JEWS (contd.)
592
25.
inland lot for the Jewish community for twelve months, from the date of purchase by him? (5) Had he within twelve months been called on to assign the lot? (6)
as the site suitable for a Synagogue, as regards the number of people likely to frequent it, the funds, and the special conditions of sale?
Since 1890, said Mr. Francis, the Jewish community had been looking around for a Synagogue site and an application had been made to the Government in 1891. Consideration of the question was resumed again in 1893, and surveys and plans were prepared by Mr. Danby. Then in May 1893, the matter was again revived and a memorandum was drawn up by the Jewish community, appointing Messrs. D. R. Sassoon, M. D. Ezekiel, E. R. Belilios and A. J. David, trustees to take hold of the whole property and available funds belonging to the Synagogue.
Correspondence relative to the auction of Inland Lot 1381 was then read. Included in this correspondence was a letter from Mr. Belilios to his co-trustees, which read: With reference to the site on Kennedy Road which I am holding on behalf of the community for the purpose of erecting a Synagogue, I beg to inform you that eight months have already elapsed out of the year for which I have agreed to hold it for you. I have myself, only ten months to build on it, and will you kindly let me know within the next week, whether you like the site for the Synagogue or not?
The trustees replied that they were willing to take over the site and requested Mr. Belilios to prepare the transfer.
Mr. Belilios then wrote to the trustees, asking them to arrange for their architect to meet Mr. Danby and decide which portion should be transferred.
In reply, the trustees said they wished to take over the whole of Lot 1381. Mr. Belilios refused to comply with the trustees' demands and a deadlock was reached.
Mr. Francis contended that his case was fully proved by the correspondence. He submitted that there was a complete declaration of trust, and that Mr. Belilios had purchased the land as representative or trustee of the Jewish community and that there was the clearest possible evidence, in his own handwriting, that he had so purchased it. Mr. Francis closed his case without calling any evidence.
The case for the defendant will be published to-morrow.
***
In yesterday's issue, the case for the plaintiff in the famous Synagogue action of 1897-98 was given. The case for the defence was presented by Mr. H. E. Pollock.
Mr. Pollock said that Mr. J. J. Francis, had followed a most unusual and irregular course with reference to the correspondence between Mr. Belilios and the representatives of the Jewish community in Hongkong. One important letter had been set aside, in which Mr. Belilios laid stress on the words "He would be glad to transfer the land," which clearly put Mr. Belilios in the position of seller.
Counsel then described the efforts of the Jewish community to raise funds to purchase the land and build a Synagogue. He contended that they had nothing like sufficient money for the purpose, and it was not likely that the trustees would set out to purchase more land than was needed.
Mr. Pollock, continuing, said it was clearly shown in one of the letters that A. J. David knew that the whole of the lot was not intended as a building site or a Synagogue. One letter from Mr. Belilios was written by a clerk and it contained an error in saying that Mr. Belilios had been holding the land for eight months out of a year. The other side had called no evidence, and had only put in a stream of correspondence that showed Mr. Belilios' letter was erroneous. In the letter from the Trustees saying they were willing to take over the site, it did not show what was meant, whether it was the whole Lot or whether as Mr. Belilios understood, a site to be carved out of the lot.
In his letter to Messrs. Sassoon, David and Raymond, Mr. Belilios made use of the term "a portion", showing clearly what he intended, and he asked them to get their architects to consult with his as to the portion to be transferred. It could be shown that the three gentlemen knew perfectly well what was intended by the word "site".
JEWS (contd.)
592
25.
inland lot for the Jewish community for twelve months, from the date of purchase by him? (5) Had he within twelve months been called on to assign the lot? (6)
as the site suitable for a Synagogue, as regards the number of people likely to frequent it, the funds, and the special conditions of sale?
Since 1890, said Mr. Francis, the Jewish community had been looking around for a Synagogue site and an application had been made to the Government in 1891. Consideration of the question was resumed again in 1893, and surveys and plans were prepared by Mr. Danby. Then in May 1893, the matter was again revived and a memorandum was drawn up by the Jewish community, appointing Messrs. D. R. Sassoon, M. D. Ezekiel, E. R. Belilios and A. J. David, trustees to take hold of the whole property and available funds belonging to the Synagogue.
Correspondence relative to the auction of Inland Lot 1381 was then read. Included in this correspondence was a letter from Mr. Belilios to his co-trustees, which read: With reference to the site on Kennedy Road which I am holding on behalf of the community for the purpose of erecting a Synagogue, I beg to inform you that eight months have already elapsed out of the year for which I have agreed to hold it for you. I have myself, only ten months to build on it, and will you kindly let me know within the next week, whether you like the site for the Syna- gogue or not?
The trustees replied that they were willing to take over the site and requested Mr. Belilios to prepare the transfer.
Mr. Belilios then wrote to the trustees, asking them to arrange for their architect to meet Mr. Danby and decide which portion should be transferred.
In reply, the trustees said they wished to take over the whole of Lot 1381. Mr. Belilios refused to comply with the trustees' demands and a deadlock was reached.
Mr. Francis contended that his case was fully proved by the correspondence. He submitted that there was a complete declaration of trust, and that Mr. Belilios had purchased the land as representative or trustee of the Jewish community and that there was the clearest possible evidence, in his own handwriting, that he had so purchased it. Mr. Francis closed his case without calling any evidence.
The case for the defendant will be published to-morrow.
***
In yesterday's issue, the case for the plaintiff in the famous Synagogue action of 1897-98 was given. The case for the defence was presented by Mr. H. E. Pollock.
Mr. Pollock said that Mr. J. J. Francis, had followed a most unusual and irregular course with reference to the correspondence between Mr. Belilios and the representatives of the Jewish community in Hongkong. One important letter had been set aside, in which Mr. Belilios laid stress on the words "He would be glad to transfer the land," which clearly put Mr. Belilios in the position of seller.
Counsel then described the efforts of the Jewish community to raise funds to purchase the land and build a Synagogue. He contended that they had nothing like sufficient money for the purpose, and it was not likely that the trustees would set out to purchase more land than was needed.
Mr. Pollock, continuing, said it was clearly shown in one of the letters that A. J. David knew that the whole of the lot was not intended as a building site or a Synagogue. One letter from Mr. Belilios was written by a clerk and it con- tained an error in saying that Mr. Belilios had been holding the land for eight months out of a year. The other side had called no evidence, and had only put in a stream of correspondence that showed Mr. Belilios' letter was erroneous. In the letter from the Trustees saying they were willing to take over the site, it did not show what was meant, whether it was the whole Lot or whether as Mr. Belilios understood, a site to be carved out of the lot.
In his letter to Messrs. Sassoon, David and Raymond, Mr. Belilios made use of the term "a portion", showing clearly what he intended, and he asked them to get their architects to consult with his as to the portion to be transferred. It could be shown that the three gentlemen know: perfectly well what was intended by the word "site".
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.