486
not consider that very generous. He was one of the trustees. The other trustees did not come forward to pay any of the money. I did not consult Messrs. Leigh and Orange about the cost of any retaining wall prior to the meeting of the 15th March.
By his Lordship-I was out of court when Mr. Belilios gave his evidence.
His Lordship-I suppose you have read Mr. Belilios's evidence in the newspapers ?
Witness-Yes.
You are aware that Mr. Danby gave evidence? Yes.
Did you read his evidence all through in the papers P-Yes.
Since reading those gentlemen's evidence have you been to the plaintiffs' solicitors to make any definite statement with respect to the evidence you could give if you were called to give evid- ence in reply ?-I went to my solicitor in re. ference to some points. I said certain points were not so. They did not take down what I said.
Why could you not have made a simple state. ment to Mr. Pollock P-I said I may have gone. The gentlemen gave their evidence within the last few days: why could you not have given a direct answer to Mr. Pollock ?-Mr. Pollock was asking me if I was giving evidence to them. I did not give any evidence.
His Lordship read over what the witness said and asked him to stand down.
Mr. Orange, architect and civil engineer, said-I was formerly in partnership with Mr. Danby and Mr. Leigh, and am now to partner- ship with Mr. Leigh. We are the architects for Messrs. D. R. Sassoon and Co. I remember preparing the report of the 19th October, 1895, at the request of Mr. Silas, and the sketch plan and tracing in connection with the proposed new synagogue were sent with the report. When preparing the plan we used only the plans of our late firm. The site was the saine as the one suggested in 1891. Tn the report I recommended that a smaller lot should be applied for. I did not make any application to the Government to put up the ground in a smaller lot. We never applied for the ground to be put up for sale for the Jewish community. From the date of the report to the date of the sale we did not prepare any plans or reports for the creation of a synagogue. I have no doubt I had conversations with Mr. Silas on the sub- jest, but not with Mr. Belilios. I first heard of the dispute between Mr. Bellios and the Jewish community about the appropriation of the land sometime in March. I was called apon to go with the trustees to Mr. Danby's office, but before then our firm wrote a letter to Mr. Danby in accordance with in- atructions. The letter referred to the transfer of lot 1,381. At the meeting held on the 15th March a line was drawn on our small sketch
The
plan showing the portion of lot 1,381 which it was proposed to give to Mr. Belilios. area to be given up was to the west of the lot and about 60 feet east and west and nearly the whole width.. The area was about 10,000 square feet: Mr. Danby produced a contour plan and
outline of the proposed synagogue was drawn on some tracing paper. This was moved about on Mr. Danby's contour plan until a posi tion was fixed. A line was then drawn to the west of the synagogue. Mr Danby and I agreed that the line would give sufficient space for the synagogue and also would suit Mr. Belilios's purpose. Either Mr. Belilios or Mr. Danby said he would give a corner of 1,382 so as to give more room for the rabbi's residence. Mr. Danby then raised the question of the cost of the wall. Before that question arose I thought the proposed partition was agreed to by the parties. Mr. Danby asked who was going to pay for the wall, The trustees ected, to pay and I said that for
80
were poncerned we did not want a wall.
meone naked Mr. Danby what would be the approximate cost of the wall. Mr. Danby ked it out and said about $1,200. He had contour plan before him. Someone sug- gested that the cost should be halved. After some conversation the trustees agreed to pay a gum of $600. Mr. Belilios objected to baving a definite sum fixed and he insisted upon half of whatever sum the cost came to being paid. After a very animated conversation the trustees said they would agree to pay $1,000, but Mr. Belilios insisted upon his first demand. Mr,
[December 22, 1897-
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
| Danby said he would correctly work out the cost. | meeting of the 14th March. I was not at first in favour of the proposed site for the synagogue, Nothing was settled and the meeting broke up.
After luncheon witness said-If the whole but I changed my mind in the latter part of last lot had been dealt with it would not have beenyear, as, after comparing several other sites, I came to the conclusion that the one chosen was necessary to have had a retaining wall on any part of the south boundary as a slope would the best that could be obtained. Mr. D. R. have been cnt to maintain the upper land. I Sassoon was likewise not in favour of the site. do not think I told Mr. Danby that we in- He did not, however, actively oppose it. I re- tended to build the synagogue at a level 20 feet member the correspondence between the trustees above Kennedy Road. I could not have told and Mr. J. E. Sassoon. Those letters were read him that because we were going to erect the by me before I signed them; in fact, we all building at a level the ground would naturally approved of the draft before we signed them. level to. We thought ourselves (Mr. Leigh remember being shown the memorandum from Mr. Moses to Mr. Silas concerning the and myself) that it would level to about 15 feet. When I prepared the plans in October, 1895, Iapplication for lot 1,381. I did not attend did not contemplate the erection of a retaining the auction sale of that lot when it was wall on the Kennedy Road site. If Mr. put up. I was not aware that a little after the Belilios had taken a portion of the lot it would sale, Mr. Belilios had bought two little lots have been necessary to erect a retaining wall as just above 1,381. I do not think Mr. Belilios there would be no room for sloping. I cannot ever told me what he intended to do with the remember that anything was said to me about two upper lots, A part from what was said at the meeting, I remember Mr. Danby once told the synagogue being at such a level as to prevent people travelling by the tramway me Mr. Belilios intended to build some houses looking into it. The idea is an absurdity. somewhere about there, but he did not make because on the south side of the lot the any mention of lot 1,381 in connection with tramway is about 50 feet above the road those houses. Mr. Danby did not speak of an I and we could not have raised the ground 60 approach to those houses through 1,381, feet. The tramway is about 15 feet above the think Mr. Belilios ceased to be one of the trustees some time in January of this year. The cause of road at the northern boundary of the lot. The site must be commanded by the tramway and we his giving up the trusteeship was that he would not have a tablet put up in the synagogue intended to line the boundary near the tramway with thick bamboos. I attended the meeting on stating that it was given by Mr. Sassoon and his brothers, who were the heads of Messrs. the 15th March in order to affect a peaceful set-
There was a meet- tlement of the dispute between Mr. Belilios and E. D. Sassoon & Co. the other trustees by giving up what I consi- ing held for the purpose of discussing the question of the erection of the tablet. Mr. dered was part of our rights.
