February 19, 1898.]
subject of the proposed new synagogue. They stated that they had made a plan and that the estimates were as follows :-
Cost of land on Kennedy Road...' $ 9,000 Cost of erecting a synagogue
26,000 Cost of furniture, fittings, &c. 4,000
39,000
Against which they expected
$8,500
to get value of the old syna- gogue
+
Property belonging to above 4,500 Cash on hand...
Your contribution
Leaving a deficit of
1,000
5,000
19,000
$20,000
Then they say,-"We have no hope at all to make good any fraction of the above deficit," They proceed to make an appeal to him, invok- ing him in the name of his mother, after whom the existing synagogue was named, to com- plete, the charitable deed
or, in other words, to make good the deficit.
**
|
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT.
The site is an admirable one near the city and in a commanding position. No buildings can be erected on front and sides and from the plan it will be seen that it adjoins the Tramway and the important thoroughfares of Kennedy Road and Garden Road.
"In 1891 tho site recommended. was a plot shewn dotted red and an area of about 43,050, square feet; the price then asked was 30 cents $12,900. This area is larger than absolutely required and we would recommend that a smaller lot be applied for, viz: as shewn 220 feet by 1:0 feet-33,000 feet; this is amply large for the purpose.
"We think that the upset price asked by the Government will now be lower and would hope to obtain the ground at 20 cents per foot $6,600. If, however, it be 30 cant then the price would be $9,900."
|
119
Onthe following day Mr. E. J. Moses, a clerk in the employment of the defendant, wrote to Mr. Silas he following letter -
Hongkong, 29th April, 1896. My dear Silas, Mr. Belilios has instructed Danby to apply for the site of the proposed synagogue on Kennedy Road as he thinks that further delay would be inadvisable. If the community would like to take it from him within a reasonable time he will be glad to hand it over upon being reimbursed the cost and interest. Otherwise he will keep it himself.- Yours sincerely,
E. J. MOSES.
It may be noted that Mr. Danby does not apply for Lots No. 1,216 and 1,217, but for the larger piece of land which subsequently became Lot No. 1,381.
It is desirable now to review the circum- stances in which these two letters were written, both as they can be gathered from the facts already stated and also from the evidence of the witnesses and especially of the defendant, Mr. Danby, and Mr. Silas. In this way we shall be better able to apprehend their true meaning and effect.
The report then proceeds to describe the pro- posed buildings and states that it would be necessary to provide $16,000 for the levelling of the ground and the erection of the buildings. It will be seen that, as respects the area of The terms of this letter are material in them-land required and the location of the syna- selves and they are still more material when gogue, Messrg, Leigh and Orange's proposals contrasted with those of the letter written by correspond generally with those of Messrs Dan- When these letters were written, the defend. ↑ the Committee to the same gentleman on by, Leigh, and Orange made in 1891. But an ant had been concerned in or had knowledge of the 27th October, 1896, which will be here important modification was suggested with re- three separate negotiations with architects for after referred to. From this earlier letter gard to the quantity of land to be applied for, the purchase of land and the erection of a it appears that the Committee had procured that is, instead of recommending, as Messrs, synagogue and accessory buildings thereon. plans of the buildings, had made up their minds Danby, Leigh, and Orange and Mr. Lemm had These negotiations all had reference to the same what those buildings were to cost, and, the most done, that the whole of the two lots should be piece of land. All the architects thought that important point of all, had definitely settled on purchased and the surplus land afterwards dis- the piece of land was too large for the require- a site for their location-that site evidently posed of, Messrs. Leigh and Orange recommendments of the community, and they suggested being the one for which the defendant had re- that only the quantity of land actually required different ways of dealing with this point. But cently applied on behalf of the community. should be applied for. They suggest that the all these negotiations had failed from an in- These things were all properly made plain to northern and southern boundary lines should be sufficiency of funds. A direct measure taken Mr. J. E. Sassoon, whose assistance was both 220 ft. each in length as compared with 279 ft. by the defendant to give effect to the proposals needed and asked in the building of the new and 295 ft. respectively in the case of the com- made by one of the architects, namely synagogue. It is also evident that the financial bined lots. The depth of the proposed site was by applying for the land in question, had also. resources of the community were at that time also to be a few feet less than that of the com- come to nothing from the same canse. The. entirely inadequate for the carrying out of the bined lots.
financial situation had not changed for the better, proposed arrangements.
The Committee had either ceased to exist altogether or was in a state of suspended animation. The defendant was not moved to make the application by the committee or by any member of the community, nor did he inform any of them that he was about to make it. If, without such previous authorization, he bought the land on behalf of the community, he could not be sure either that they would be willing to take it or that they would be able to pay for it. In such circumstances as these, it must be confessed, it would not seem to be a prudent or sensible thing for a man to make an application for the land nominally for himself but really on behalf of the community. In farther explanation of the defendant's action in volunteering to purchase the land, it must be borne in mind that he had always been anxious for the new synagogue to be placed in that situation.
