December 22, 1897.]
question of the new synagogue I wanted to know the cost of the new building and the means at our disposal. I therefore requested Messrs. Leigh and Orange to carefully make a small plan and a report. They sent them to me after they were prepared and I showed them to Mr. D. R. Sassoon and Mr. Moses, my seniors, and then took them to Mr. Belilios. I showed him the plan and report, which he carefully examined. He asked me several questions, One question he asked me was why a portion marked on the plan was left out and I said it was the intention of the architects to apply to the Government for a lot less that por- tion, which was about 10.000 square feet. I afterwards said that if the Government con- sented that portion would not be enough for building purposes. That was what the ar- chitects had told me. I believe at that time I had the plans prepared, by Mf. Lemm and the earlier plans prepared by Danby, Leigh, and Orange. Mr. Belilios asked me what funds were available. I said they amounted to between $25,000 and $26,000, which included Mr. Jacob Sassoon's expected $5,000. No application was made to the Government for the small portion of land between the date of Leigh and Orange's report of 5th October, 1895, and the letter to Mr. Sassoon in May, 1896. I knew that Mr. Danby had, on Mr. Belilios's instructions, applied for lot 1,381 to be put up for sale.
Mr. Francis-You received a letter from Mr. Moses to that effect?
Mr. Pollock objected to his friend putting a leading question.
His Lordship thought the question could be put.
Mr Francis-My learned friend had better go to school again and he will learn what a leading question is.
His Lordship asked Mr. Francis not to speak like that.
Mr. Francis-Well, my Lord, I must resent such an objection as that. The definition of a leading question is one that is abundantly clear. A leading question is one that suggests an au- swer on a material point. If my friend was half as competent to examine a witness as I am we should have shortened the case considerably.
His Lordship was understood to ask Mr. Francis not to create any ill feeling.
|
|
Counsel then repeated the question and wit- ness said-I did receive a letter from Mr. Moses in May-1896. Before I received the letter from Mr. Moses in May, 1896. I had no intima- tion from Mr. Belilios that he intended to buy three lots in Kennedy Road for the purpose of building houses there, nor did I have any con versation at all with Mr. Danby as to building on that ground. I did not have any conversa. tion with Mr. Danby at about the time the land was put up for sile. He was not in communication with me at all. After the ground was purchased Mr. Danby asked me if had heard that the community bad engaged Messrs. Leigh and Orange to erect the synagogue buildings, and he wanted to know why he was not engaged, as he had prepared the old plan himself. I said it was very handy to me as Leigh and Orange were the firm's architects. Mr. Danby did not like that and said it was not fair. From that time up to the meeting on the 15th March I had no conversa- tion with Mr. Danby with reference to 1,381 or the upper lots, either in his office or eleswhere. During the same period Mr. Belilios told me that he had bought the two upper lots for his. own purposes and that he proposed to erect terraces on them, He never expressed his in- tention of making use of the two upper lots in conjunction with the lower lot. After we received the letter from Mr. Belilios refusing to give up the whole of the lot I had a conversation with him about the 15th March and before the meeting. That was the first time I know he wanted an approach to the upper lots from the lower lot. Before re- ceiving the letter of the 8th March from Mr. Belilios asking onr architects to confer with Mr. Danby as to the portion of the lot required, I had not heard any suggestion that Mr. Belilios proposed to keep a part of the lot. I did not hear from Mr. Ezekiel, one of the directors. about the difference between the Land Invest ment Company and Mr. Danby in reference to the two upper lots. I remember receiving the letter of the 3rd July, 1896, in which Mr. Belilios hoped the trustees would be present at the sale,'
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT.
I enquired of Messrs. Leigh and Orauge and the Land Investment Company whether they intended to compete for the lot.
Mr. Pollock submitted that was not rebutting evidence, as his friend had put in the letter in his opening.
Mr. Francis contended that it was distinctly rebutting evidence, as it was flatly contradic- ting statements made by Mr. Belilios as to the reason why the trustees did not attend. Mr. Belilios in his evidence endeavoured to mis- represent the meaning of the letter and he stated that the trustees did not attend because they had given up all idea of buying the lot. Mr. Silas's evidence would show that that was not so and he would also show why they did not attend.
Mr. Pollock-Mr. Belilios did not say that; he said the trustees did not attend.
Mr. Francis-I am afraid my friend's note. taking prevented him from hearing all that was said.
His Lordship said he had clearly indicated that the pleadings as they stood raised the issue that the defendant did not buy the land as one of the trustees for the Jewish community, but that lie bought it for his own purpose. The issue on that point lay on the plaintiffs, and it was for them to show that he had it not for himself, but as a trustee for the Jewish com. munity. At the hearing a counter defence, so to speak, was raised that the defendant intended to give them only a portion of the lot. That defence was a reasonable and probable one, and his Lordship had held that the plaintiffs might give evidence in reply to the counter defence, but at the same time he indicated that they would not be allowed to give evidence by way of sustaining the issue that originally lay on them. His Lordship did not think the question objected to ought to be put by Mr. Francis.
Witness, continuing-After receiving the letter from Mr. Belilios refusing to give over the whole lot I saw him in Mr. Chater's office. That was about the 15th March and before the meeting in Mr. Danby's office. I asked Mr. | Belilios the reason for refusing to transfer the whole of the lot and said he knew very well that it was all along the intention of the
trustees to have the whole of the site.