Belilios stood alone in his opposition. I think we had another meeting to discuss the same question. At neither of those meetings was. any mention made about the divison of 1,381; Mr. Belilios objected to the erection of the tablet because he thought that the synagogue and the money were the property of the com- manity and not of the Sassoons. All the old papers of the synagogue were produced at one of the meetings to enable the trustees to arrive at a decision on that point. I remember being shown the letter from Mr. Belilios to the trustees dated the 8th March asking when they proposed to take over the site. I likewise re- member the reply of the trustees signed by Mr. Raymond. That gentleman signed the letter because he had taken the place of Mr. Ezekiel in the firm of E. D. Sassoon & Co. and was therefore entitled to become one of the trustees of the synagogue. I was not aware before the receipt of Mr. Belilios's letter to the trustees on the subject that the community was only to receive a portion of the site. The question of the apportionment of the lot bad never been raised or discussed before the Witness was being questioned about the receipt of that letter. It had never been sug plans when His Lordship said-The remark Igested directly or indirectly that Mr. Belilios made yesterday was only in fun; I suppose you
Mr. Pollock was proceeding to cross-examine the witness as to what he meant by the term rights," when Mr. Francis interrupted with a remark.
Mr. Pollock-I must really object to my friend interrupting. His conduct in this case has been most reprehensible.
His Lordship-He has been very good to-day, Mr. Pollock.
Mr. Pollock-What he said yesterday was most scandalous; there is no other word for it- absolutely scandalous.
His Lordship-He must not interrupt. I quite agree with you.
ban com-
Mr. Francis-The newspapers ba“. plaining that there is no fan in the Court.-
Mr. Pollock-My friend's idea of fun seems to be absolute rudeness.
His Lordship-As the French say, the in- cident is closed, Mr. Pollock.
Mr. Pollock-It is all very well to say it is closed. I do not think it is.
Witness's cross-examination was then pro- ceeded with. He said be would withdraw his last remark about the rights of the case.
did not take it to heart?
Witness-I have not seen it, my Lord. (Laughter.)
wanted any portion of that lot. I remember my reply to Mr. Belilios stating that I wanted. the whole of the lot, Mr. Belilios's answer, and the trustees' letter signed by Mr. Sassoon. Mr. Sassoon was acting in perfect concord with
Witness was further cross-examined on points the other trustees when he wrote that last relating to the plans.
The Court adjourned.
17th December,
The cross-examination of Mr: Orange was re- sumed by Mr. Pollock, who asked various ques- tions in reference to the plans,
Mr. A. J. David said-I am a member of the firm of S. J. David & Co., and one of the plain- I have been a resident in tiffs in this case. Hongkong about ten or eleven years and am a member of the Jewish community here. I was concerned in the efforts made by Mr. J. S. Moses in 1891 to get a site for the new synagogue. I think the site was lot 1,381. I also remember I think it was the application made-in 1893. for the same site, but I cannot recollect by whom it was made. Mr. D. R. Sassoon, Mr. Belilios, and myself were appointed the trustees by the Jew- ish community. Mr. Ezekiel was likewise ap- pointed because he was the manager of the firm of Messrs. E. D. Sassoon and Co. and it was un- derstood that the managing partner of the firm should be appointed as one of the trustees. Up to that time Messrs. E. D. Sassoon and Co. had been managing the affairs of the synagogue. I do not specifically remember if Mr. Belilios saw the plans, but they were laid on the table at the
letter. So far as I am concerned I think his expression of surprise at Mr. Belilios wanting a portion of the ground was genuine. Nothing ever occurred to cause me to recognise the possibility of Mr. Belilios wanting a portion of the ground. I heard nothing whatever about his intention of getting a portion of the ground.
The witness was then cross-examined.
In answer to his Lordship witness said that at the meeting of the 15th March he remem- bered Mr. Raymond saying that they would not stand Mr. Belilios's nonsense or humbug, or something like that.
His Lordship Did any peacemakers come between the parties and try to save a long litigation in this matter?
Witness-Yes.
Mr. Francis said that be and his friend had agreed that there was no use in commencing the examination of another witness that after- noon. Would his Lordship adjourn the case until Tuesday week, which would carry them over the Sessions and the holidays? So far as counsel could see there would be three clear days for them that week.
After some discussion bis Lordship agreed to adjourn the further hearing until next
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.