46
Meanwhile, pending an answer to this letter, the putting up of the land to sale was postponed at the request of the defendant, as some diffi- culties had cropped up in the financing of the matter here and it was necessary to communi- cate with Bombay."
Mr. J. E, Sassoon's letter in reply is dated the 28th Nov, 1893. It is to the effect that his firm had already done their duty in the matter of the synagogue; that if the community in- tended to build a new synagogue, he was willing to contribute the $5,000 which he had already promised and to tranfer the present synagogue to the trustees; but that the community must make good any deficiency in the funds required for the purpose.
Thereafter the Committee appear to have. requested Mr. Lemm to submit amended plans and estimates, and this he accordingly did on the 12th January, 1894. Dealing still with lots Nos. 1,216 and 1,217, he reduced his estimate -for the buildings to the sum of $10,274. Then he says, writing to Mr. Raeburn-" As you informed me that the sum limited for actually building the synagogue on a piece of ground only sufficiently prepared to receive same was $11,000, I have made my estimate and design accordingly."
ގ
The financial difficulties in the way seem, however, to have been found insuperable for the second time, and the result was that the land applied for was not put up to sale, and the project again fell away into abeyance during the remainder of the year 1894.
Early in the following year Mr. D. H. Silas arrived in the colony as an assistant in the firm of Messrs. David Sassoon Sons & Co. About eight or nine months after his arrival he took over the appointment of hon, secretary to the community. He says that when he took over. the duties of the office there was no regular committee in existence. He seems to have taken up with energy the question of the new synagogue. At his request-Messrs. Leigh and Orange-Mr. Danby having parted company with them in November, 1894-prepared a pain and estimate for the buildings. The report is dated the 19th October, 1895, and the earlier part of it read as follows:-
Proposed Synagogue Hongkong, "The site on which the synagogue is proposed to be erected is the same as suggested in 1891 when the project. of a synagogue was first mooted.
This suggestion of Messrs. Leigh and Orange appears to me to have a material bearing on the position taken up by the defendant with regard to the purchase of Lot No. 1,381 and to render that position more probable. But, curiously enough, the defendant persisted in saying, when under cross-examination, that he had not seen the report and plan in which the sugges- tion is made until after proceedings for dis- covery had been taken in this suit. Mr. Silas was equally emphatic in asserting that the defendant had seen them and had asked questions about them. I believe Mr. Silas's version of the matter because in a letter of the trustees to Mr. J. E. Sassoon, dated the 20th May, 1996, which was signed by the defendant, the report is mentioned as being enclosed.
No measures were taken to give effect to the recommendations contained in this report. No application was made to the Government to put up either the two lots together or a smaller piece of land. The reason for this inaction was probably that the financial difficulty still existed, and no way out of it had yet been found.
-
The next step-and a most material one it was -took place in the month of April, 1896. A little after this time a change of some importance took place with regard to the locus in quo. By the straightening of Albany or Garden Road Nullah, some 3,023 square feet of land were added to the piece of ground and the two old lots, Nos. 1,216 and 1,217, were thrown into one and, with this addition, rechristened Inland Lot No. 1,381. This change was krewn to the defendant and to his architect, Mr. Dauby, and indeed, was apparently suggested by them. The area of lot No. 1,381 was therefore 46,073 square feet as against 43,050 square feet contained in the old lots taken together.
Towards the end of the month of April, 1896, Mr. Danby wrote to Mr. Cooper, the Director of Public Works, the following letter:
Hongkong, 28th April, 1896.
The Hon. F. A. Cooper.
Dear Sir, I am requested by a good client of mine to ask if you would kindly take steps to have the piece of ground at the West corner of Kennedy Road, and between the Tramway and the Nullah, put up to public auction sale at an early date.
The ground I refer to is the site which was at one time sought to be secured for a new synagogue-Yours truly,
Wm. DANBY.
He proceeds
Let us consider next the defendant's account of the manner and reasons of his making the application. He says that in the second week of April, 1896, Mr. Danby told him that land in that locality was being sold at a cheaper rate than it had been sold before, and advised him to apply for the old two lots-Nos. 1,216 and 1,217-to the west of Union Church. Then he explains how Nos. 1,216 and 1,217 subsequently became No. 1,381. to say that he told Mr. Danby to apply at once to make out an application for as much land between the Tramway and the Nallah as the Government would put up on his account; that is, as be afterwards explains, for the whole block of land between the Kennedy and Mac. donuell Roads and the Tramway and the Garden Nullah. His idea, be says, was. to build two villas in the centre of the blook, and he "intended to allow the community to have the part of the lower lot-1,381-next to the Union Church and to utilise the rest of that lot as an approach to the upper lots." He adds that, at the time when he instructed Mr. Danby to make the application, he knew that it had been intended at one time to make the portion of lot No. 1,381 hext to the Union Church the site for the synagogue, but that "when he applied for the block he did not know that any portion of that lot would be required for the synagogne.” There is some confusion in these statements because it is clear from the evidence generally that application was not made for the two upper lots until nearly two months after lot No. 1,381 had been applied for. Somewhat
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.