February 26, 1898.)
that time taken the view of the transaction which they have since put forward, surely these things, or something like these things, are what they would bare written to Mr. Sassoon, But they do not write these things or anything like them. On the contrary, they treat the question of the site as still open, as still matter for selection and negotiation. The observation also occurs that if the defendant had really bought and held the land on behalf of the community, he would hardly have signed a letter which entirely ignores the transaction.
What meaning Mr. J. E. Sassoon put upon the reference to the question of the site in this letter is plain from his letter in reply. This letter is as follows :-
London, 23rd December, 1896. The Hon. E. R. Belilios, D. R. Sassoon, A. J. David.
Dear Sirs,--Your two favours of the 27th Octo- ber and 18th ulto. have duly come to hand. All the deeds and documents relating to the present synagogue are with our Hongkong firm and I
am writing to them to pay over to you, as the anticipated trustees of the new synagogue, $5,000 on my behalf. I hear that the synagogue property is worth $25,000 and 1 rely upon you to realise the highest sum possible. This amount, together with my donation, will enable you to erect a new synagogue and no doubt
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT.
149
between the parties. The first letter is the To this letter the defendant replied as fol- following one from the defendant:
Hongkong, 8th March, 1897, Messrs. D. R. Sassoon, Marcus Ezekiel, A, J. |
David.
Gentlemen,-With reference to the site in Kennedy Road which I am holding on behalf of the community for the purpose of erectiug thereon the proposed synagogue, I beg to inform yon that eight months have already elapsed out of the year for which I agreed to keep it at your disposal. I have myself barely ten months left wherein to complete the buildings I may like to put up there should you decide to give up this land; and as I hear the majority of you are of this view, and are shortly to leave the colony, I shall feel obliged by your favouring me with your opinion, within the next week, whether you would like the site finally retained for the new synagogue or not. -I am, gentlemen, yours faithfully.
F. R. BELILIOS.
It is no wonder that the defenaant wrote
this letter. Whether he had bought the land on behalf of the community or whether he had bought it only with the intention of allowing the community to have it or a part of it, the fact remains that, for nearly eight months since the purchase, the represcutatives of the com- will see that the new building will be as nice,munity had taken no steps whatever with regard pretty, airy, and comfortable as it is possible for a place of worship to be, and what is most essential that it be built on a good site; when the new site has been selected and the building is ready, it is my desire that the following be inscribed on a marble slab, both in Hebrew and English, and placed in a con- spicnous position in the new synagogne, riz :- "This synagogue is presented by Mr. Jacob Sassoon and his brothers to the Jewish com- munity of Hongkong in memory of their re- vered mother Leah." The new should therefore be called after her name, Leah."Yours faithfully,
synagogue
Obel
J. E. SASSOON.
In this letter Mr. J. E. Sassoon presses on
had not made any communication to the defen- to taking possession of and utilizing it. They
reports or plans about the placing of the dant about it; they had not procured any fresh
architect had been to inspect it, although Mr, synagogue on it; neither they nor their Raymond, Mr Silas, and Mr Orange went about the beginning of March to the place in
order
lows:-
Hongkong, 8th March, 1897. Messrs. D. R. Sassoon, A. J. Raymond, A. J.
David.
Gentlemen, I beg to thank you for your letter of this date informing me that you are willing to take over the site for the proposed synagogue and requesting me to instruct my solicitors to prepare the transfer of the same to you. Before doing this, however, I shall be glad if you will arrange with your architect to` meet my architect, Mr. Danby, and settle with him as to the portion to be transferred.—I am, gentlemen, yours faithfully.
E. R. BELILIOS,
Messrs. Raymond, David, and Silas, in giving evidence for the plaintiffs, said that this letter conveyed to them the first intimation which they received that the community were not to have the whole of Lot No. 1,381 but a portion only. No doubt this was so, but at the same time it must be borne in mind that they had had virtually no communication with the defendant respecting the land since he had applied for it in April, 1896. Again, it may be asked, if they were taken by surprise at this intimation, why' did they not express this surprise at once, and inform the defendant that there was no question
of their taking a portion of the land, that they were entitled to the whole of it? Why did they defer the sending of an answer for two days, until the defendant had again waked them up with the following letter -
Hongkong, 10th March, 1897. Messrs. D. R. Fassoon, M. D. Ezekiel, A. J.
Raymond, A. J. David. I understand that your architect has not yet Gentlemen,-Excuse my troubling you, but
approached Mr. Danby, and as I do not wish to be at loggerheads with the Government or run the risk of getting my property confiscated, I shall thank you to settle the matter within the next three days or I shall be compelled to make use of the site to the best advantage.-I am, gentlemen, yours faithfully. statement
Some of the expressions in this letter un- that Mr Raymond might see it.
doubtedly make in favour of the plaintiffs' con- tention. As I have already said, the word "site" is ambiguous in its meaning, but I think in this case the receivers of the letter would under- stand it as referring to the whole of Lot No. 1,381. Then there is the that he is "holding the site on behalf of
E. R. BELILIOS.
these gentlemen, who say they had already got the community for the purpose of erect. The reply to this letter was follows:
a site, but who had not told him of it, the im- portance of building on "a good site" and treats the selection of the site as a matter still in futuro.
