ittvisable to delay any longer. Itwas only two class of buildings known in this Co- not advisable in whose interest? If it was his lony, that is, European and Chinese. A Syna own why should he write? Me. Belilios wrote, gogue is not a Chinese pagoda Init is distinctly that letter knowing himself to be the agent or within the limit of buildings described as of trustee of the Jewish Community. He volun, the European class, only call your Lord tarily put himself in that position, and applied ship's attention to this as an illustration of Mr. Bellins' mind at the line and as throwing for 11216 and 1217 for the Jewish Community as a site for the Synagogue. The same let- doubt on his assertion now, and as your Lord ter says "If the Community would like to ship will remember he is putting great import take it from him within a reasonable time he ance on it and inserted it in the answer to the will be glad to hand it over upon reimburse pleadings as if it constituted an important ment of costs, etc., otherwise he will keep it defence, Mr. Bellins insists that that was his himself! Now, my Lord, is that the letter of state of mind and which induced him to pur. a man who was offering for sale? Is that the chase it entirely for himself and he could not letter of a man who bought a piece of ground have intended it for the Jewish Community, and offered to sell it to his friend or neighbour, if that was so why did he write the subsequent at a price? If he had been purchasing or had letters, if there was an obstacle which he could purchased that ground for himself he would- nal overcome? Now, my Lord, again with have said "If within a reasonable time you reference to the piece of ground, we know that in would like to take the eastern portion or at the interval between 1893 and 1894 this, ground reasonable portion or a portion of the lot, you was put in two lots 1216 and 1217, with the may have it at the price I paid for it." if he Albany Nullah which formerly followed its na had the idea in his mind of buying that fandtural course, and had been, as Mr. Danby called for himself he would not have written that it, drained and as unprofessional men call it letter. I submit that apart from the con-
straightened, and as the result, of this it left an clusion I put to your friskin, that there is a
additional piece of ground between the nullah double obligation on Mr. Helilios, I submit that
and the tramway and in putting up the ground quite apart from this letter Mr. Belilios applied for sale the second time the Government for and ultimately purchased that land as the added this extra piece which is about 3,000' agent and representative of the Jewish Com Square feet. They anly other difference they, munity. He took upon himself to act, so. He made was that they put it up as one lot, 1381, had not divested himself of the position which instead of as two. Sr. Belilios has told us he had fassumed as one of the trustees of the why. It was so put up at his suggestion and Jewish Community when he wrote the letter to a: his request, and for what purpose? In order Mr. Cooper, Judging by his acts and the circum- to prevent competition. And why may it be stances of the case he istructed Mr. Danby to fairly inferred the Government's consenting Because apply for and bough. it for Jewish the Commu- that it should be put up in one fol? nity. If he did not divest himself as one of the they knew from the correspondence that it was committee in 1893 your Lordship is bound to 'intended for the semi-public purpose of erecting declare him a trustee. It is clear law, too clear, Synagogue. Was it just or fair or was it to require the quoting of cases. The next step reasonable or proper treatment of the Jewish is in May, 1866, when the Community appoint. Community that Mr. Bellies should imine- Messrs. 1). R. Sassoon, Belilies and David as diately take advantage of putting up the whole trustees or representatives of the Jewish Com. for them so as to aviod any other competi munity. The above gentlemen signed a paper tion? Now, my Lord, the next letter in the agreeing to become trustees as follows: At series is the letter addressed by Mr. Danby the request of our Community, we, the under- to Mr. Cooper with reference to the upper lots. signed. are willing to become trustees and take I ask your Lordship's attention to one phrase hold of the whole of the property and available as to the boundaries: "The boundary should fands belonging to the Synagogue." The beas follows:-North-The south. Boundary memorandum appointing them is "We, the of the ground applied for on 28th April." Now, undersigned, are agreeable that Messrs. D. R.my Lord, what did Mr. Danby mean when ha Sassonn, M. D. Ezekiel, E. R. Delilios and J. David, should become trustees and take hold of the whole property and available funds, etc., belonging to the Synagogue." With what object it was not mentionel. If it was prepared by a solicitor it would have been in a different way and would have expressed what was really intended. They were appointed to take over the whole property, and for what purpose Purchasing a site and erecting a new Synago, que and for no other purpose whatever, and, Mr. Belllins accepted that appointment in writing. We have had from the witness the explanation that Mr. Ezekiel was one of the trustees and representatives of the Jewish Com munity as the head in 'tongkong of the firm of Messrs. E. D. Sassoon & Co, and he was a trustee er officia which is clearly shown in the
made or not it was not one that the Go-letter to Mr. Jacob Sassoon. In that letter vernment could comply with. If they did, a small piece of ground out of that would have been sold at a reduced price or probably they cod nor sell it at all If that were feast- bic how are we to suppose flint Mr. Belilios, who was actively interesting himself, would not have made that application? Messrs. Leigh and Orange go on to say that they prepared a pirin.for a smaller and less extensive building although it would have the same seating accom modation, and they recommended any economy. in the price of the site for the purpose. The economy in the price of the site could be provided in two ways, either by the Govern Juent putting up a smaller site which would cost less, and if the Government would not do that, then buy both lots and sell a portion which Messrs. Danby, Leigh and Orange and Mr. Letim had suggested Now, my Lord, on 28th
F
1
.!
