December 8, 1897.]
r.
|
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT.
443
Messrs. Danby, Leigh, and Orange in 1891, Mr. Lemm in 1893, and Messrs. Leigh and Orange, after Mr. Danby had retired from the firm, in 1895. The correspondence showed exactly what was meant when Mr. Moses wrote the letter of 29th May, 1896, that the word
+3
site used in the letters was something differ. ent from the whole of the lot. The leading members of the Jewish community must have known what was meant by the expression 'site; "they must have been perfectly aware that Mr. Belilios never intended to offer to them anything more than land carved out of the eastern portion of Inland Lot 1,381. If his Lordship thought that Mr. Belilios did not intend anything more counsel would be able to quote cases to satisfy the Court that there could be no legal contract binding be tween the parties, even assuming-which de fendant entirely disputed that the plaintiffs did really think defendant meant the whole lot and not a site to be carved out of the lot.
delay." On the 29th March. Mr. Belilios | site, and they insisted upon the lot 1,381 being | could go towards defraying certain costs. wrote asking for the return of Mr. Danby's | put up for sale in one lot and they were not Counsel read further correspondence and said letter and enclosures and regretting he could willing-although they were in 1891-to pat | it proved conclusively that the members of the not reopen the question after the decision up the ground in two lots, as it was pointed out Jewish community appointed to look out for a arrived at in Mr. Danby's office. That letter that one lot would not be sufficient for a syna-site never intended that the whole of the area practically concluded the whole of the evidence gogue and a lot and portion of the next lot in lot 1,381 should be used for the purposes of on behalf of the plaintiffs and counsel submitted would be required. When Mr. Belilios referred the synagogue. The area was always con- that they had completely proved the case as to the lot it was perfectly understood by the sidered to be necessarily too big and it was 80 set out in the petition: The main point was other persons who professed to represent the considered by three different firms of architects
-Did the defendant purchase Inland Lot 1,381 Jewish community that when he referred to the for and on behalf and as the representative of site he meant the eastern portion of Lot 1,381. the Jewish community or on his own behalf and Mr. David and Mr. D. R. Sassoon must His Lordship had the fact that the defendant have perfectly understood that the expression was one of certain trustees-or representatives, "site" referred to a portion only of Inland because they were not legally trustees Lot 1,381 and that Mr. Belilios simply acting on behalf of the Jewish community. as  matter of convenience to the Jewish Then there was also the application from Mr. community and as a favour to them had the Danby applying for the sale of the land, and in whole of the ground put up as one lot. Mr. that letter he indicated that it was the site which Belilios never intended to hold the whole of the had been in contemplation for the new Jewish lot at the disposal of the community, but only synagogue.
The various letters altogether such a portion as was necessary for the pur- showed what was the intention of all the
poses of a synagogue. Counsel thought it bad parties. There was ample proof in the corrs already been stated that Mr. Danby, the pondence without further evidence that architect for Mr. Belilios, applied for two lots Belilios purchased that piece of ground expressly immediately abore Inland lot 1,381 to be put for the use and benefit of the Jewish com- up for sale prior to 13th July, 1896, the date munity and for the erection of the synagogne. when Inland lot 1,381 was sold to Mr. Belilios. He declared he purchased it for that pur- Mr. Danby would no doubt convince his Lord- pose and that he agreed to hold it at their ship that Mr. Belilios never intended to hand disposal for twelve months and to transfer over to the Jewish community the whole of it to them on the payment of costs. Whatever lot 1,381, but only such portion as was absolutely difference of opinion there may have been necessary for the purposes of a synagogue.
Mr. between the members of the Jewish com- Danby would also satisfy his Lordship that the only reasonable approach to the upper lots bought in August by Mr. Belilios was through lot 1,381, and it was intended all along that the approach to the upper lots should be through the lower one. as
Counsel would be able to show that Mr. A. J. David, one of the plaintiffs, and Mr. D. R. Sassoon, who was one of the signa- tories to the letter of 17th March, 1897, were, during the whole of the remainder of the year 1896 and at a still later period, even extending into this year, altogether opposed to this site on the Kennedy Road which is included in lot 1,981 being used for the purposes of a synago gue. They seemed to have considered that it was too public a place, because certain members of the Jewish community were poor and they thought some discredit would be thrown on the community by its poorest members going to a public place like that and enabling people to see their clothes, which were not of the best. Counsel would further show the circumstances which led to the writing of the letter on the 18th January, 1897. On the preceding day Mr. Silas, who purported to act as hon, secretary and who was employed in the firm of D. Sassoon, Sons & Co., of which Mr. D. R. Sassoon was the head and of which the plaintiff Mr. Gubbay was the head. had an interview with Mr. Belilios, whom he informed that the community could not take more than $4,000 or $5,000 worth of land.
At this point the Court adjourned for innch
munity their firal reply was the expression of willingness to take over the site and to pay the costs. Counsel submitted there was a complete declaration of trust that Mr. Belilios purchased that ground
the representative, agent, and trustee of the Jewish community and that there was the clearest evidence in his own hand-writing that he so purchased it and so held it up to the date of the last letter, when he finally refused to transfer the land and offered t transfer only a portion. Defendant had ur- chased the lot for the Jewish community and now he asserted and affirmed his absolute right to keep the property for himself if he so thought fit. The simple question was whether the Jewish community as a whole had a right to have the property transferred to them. That concluded the case for the plaintiffs.
Mr. Pollock submitted that his learned friend had taken a very strange and unusual course in dealing with this case.
