150
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
yesterday that you send your drawings to him direct, when WO can talk the matter over together, after which he would be in a position to let you know which and how much ground he is prepared to dispose of as a site for the synagogue. Yours truly,
WM. DANBY.
|
D. R. SASSOON, A. J. RAYMOND, A. J. DAVID.
[February 26, 1898,
to us the whole of Inland Lot 1,831 (sic.) In then raised the question of the cost of the re- reply we have to point out that the lot in questaining wall between the approved site and the tion was purchased by you on behalf of our remainder of the block of land. The defendant community for the purpose of erecting thereon said that the trustees would have to pay half of a synagogue; and according to your letter of it; the trustees on the other hand said that the 8th inst. we have no doubt that you will they ought not to be called upon to pay any admit that the said lot in its entirety should be of it. Mr. Danby then made out a rough transferred to us. We are, dear sir, yours estimate of the cost, putting it at about $1,200, faithfully,
bat adding that he would not be responsible for the sufficiency of that sum until he had prepared detailed drawings and estimates. By way of compromise, the trustees offered to bear an amount not exceeding $600, which they sub- sequently increased to $1,000, but the defendant would not accept either of these offers and insisted that they should defray half the cost, whatever it might be. The meeting then terminated, the defendant saying that "nothing was settled." It was understood that Mr. Danby would prepare detailed drawings and estimates of the wall and that they would be sent to the trustees. So unfortunately ended the attempt at a settlement of the dispute. It is to be regretted that the same wise counsels which brought the parties together on that occasion did not avail to do so again.
The defendant thereupon closes the corres- pondence for the time being with the following letter:-
Hongkong, 13th March, 1897. Messrs. D. R. Sassoon, M. D. Ezekiel, A. J.
Raymond, A. J. David.
Gentlemen, In reply to your letter of yester- day received only this morning adverting to the Kennedy Road site, I regret to be obliged to refer you to my communication of yesterday beyond the concession made wherein I am sorry I cannot go. I am, gentlemen, yours faithfully,
F. R. BELILIOS.
|
On the 25th March, 1897, Messrs. D. R. Sassoon and Ezekiel left the Colony.
Hongkong, 11th March, 1897. Dear Sir,-The trustees for the synagogue have settled to take the whole of I. L. 1,381 as a site for the new synagogue and will write direct to Mr. Belilios to that effect. Therefore there will be no need for us to meet or discuss the matter. Yours truly,
LEIGH & ORANGE. With regard to the "instructions " referred to in the first of these letters, Mr. Orange is emphatic in stating that they had reference to his arranging for a transfer of the whole of Lot No. 1,381, and that nothing was said to him about his arranging for a transfer of a portion only of the lot. I am entirely satisfied of Mr. Orange's bona fides in making this statement. But then it follows that there has either been a lapse of memory on Mr. Orange's part- and his memory was not very full or precise on some of the transactions about which he was questioned or else incomprehensible conduct on the part of the person who gave him the instructions. For the per- son who gave these instructions must, at the time when he gave them, have read the defend ant's second letter of the 8th March and pro- bably also his letter of the 10th March, both of them referring expressly to the architect of the trustees meeting Mr. Danby for the purpose of arranging for a transfer of a portion of the lot. Besides, in the light of these two letters, the It is for this reason that I am not disposed true construction of the correspondence between to attach much importance to the occurrences the architects is this, that Messrs. Leigh and which took place subsequently, and especially Orange proposed in the first instance to meet to the two meetings which took place on the Mr. Danby with a view of arranging for a 15th March, 1897. For these meetings had for ransfer of a portion of the lot, but, in conse- their avowed object the bringing about of quence of the subsequent decision of the trustees
a compromise. The plaintiffs say that they We have decided to take over the whole of to take the whole lot, this proposed meeting were willing to take less than their rights I. L. 1,381 as originally intended and would was rendered useless. Again, in their letter of for the sake of pence; the defendant ask you to kindly arrange transfer, &c., with the 8th March, 1897, when they contemplated says be was willing to give what he was not Messrs. Deacon and Hastings without further the taking over of the whole lot, the trustees bound to give for the sake of his co-relig-delay. We are, Dear Sir, yours faithfully, had simply requested the defendant to instructionists. I will content myself, therefore, with
D. GUBBAY, his solicitor to prepare the transfer.
shortly stating what took place at the two On the same day the defendant sent the meetings. following answer to the last-mentioned letter of the trustees
Hongkong, 12th March, 1897. Messrs. D. R. Sassoon, M. D. Ezekiel, A. J.
Raymond, A. J. David.
Gentlemen,-In reply to your letter of yes- terday, I am extremely sorry to be unable to comply with your request by transferring to you the whole of L. L. No. 1,831. (sic.)
|
In these letters the parties at last come to a direct issue. The defendant says in effect, The land is my own; you have no claim on me; but, as I am a member of the community, and wish to see a synagogue erected, I will let you have as much of the land as is necessary for that purpose." To this the trustees reply," We are suprised at what you say; you bought the land on behalf of the community, and your letter of the 8th March shows that you know very well you ought to hand it over to us." The parties were now clearly at arm's length.