(ex. 31) the signatories, Messrs. Sassoon, Beli- lies and David, said that at the request of the | Community they had agreed to become trustees together with his representative in Hongkong. They said that the intention of the Community was to sell the old Synagogue and with the proceeds to build a new one and call it "Ohel Leah." They enclosed the report of Messrs. Dinbit Leigh and Orange showing the estimate of the cost. They further asked of him an addi tional contribution in addition to the $5,000, If Mr. Belilios at that time had applied for the ground between the tramway and the nullah, for himself and with the intention of Selling a piece only to the Community I submit it was clearly his business to inform them. "ALI have told your Lordship be did not inform a soul. as to his intention with the land and the only way in which he suggests that they could have
a
contend
was there as the representative of the jewish Community and that is also shown in his own letters. Esubunit, in, the first place, with refer- ence to Mr. Belitios' and Mr. Danby's evidence that so far is Mr. Heliños', statenients in the witness-box us to his state of mind and his Antemtion at the time, that evidence must be wholly and entirely disregarded. His intention at that time must not be judged by what he says in the witness box now, after the dispute has arisen. That evidence is excluded in every court, whether of equity or of common law. His intention should be inferred from his acts from the circumstances in which he stond-from his instructions to Mr. Danby?-Ves. From his dealings with Mr. Danby-Yes. Frain his correspondence with the Land Investment Co. or Mr. Hell-living Yes. From his own cor respondence with the trustees and others 7- Yes. From his statements Mr. Silas at the time?--Possibly yes. Now, my Lord, on con- sidering what was Mr. Belilios' position on the day of the sale, we have first that he was the person from the beginning to the end who was most active in suggesting the erection, Synagogue. He was the person most active and efficient in suggesting and getting that site, He was a member of the committee specially appointed for getting tirai site. The same idea was prevalent among the Jewish Community in 1895 as in 1890, 1891, 1892 and 1893. They wanted
new
A new Synagogue and they wanted it on that particular ground. It is a perfect matter of indifference if some members of the Community were opposed to the site because.
We see Mr. Belilios they were overruled.
