JEWS
(contd.)
591
2.
On spare ground adjoining, after it had been levelled, the Trustees allowed the community to build a social club-house. Mr. E. S. Kadoorie undertook the expense of erecting the club building, which was completed in 1901. In 1907 a billiard room and dancing hall were added.
The Jewish cemetery at Happy Valley is situated picturesquely on a knoll at the upper end of the valley, above the old Wongneichong village, and dates back to a time when that area was but partly developed.
****
One of the most interesting legal cases in the history of Hongkong was that in which D. Gubbay, A. J. Raymond and A. J. David, acting on behalf of the Jewish community of Hongkong, sued the Hon. Mr. E. R. Belilios, C.M.G., for the recovery of certain land, which plaintiffs alleged was being held in trust for the Jewish community.
The case was commenced on December 2, 1897 and was concluded in January, 1898 when the Chief Justice, Sir John Carrington, gave his decision in favour of Mr. Belilios.
Mr. J. J. Francis, Q.C., appeared for the plaintiffs and Mr. H. E. (now Sir Henry) Pollock was for the defendant.
In outlining the case for the plaintiffs, Mr. Francis said that this was a suit in equity, in which plaintiffs, for and on behalf of the Jewish Community in Hongkong, with the exception of the defendant, sued the Hon. Mr. E. R. Belilios. The plaintiffs asked for a declaration to the effect that the defendant purchased Inland Lot 1381 as a trustee for the plaintiffs and the Jewish community in Hong Kong, which at that time numbered about 150.
The members of the Jewish community, said Mr. Francis, for many years had worshipped in a Synagogue in Staunton Street, but since 1890, they had been planning to remove to a better site. In 1896 a Lot of land was advertised for sale by the Hongkong Government. It proved to be admirably suited for a Synagogue and plans were prepared with the full knowledge of the defendant.
The defendant, said Mr. Francis, had himself applied to the Government for the auction of Lot 1381, and on July 13, had purchased the land on behalf of the Jewish community. Defendant agreed that he would hold the land purchased by him, and would at any time within twelve months transfer it to the Jewish community, subject to payment of cost and interest.
Continuing, Mr. Francis said, the plaintiffs had since offered to reimburse the defendant, but the defendant refused to hand over the land and claimed to hold and retain the lot for his own benefit.
In reply to the plaintiffs' allegations, defendant denied that the land was suited for the erection of a Synagogue. He admitted that he had applied to the Government that Lot 1381 should be put up for sale but it was on his own account and not for the Jewish community. There were special conditions of sale that only European dwellings should be erected on this lot, and that the decision of the Director of Public Works would be final.
The defendant further admitted that he purchased the land for $6,931 in his own name but he denied that he attended the sale for and on behalf of the Jewish community of Hongkong. He further denied that he ever declared or agreed that he would hold the site at the disposal of the Jewish community in Hongkong, or that he would, at the end of twelve months, transfer it to them or their trustees, on the reimbursement of the price and interest by the plaintiffs.
Finally, the defendant denied that the plaintiffs, at the time, acted as representatives of the Jewish community, and denied that they had authority to make the request on behalf of the Jewish community. He stated that many members of the community were opposed to the inland lot being used as a site for the Synagogue.
Mr. Francis said, that the practical issues raised by these pleadings were: (1) Had the plaintiffs authority to sue for and on behalf of the Jewish community in Hongkong? (2) Had the defendant purchased Inland Lot 1381 for and on behalf of the Jewish community or on his own behalf? (3) Had he placed himself in a position of trustee in respect of that lot? (4) Had he promised to hold the said lot...
Page 15
Page 16
JEWS
(contd.)
591
2.
On spare ground adjoining, after it had been levelled, the Trustees allowed the community to build a social club-house. Mr. E. S. Kadoorie undertook the expense of erecting the club building, which was completed in 1901. In 1907 a billiard room and dancing hall were added.
The Jewish cemetery at Happy Valley is situated picturesquely on a knoll at the upper end of the valley, above the old Wongneichong village, and dates back to a time when that area was but partly developed.
****
One of the most interesting legal cases in the history of Hongkong was that in which D. Gubbay, A. J. Raymond and A. J. David, acting on behalf of the Jewish community of Hongkong, sued the Hon. Mr. E. R. Belilios, C.M.G., for the recovery of certain land, which plaintiffs alleged was being held in trust for the Jewish community.
The case was commenced on December 2, 1897 and was concluded in January, 1898 when the Chief Justice, Sir John Carrington, gave his decision in favour of Mr. Belilios.
Mr. J. J. Francis, Q.C., appeared for the plaintiffs and Mr. H. E. (now Sir Henry) Pollock was for the defendant.
In outlining the case for the plaintiffs, Mr. Francis said that this was a suit in equity, in which plaintiffs, for and on behalf of the Jewish Community in Hongkong, with the exception of the defendant, sued the Hon. Mr. E. R. Belilios. The plaintiffs asked for a declaration to the effect that the defendant purchased Inland Lot 1381 as a trustee for the plaintiffs and the Jewish community in Hong Kong, which at that time numbered about 150.
The members of the Jewish community, said Mr. Francis, for many years had worshipped in a Synagogue in Staunton Street, but since 1890, they had been plan- ing to remove to a better site. In 1896 a Lot of land was advertised for sale by the Hongkong Government. It proved to be admirably suited for a Synagogue and plans were prepared with the full knowledge of the defendant.
The defendant said Mr. Francis, had himself applied to the Government for the auction of Lot 1381, and on July 13, had purchased the land on behalf of the Jewish community. Defendant agreed that he would hold the land purchased by him, and would at any time within twelve months transfer it to the Jewish com- munity, subject to payment of cost and interest.
Continuing, Mr. Francis said, the plaintiffs had since offered to reimburse the defendant, but the defendant refused to hand over the land and claimed to
old and retain the lot for his own benefit.
In reply to the plaintiffs' allegations, defendant denied that the land was suited for the erection of a Synagogue. He admitted that he had applied to the Government that Lot 1381 should be put up for sale but it was on his own account and not for the Jewish community. There were special conditions of sale that only European dwellings should be erected on this lot, and that the decision of the Director of Public Works would be final.
The defendant further admitted that he purchased the land for $6,931 in his am name but he denied that he attended the sale for and on behalf of the Jewish community of Hongkong. He further denied that he ever declared or agreed that he would hold the site at the disposal of the Jewish community in Hongkong, or that he would, at the end of twelve months, transfer it to them or their trustees, on the reimbursement of the price and interest by the plaintiffs.
Finally, the defendant denied that the plaintiffs, at the time, acted as representatives of the Jewish community, and denied that they had authority to make the request on behalf of the Jewish community. He stated that many members of the community were opposed to the inland lot being used as a site for the Synagogue.
Mr. Francis said, that the practical issues raised by these pleadings were: (1) Had the plaintiffs authority to sue for and on behalf of the Jewish community in Hongkong? (2) Had the defendant purchased Inland Lot 1381 for and on behalf of the Jewish community or on his own behalf? (3) Had he placed himself in a position of trustee in respect of that lot? (4) Had he promised to hold the said
Page 15Page 16
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.