On the morning.of the 15th March, 1897, Messrs. Raymond, David, and Silas went to the defendant's place of business and asked him why he would not let them have the whole of Lot No. 1,381. The defendant told them that it was because he wanted to utilize a portion of it for the purposes of an approach to the two upper lots, Nos. 1,882 and 1,383. It is alleged on the one hand and not denied on the other Your Mr. Ezekiel and Mr. Chater, directors that this was the first time the subject of an of the Hongkong Land Investment. Co, will approach had been expressly mentioned. It convince you that owing to your inaction and was, however, foreshadowed in the defendant's owing to having been repeatedly told that the letter to the trustees of the 12th March, 1897, majority of you were not favourably disposed and also in his letter to Mr. Bell Irving of the towards the lot in question, since its sale, I 31st July, 1896-a letter which Mr. Ezekiel had have become the proprietor of the sites over-
seen. It was ultimately arranged between looking it. My arrangements to utilise them the parties that they and their architects in conjunction with the land below are too far should meet in the afternoon of the same advanced to permit of my making such a con- day at Mr. Danby's office with a view of cession as the one proposed. When I sug- seeing whether they could agree on the se- gested the purchase of the plot in question,lection of a.site and indeed a settlement of the one of the reasons which precluded you from whole matter in dispute. acquiring it was that it was too large for your requirements. No alteration in your conditions since then has taken place to warrant a change in your opinion in regard to the matter.. You have no claim on me; land has appreciated. in the neighbourhood, but simply because I am a member of your community, wishing to see a synagogue erected in the colony, I can only consent to transfer to you land absolutely neces sary for your purposes. Under the circum- stances, therefore, unless the apportionment of the ground is settled between Mr. Danby and Your Mr. Orange before Monday next, I will be compelled to deal with the property as I may be advised without further reference to your goodselves.-I am, gentlemen, yours faithfully,
E. R. BELLLIOS. To this letter the trustees sent the following
Hongkong, 12th March, 1897, Hon. E. R. Belilios, C.M.G.
-auswer m
Dear Sir,We are in receipt of your letter of date, saying, to our surprise, that you are unable to comply with our request to transfer
Accordingly the meeting took place, the same gentlemen being present and, in addition, Mr. Orange, the architect of the trustees, and Mr. Danby, the architect of the defendant. The conference lasted something over two hours. The settlement of the site was practically left to the two architects, and they, working har moniously together and using the contours plan which had been prepared by Mr. Danby, marked off within an are line the eastern portion of Lot. No. 1,381 and also a piece of land at the North-Eastern corner of Lot No. 1,382 as a site for the synagogue. The particulars of the site so marked off go to show the reasonableness of the defendant's position with regard to the quantity and price of the land required for the synagogue. The figures for Lot No. 1,381 and the marked off site respectively are as follows:-
Area
Price Crown Rent Lot No. 1,381 46,073 sq. ft. $6,931.00 $346,00 Site 25,630 sq. ft. $3,844.50 $185.80
It would seem that the site as marked off received the approval of the parties. Mr. Danby
On the 27th March, 1897, the defendant wrote to the trustees enclosing Mr. Danby's plans and asking to be informed "by Monday next" whether they would take the land or not. The cost of the retaining wall was stated as being "about $9,232.85.' To this letter the trustees sent the following answer:-
Hongkong, 29th March, 1897. Hon. E. R. Belilios, C.M.G.
Dear Sir,-We are in receipt of your letter of the 27th inst, enclosing letter of Mr. Danby dated 26th inst. and plan, and we regret ex- tremely that we are unable to agree to give you a portion of I. L. 1,381 on the terms sug- gested.
A. J. RAYMOND, A. J. DAVID,
It may be observed again that, now that it is clearly a question of transferring the whole lot, the trustees do not propose to send their archi- tect to the defendant's architect, but ask that - the transfer should be arranged with their soli- citors, Messrs. Deacon and Hastings..
The following is the final letter which passed between the parties :-
Hongkong, 29th March,1897. Messrs. David Gubbay, A. J. Raymond, A. J
David.
hand, you will oblige by returning me Mr. Gentlemen, In reply to your letter just to Danby's letter with the enclosures, and I re- gret I cannot reopen the question after the de- cision we arrived at after a long discussion, in Mr. Danby's office. I am, Gentlemen, yours faithfully,
E. R. BELILIOS, The defendant is mistaken in speaking of a decision as having been arrived at at the meeting at Mr. Danby's office, because at the conclusion of that meeting he expressly informed the trustees that "nothing was settled.”
-
On the 30th March, 1897, the defendant for. warded to the trustees, through Mr. J. R. Michael, a document, signed by himself, and embodying an agreement to submit the whole of the dispute to the award of an arbitrator, but it was returned by Mr. Michael with an intimation that the trustees said the thing was left in the hands of their solicitor.
The last document to which reference need. be made is a letter from Messrs. Deacon and Hastings, the plaintiffs' solicitors, dated the 1st April, 1897, and addressed to the defendant. In this letter, Messrs. Deacon and Hastings, having the correspondence between the parties before them and having no doubt been fully instructed by their clients, treat the case, not as one of application for and purchase of lot No. 1,381 by the defendant for and on behalf of the com- munity, but as one of a binding contract to sell and purchase the lot, such contract being pressed in the letters of the parties bearing date the 8th March, 1897. Upon this letter it need
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.