in April, 1896, when that ground was going to be put for the sale, stepping forward and without instructions from the committee,and without consulting anyone, making an ap plication for the same ground as was wanted for the Synagogue to be put up for sale. He writes to Mr. Silas, the active agent: of the Community, what he had done and the appli edtion of Mr. Dabby was for a site for the Synagogue." Mr. Helilios was still an active. member of the commitice specially appointed for securing that ground, on the day on which he attended the sale. His position in relation to the Jewish Community and the circum- stances on which they stood are the most important circumstances to be considered be cause the question is between himself and the Jewish Community and the circumstances that have to be taken into, consideration are the circumstances that were common or of common knowledge to himself and the Jewish Commu nity and not circumstances that were peculiar to himself and not known to any members of.. the Jewish Community. Now, my Lord, I am
and Mr. Danby's evidence should be judged perfectly willing that Mr. Bellios evidence and determined by what they said and wrote, andwery fortunately in the interest of justice. a difference, a small quarrel, broke out in the month of July, 1896, between Mr. Belilius and the Lard Investment Cand. Danby, n sort of triangular duel, and a lengthy corres pondence involving the question of the upper lots took place between the parties. Now, my Lord, I submit that the statements made in that correspondence, by Mr. Belilios and Mr. Danby's letters written by them in July; 1896," before the purchase of the ground was a fort- night old, most emphatically contradict the statements the principal statements that they have made in the witness-box. I do not say,
y
Lord, that broadly, in a broad sense, the discussions, conversations and transactions which Mr. Belilios and Mr. Danby deposed to have never occurred between then as to the three lots or did not occur at all. I cannot do. them an injustice. As far as I say is that they
· have ante-dated it anil the discussions and con- versations occurred after the purchase of the lot, 1381, and did not occurr before. Now, my Lord, Mr. Belilios says in bis evidence "About the second week in April Danby told me that the Government were selling land in Kennedy Rond cheaper than before and advised me to apply for the land to the west of the Union Church 1216 and 1917." "I have no doubt that that statement is correct so far as that question is concerned, but it is n peculiar fact that Mr. Belilios says here that Mr. Danby advised him to apply for sites.to the west of the Union Church and Mr. Danby told us in the witness-bos over and over again that he was not thinking of 1216 and 1217 at the time he sent in that application but only mentioned the site for the Synagogue" to.. locate it and that he left indefinite the southem. boundary. The ground, as Mr. Belitios said, was distinctly with reference to 1215 and 1217
word as to the injury of his character and his reputation. Mr. Belilios has inade a mis- take. The next letter is Mr. Danby's letter to Mr. Cooper of roth July accepting the condi- tions of the sale of the upper lots. And then the next incident in the series of transactions is the actual presence of Mr. Belilios and. Mr. Danby at the sale and Mr. Belilios" purchase of the ground, in his own name, of course. He paid the usual deposit and I have no doubt he has paid for the boundary stones and other incidental expenses. Now, my Lord, we know as a matter of fact that the other members of the committee did not attend at the sale and although we have no direct evidence on the point we can infer why they did not attend.. First, Mr. Belilios admitted that he was their agent and it was known that the site was want- ed for a Synagogue. Secondly, on the receipt of that letter Mr. Silas made enquiries if it was so known and found that no people were going to compete for the ground. Now, my Lord, I think it is a fair inference, a just in ference, the only proper inference, that the trustees did not attend because they knew that there would be no competition. Mr. Belilios said that he did not buy it for the Jewish Cemand, as I said before, the Government so under-. munity or as a representative of the. Jewish stood it. I submit that Mr. Belilios has ante
dated his evidence because it is clear in the Community. Then, this is not the letter which I have just read, that he should have written if correspondence that it was not till much later" he was knowingly and deliberately going and that lot 138 was known to Mr. Belilios or purchasing that land for himself and not for Mr. Danby in that designation and when MF, the Jewish Community. Considering all that Danby applied for the upper lot on 18th June he did not know the lower number. In July has passed, that lie was a member of the com mittée specially appointed for the purpose of when Mr. Cooper replied to the application for securing that site, was it nor his duty, if he the upper lots to be put up for sale, is the has changed his mindwar the other members first time that we find 1381 mentioned and your Lordship will remember too that it was not changed their minds to have written "I any going to buy this ground for myself. ! till June that the Government intended to put understand that you do, net, want it but if them up under a new designation and with an you want for the Jewish Community come additional area. Mr. Belilios goes on to ny- and bid for it yourselves," If he had said so "I also instructed him to apply for the upper. the trustees would have instruct ed Mr. Leigh lots and said I would require the whole block or Mr. Orange to go and, bid for them. It of land between Kennedy Road and Macdon- is all very well for my friend