Mr. Pollock said bis friend ought to have cross-examined Mr. Belilios on the point.
His Lordship gave Mr. Pollock leave to re- examine Mr. Belilios if he so desired.
Witness-Mr. Belilios told me he wanted an approach to the upper lots, otherwise the value of the upper lots would depreciate. Then he said he meant by approach a roadway. We asked him how much land he required for it. He said he required a very small piece, and asked me to meet him in Mr. Danby's office in the afternoon and he would then tell me. The meeting at Mr. Danhy's office was the direct result of that interview. I asked Mr. Orange to come with us. We went there with the object of trying to meet Mr. Belilios's demand for the sake of peage and not, as Mr. Belilios s id. for the purpose of ascertaining what ground was required for the synagogue. It was not for the purpose of ascertaining how much we were to give Mr. Belilios. Mr. Danby explained what Mr. Belilios wanted. He did not explain what Mr. Belilios proposed to do with his upper lots. I do not recollect whether he showed the terraces or slopes on the plan. Mr. Orange had a plan and he discussed it with Mr. Danby to see how much land could be spared for Mr. Belilios. A a little discussion Mr. Orange found that, if I remember correctly, he could spare something about 10,100 square feet. Mr. Belilios and Mr. Danby approved of this and then Mr. Belilios raised the question of having a retaining wall between the spare ground and the synagogue ground. He said we should pay half the cost of the wall. We said, "It is not fair on your part to put us to that expense after we have allowed a piece for your own use." He said the wall supported our lot and is and therefore we ought to pay half the cost. After a long dispute with us we thought it was not worth while to quarrel over the matter and if it was a small expense we would meet him on that point. Then we asked Mr. Danby what the retaining wall would cost, and he worked it out to be certainly not more than $1,200. Mr. Belios asked Mr. Danby to be sure it would not cost more, whereupon Mr. Danby worked out the cost and said he was almost sure
|
|
|
|
485
it would not be more than $1,200. We said to Mr. Belilios, Just to please you we will give yon 8600, as half the cost." Mr. Belilios said, I cannot settle on that point; I cannot agree to it, because the retaining wall'might cost more or it might cost less, but whatever it costs the trustees should pay half." We said, "We could not accept any such liability; we bave not got enough means to do so. We want to meet yon amicably in this matter and we would not mind paying up to $1,000.” Mr. Belilios would not agree and as he was getting an- reasonable I left, leaving the trustees with him. At the meeting of the 15th March defendant said that unless we agreed to pay half the cost of the retaining wall, whatever it came to, un- thing was settled. About the beginning of March, and before the receipt of Mr. Belilios's letter of the 8th March stating that he would give only a portion, I went to the site with Mr. David, Mr. Orange, and Mr. Raymond. I did not at any time after the letter go with Mr. Danby to look at the site. I never told him that I would go with him to look at the site or that I would go with Mr. Orange. My object in going up at the beginning of March was to show Mr. Raymond the site. The visit had nothing whatever to do with Mr. Belilios's proposal about the division of the land. I remember the inter- view of the 17th January with Mr. Belilios. Nothing was said then about the giving or taking of any portion of the ground. I did not tell Mr. Belilios, as he stated, that we could not afford to take more than $4,000 or $5,000 worth of land. I do not recollect it at all
Cross-examined--I was not formally appointed as hon, secretary. I acted as bon, secretary after the trustees were appointed. They were appointed immediately before the first letter was written to Mr. Jacob Sassoon. Nobody has paid for Leigh and Orange's report in October, 1895. They made the report at my request on the understanding that they would get the job of building the synagogue.
His Lordship-Then I suppose it will be charged for later on.
Witness-I do Lot know.
His Lordship You might not see it, but it will be there, I suppose? (Laughter.)
Witness (continuing)-When Mr. D. R. Sassoon was appointed a trustee he said the Kennedy Road site was too public. To the best of my recollection from then till the 8th of March I heard no expression of opinion on the subject from bim or any other person. When Mr. David was appointed trustee I heard he was not in favour of the site, but he was indifferent and would not object to the site if the other trustees were in favour of it. In January last he told me he was in favour of the site.
The case was further adjourned. Mr. Francis intimated that the evidence wou'd probably be finished before the Criminal Sessions on the 18th. but the arguments could not be concluded by that time.
16th December.
The cross-examination of Mr. D. H. Silas was continued.
Witness-When Mr. Belilios told me he was going to build terraces on the upper lots I did. not understand whether he meant terraces of bouses or terraces of land. I did not ask him what be meant. I cannot remember what led up to that conversation about terraces. I think the conversation took place semetime last year after the sale of lot 1,381. Before the interview. with Mr. Belilios on the morning of the 15th March I had no idea that he wished to utilize the upper lots in conjunction with the lower lot barring the letter I received between the 8th and 13th March. At the meeting on the 18th January, nothing whatever was said about ways and means. accidentally" asked Mr. Belilios what was the price. It was perhaps three days before that meeting that I heard that Mr. Belilios was opposed to the erection of the Sassoon tablet in the synagogue. The plaintiffs solicitors took the proof of my evidence before the action commenced. I may have spoken to plaintiffs'olicitors since the trial commenced about what evidence I could give. Perhaps I have reminded them of what I could say, but I am not certain. I did go to them. I think I did go. I really did not consider, defendant generous in buying the land. He paid the money but took the interest and I do
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.