On the 30th December, 1896, Mr. A. J. Ray- mond, one of the plaintiffs, arrived in the colony to succeed Mr. Ezekiel as man aging partner in the firm of Messrs. E. D. Sassoon & Co., and, so far as matters relating to the synagogue cerned, he seems to have taken Mr. Ezekiel's place from the time of his arrival.
<
were
con-
On the receipt, about the middle of January, 1897, of Mr. J. E. Sassoon's letter which I have just read, a difference of opinion arose among the trustees with respect to the propriety of placing the tablet mentioned in the letter in the new synagogue. Two meetings were held to discuss the matter, with the result that the defendant, being of opinion that the statement that the synagogue was
presented by Mr. Jocob Sassoon and his brothers" was not warranted by the circumstances. refused to be a party to the erection of the tablet and resigned his trusteeship. He states that Mr. Silas saw him on the 17th January, 1897, in connexion with his impending resignation, and that he then said to Mr. Silas, "What about that site; what are you going to do about it? Are you going to take it or not ?" Then he adds that the reason why he said this was that, notwithstanding he thought he had bought the site for himself, Mr. Silas was coutinually coming to hint and saying "to wait; that they might still take the site.' The defendant also relates the following as having occurred at the meeting about the tablet question which was held on the 18th January, 1897 Mr. David said to me.
As you are leaving the Com- mittee, perhaps you will not give them any land ?' I said,Certainly not; you are wel- come to a site whenever you want it * Then turned round to Mr. Silas and asked him when be would let me know-as to whether he wanted the site and the area he wanted. Then he turned round and said, 'In a few days. Then we separated."
After affairs had remained quiescent for some weeks, a brisk correspondence took plac
ing thereon the proposed synagogne" and the reference to their possibly "deciding to give up the land." On the other hand, the defendant speaks of "the year for which he agreed to keep the site at their disposal;" he refers to the reversion, so to speak, as being in himself; and he asks to be informed whether they would like the site finally retained for the new synagogue or not." These expressions, I think, tend in the other direction, that is, they give colour to the defendant's contention. It is also fair to say that this letter must be read with the defendant's subsequent letter of the same day, for there is no reason to think that bis intentions had undergone any change in the interval between the writing of the two letters. It is not clear on the evidence how “a year came to be mentioned in this letter in- stead of the "reasonable time
spoken of in Mr. Moses letter of the 29th April, 1896. On the whole I am of opinion that the letter is not such a one as would be written by a man who had bought the loud to which he was re- ferring on behalf of the community. I think also that it cannot be dissociated from the rest of the correspondence so as to strain it into an express declaration of trust.
To this letter the trustees sent the following
answer:-
Hongkong, 8th March, 1897- Hon. E. R. Bellios, C.M.G. Dear Sir,We are in receipt of your letter of this date and in reply we are willing to take over the site for the erection of the synagogue, and shall feel obliged by your instructing your solicitor to prepare the transfer of same to us, on completion of which we shall pay you the cost. We are, dear sir, yours faithfully,
*
D. R. SASSOON,. A. J. RAYMOND, A. J. DAVID.
The word "site as here used clearly refers to the whole of Lot No. 1,381, but on the other hand I doubt whether the expression "willing to take over the site" would have bee: used by persons who conceived themselves to have a right to the laud; it appears to be more properly applicable to the case of the land having been placed at their disposal.
Hon. E. R. Belilios, C.M.G.
Hongkong, 11th March, 1897.
Dear Sir, We are in receipt of your letters of the 8th and 10th inst., and in reply beg to inform you that we have decided to take over the whole of the Inland Lot No. 1,831 (sic! for the erection of the synagogue and shall feel obliged by your having the same transferred to
18.
As we have been acting in the matter we re- gret we could not reply to your letters earlier and hope you will excuse us.We are, Dear Sir, yours faithfully,
D. R, SASSOON. A. J. RAYMOND.
A. J. DAVID.
11
Here there occurs again the expression." we have decided to take over," etc. But, according to the case now put forward for the plaintiffs, there could be no question of their " deciding in the matter, for the land had been bought for and on behalf of the community and in equity the community were the owners. Why did the writers of the letter not remind the defendunt of this fact P Mr. David explains the expression "we have been acting in the matter" by saying that in the interval the trustees bad ation of the matter. Does this mean that they been engaged in the disenssion and consider-
were discussing and considering whether they should demand the whole lot or accept only a which passed between the architects of the par- portion of it? The following correspondence ties, on the date of the lrst letter, is not with- out some bearing on this point:
Hongkong, 11th March, 1897..
W. Dauby, Esq.
Dear Sir, We have been instructed by the trustees of the synagogue to meet you in order to arrange for the transfer of the site on the Kennedy Road.
:
We would be glad to call on you this after- noon at 4 if convenient or at 11.30 to-morrow morning if you prefer.-Yours truly.
LEIGH & ORANGE.
· Hongkong, 11th March. 1897. Messrs. Leigh & Orange,
Dear Sirs, In reply to yours of this morning, I think it will be of little or no use your calling here to see me, I suggested to Mr. Belilios
i
t
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.