nel Road and between the tramway and the that they were all opposed to the site at that nullah. I intendell, to build two villas on the time. The trustes were induced to believe three lots convertable into one residence. I that he was going to bid for that land for them did not consider 138 as a separate lot but in and there was no necessity for them to attend conjunction with the upper lot. There is Mr., I submit that Mr. Belilios has stopped, and liefilios' assertion that about die second week stopped for ever, say that the truth he did in April he instructed Mr. Danby to apply for attend that sale for the Jewish Community,the upper tots and told him that he would By his conduct, by his letter, by his position require the three lots together. Your Lordship on the committee, Mr. Belilios put the trustees will see when I come to the correspondence off their guard and prevented them from tak with Mr. Bell-Irving, that his statements made ing any means for securing the land for the in July of the same year are in flat contradiction wrote that? He meant a definite line, a line Community. Again I submit that Mr. Belilios to this statement As I said before such conver which he knew and which the Surveyor Gener- conduct in connection with the immediate pur sation passed between them but Mr. Belilios has al knew, that is, the southern boundary of the chase and sale of the land and that letter are ante-dated it. Ms. Belilios goes ch. "I applied nid lots 1210 and 1217. This is perfectly clear alone sufficient to satisfy the Court as to the for the lots because I knew that only a portion and shows that his statements as to his meaning fact of that simple transaction and sufficient would be used as a Synagogue? I mean by and intention is not correct as his letter con. to entitle the Court to declare Mr. Belilios a "site" 30,000 square feet at the east end of the denins it. He did not ask for an indefinite construct trustee of the land for the Jewish combined lots." Now, my Lord, how.could line, but the boundary of 1216 and 1217. Then Conumunity. Now, my Lord, the mass of evi- Mr. Belilios have come by that knowledge? again it is noteworthy that Mr. Danby in that dence on the other side and the weight of the There is nothing whatever in the papers or letter contends very strongly that the particular case on the other side centres on that particular correspondence put in that that was meant by lots should be put up at a smaller figure, day, the day of the purchase. My friend has "the site for the Synagogue” at that dafe. challenged in the broadest possible fashion. All the architects concerned, the three of them, abilly "as in this case it is more than pro
had successively recommended the purchase of there will be keen competition for the the allegation contained in paragraph, 5 of the site." What did he mean by "in this case?" petition, that Mr..Belilios purchased that ground the whole of the ground and called it the The only other case in bis letter is the applica as the trustee of the Jewish Comintunity. There site." "Although in a sense this statement of Mr."
Belilies has an amount of truth in it, that the tion for the lower site, 1381, the former 1216. is no particular significance about the word and 1217. And what does he mean tint with "trusted." If he purchased it as the agent, as actual ground on which the Synagogue would reference to that ground there would be no the representative, of the Jewish Community, be built would not exceed 50,000 square feet, competition? Because he knew that it was and for them in that capacity, if he so conducted he knew.and must, have had it in his mind that wanted for a Synagogue, and in this case he himself at the time, so as to induce them to the idea was to purchase the whole lot, which says there will be a keen competition, as it was think that he was so acting and prevented them would be a distinct protection for the Synago- not wanted for a senti-public purpose. I sub- from taking any steps to buy that land, he was gue and would also aid the funds. Again Mr. mit there can be no other meaning put on in law their agent their representative, their Belilios, speaking of the interview with Mr. that letter. On 1st July Mr. Cooper replies trustee, in respect to that land. Mr. Befilios Silay on 17th March, said "I was under the that the Government had approved of the upper and Mr. Danby have tried to set up by their impression that he said four thousand dollars evidence that Mg′ Belilios had 'no-intention lots, being put up for safe by public nuction.
wonh of land, but he afterwards said four to and here for the fine time we find 1381 speci- at the time of purchasing the ground for the five thousand dollars." Mr. Silas denied that feally mentioned. The next letter in the Jewish Community, and that he intended to he had said anything to that effect to him. direct series of correspondence is a memoran purchase it wholly and solely for himself There is nothing in the correspondence to dum from Belilios and Co, Hongkong, ard July, although his state of mind was such that he
Justify such a statement and of course a letter to which I'have, to refer later shows that it is, 1896, signed Elias (Mr. Moses) and addressed was willing and would at any time have been to Mr. Silas. (Counsel reading letter) "Mr.willing to give a portion for the purpose impossible that anything of that sort could. Belilios désires me to inform you that the site of building a Synagogue and so far as his have occurred at that interview Now, Tay Lond, you will note what Mr. Belilios said in for the proposed Synagogde in Kennedy. Road mental condition was concemed he never is advertised, for sale on 13th instant at 4.30. intended to purchase it for the Jewish Comhla evidence, about the special condition of p.m. in last Saturday's Government Gaseffe, munity but for himself, and that he was not He hopes that we can get a telegram from there as the representative of the Jewish Mr. Jacob. Sassoon before then, and that the Community The facts show clearly that he
sale When save the special condition 1 though it was inconsistent with the crection of the Synagogue, I did not apply to the
Page 5Page 6