His Lordship--Have you no evidence to call, Mr. Francis ?
Mr. Francis No, my Lord. There is suffi- cient evidence in these papers to prove my case. Mr. Pollock, continuing, submitted that such a course as had been adopted by his learned friend would not receive the sanction of His Lordship when he had ascertained the facts of the case. His learned friend had thrown the letter of the 29th April, 1896, and subsequent letters on one
and had
side
relied entirely on one letter which was signed by Mr. Belilios, but not written by him, on the 8th March, 1897. The letter of the 29th April was written prior to the date of sale and it clearly showed what the understanding .. was between the parties as to the site for the synagogue. The letter amounted to an agree- ment for sale by Mr. Belilios of a site for a synagogue, and counsel submitted that if the plaintiffs had any remedy, which he denied, it was by an action for specific performance. It was quite clear from the letter, as was set out in the answer, that Mr. Belilios bought the lot for himself and that he agreed to sell it if cer- tain conditions were complied with. Counsel then explained the position that the defendant took up with regard to the expression "site." which was used in Mr. Moses's letter to Mr. Silas of the 29th April, 1896, in Mr. Moses's letter to Mr. Silas of the 18th January, 1897, and again in Mr. Sassoon's letter to Mr. David of the 8th March, 1897. That showed that it was never intended by the Jewish community or by the persons who represent them in Hongkong that the whole of the arra which was represented by Inland Lot 1,381 should be used for the purposes of a synagogue. In fact the evidence would show that a con- siderable portion of the land in lot 1,381 would be entirely superfluous and unnecessary. Counsel would also be able to show that the Government of this colony were unwilling to split up the
|
вод.
His Lordship-Why did you deny the whole matter? Why did you not set up that you negotiated for a portion of the lot?
Your Buswer seems to deny that these gentlemen treated in any way as representing the Jewish community. You deny the negotiations alto- gether for the taking of the whole lot and there is only a casual reference to the fact that a portion of the lot would be set apart. You do not set up the case that there were negotia- tious for the a part of lot.
Mr. Pollock Your Lordship will see that the plaintiffs' whole case is founded on the allegation that Mr. Belilios purchased the land as a trustee for the community. They say we purchased the lot as trustees for them. I say that the whole form of the action is wrongly conceived. They should have sued for specific performance.
His Lordship-Your defence made it appear that there was an absolute contradiction be- tween the parties in the whole matter.
Mr. Pollock-Quite so; they say we bought the lot in trust for them.
His Lordship-From your defence it would appear that you disputed the whole thing-as if you had nothing to do with the matter.
Mr. Pollock Yes, undoubtedly on the ques- tion of trust. I submit the pleadings are ab- solutely correct.
His Lordship-I think it would have been better if the pleadings had said exactly what you had done. I understand you are are willing that they should have a portion for the purposes of a synagogue...
the
Mr. Pollock-Quite so, my lord. At this point the Court adjourned.
3rd December.
On resuming Mr. Pollock read a letter, dated 28th April, 1891, from Mr. Danby to Mr. J. S. Moses, who was then the head of Messrs. E. D. Sassoon and Co., stating that a plan had been received from the Surveyor-General of the sites on the Kennedy Road to the east and west of the Union Church. The land on the east would be put up by anction at the rate of 20 cents per square foot and that on the west 30 cents per square foot, the approximate price being as follows:- Inland Lot 1,216, 21,450 square feet, rate 30 cents, upset price $6,435; lot 1,270, 21.600 square feet, rate 3 cents. roset price, $6,481. The letter concluded-.e strongly recom- mend you to purchase the two lots 1,216 and 1,217. One lot is almost two small for your re- quiroments. You could, however, erect the synagogue and sell the remaining portion for a small bill of sale and you, being the rendor, would be in a position to lay down the condi- tions, so that it would not interfere with your synagogue." Ou the 23rd September, 1893, to ask Mr. Belilios to transfer the whole of the Mr. Lemm, architect, wrote to Mr. Rae- burn. who was then acting Secretary to the Jewish community, forwarding a plan of the proposed new synagogue as requested. Mr. Lemm reported that it was possible to place the new synagogue on either of the lots 1,216 and 1,217, but the residence of the Rabbi and the quarters of the caretaker on the same lot would necessitate cramming, and he suggested that both lots be purchased. The north east block would still be available for sale and the proceeds
|
Mr. Pollock resumed his speech for the defence and said that on the 11th of March Mr. Silas told Mr. Danby that he and the Committee were going up with Mr. Orange to look at the site, and Mr. Silas told him that after he got the first letter from Messrs. Leigh and Orange and before he got the second. The trustees, on 11th March, wrote saying that they had settled to take the whole of Inland Lot 1,381 as the site for the new synagogue. Mr. Belilios's letter of the same date, which was read by his learned friend, stated that he declined to sell the whole lot and it was quite clear from the letters to Mr. Danby, who was Mr. Belilios's architect, that it was not until the 11th of March that it occurred to the trustees
lot. When the trustees wrote their original letter of the 8th March they quite understood the matter as Mr. Belilios understood it, namely, that a site out of the lot, not the whole lot, was to be set apart for the purposes of the synagogue. Mr. Belilios, in his reply to the letter of the 11th of March, said he could only consent to the transfer of land absolutely necessary for the purposes of the synagogue. Counsel for the plaintiffs had referred to a meeting which was held in Mr. Danby's office on the 15th
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.