"الملف 14/115 VII الملحق (B 9) أكسيد جزيرة أبو موسى: مواد خلفية حول هذه القضية" [و‎‎١‎٣] (١٩٠٤/٣٦)

n
this collective testimony disposes of tie argtimeats wluch tie Germans have
based on the forced interpretatioa which they sought to place on the words. The
translation compliance with the German's wishes was quite a second thought.
{Vide Enclosure 8 of 1st German Memorandum).
^ above show that N» * *
AMul JMhf d^lnred thmr approval of the conclusion We contend
that after seeing the text of the agreiement none t>f them approved of it, such ap
proval as was exprbssed having been induced by the deliberate suppression of
facts by Hasan.
(62) The Memorandum of Association
for the partners.—The answer to the argument® on this point is that the document
quoted as Annex 14 of the German Rejoinder is not a completed document and
bears no signatures. It was not accepted by Abdul Latif and was never corrrolet-
ed or signed up. It has never been seen by Shaikh Sagar, Malcolm or Nejef and
has never been quoted or acted upon by any of the parties, and no accounts
have ever been rendered By Hasan Ali Samaiyeh as would have been required had
it been operative. (Annexes 40 and 42).
I appendistat^ement by Abdul Latif on the subject (Annex 12) and would
also refer to the statement of Isa bin Abdul Latif, dated 17th Muharram 1326
(20th January 3 908), forming an enclosure to my letter of 1st March 1908. Esa
and Abdul Latii have never suggested that Hasan was not the managing part-
net for the sale of the oxide " with the knowledge of all
But this deed, which granted a monopoly for a number of years to Wonekhaus,
was a new and radical departure from the practice of the past; it was clearly a privi
lege, which it was not within Hasan's competence to grant without consulting his
partners, and by his tactics in endeavouring to keep the terms of the document se
cret from his pattners, Hasan showed that he knew very well that he had acted
ultra vires, and that they would object as soon as they understood the effect of the
document.
The ground fot Esa's action was {vid his letter of 20th February 1907 to
Shaikh Sagar) that "Hasan Samaiyeh has no deed of authority from me, giving
him any general power in regard to the action which he might take respectins the
lease, etc."
Nor had he. His conduct of affairs, e. his refusal to render any accounts, his
inclination to ignore his partners and his readiness to buy up their shares, warrant
the conjecture adumbrated by Nakhoda Ali (Annexes 36 to 39) that his aim was
to tire out, ot to buy out, the others, and get the concern into his own hands.
(63) * * He, Malcolm, ccmld not do anything althcyugh he tvas a
"because anindividlgfiil partner had no rigM * ♦ it
stated more distmctly that Hasan Samaiyeh is the partner. attach a copy
of an affidavit made by Mr. Malcolm which explains his attitude towards the
concern and towards Hasan Samaiyeh. It is clear that he did, in practice, treat
Hasan as managing partner, up to a cenain po : nt (Annex 40).
In this regard, generally, I would observe that the British Memorandum said
no more than that there were no documents in their possession to indicate that
Hasan was managing partner.
Other documents, such as Malcolm's deed of partnership (Annex 33) are now
forthcoming, which show that Hasan did act as managing partner for the ordinary
sale of oxide " with the knowledge of all but that does not a^ter the fact that his
execution of his exclusive contract with Wohckhaus and the terms of that contract
we!ce both uhtTCj^ires.He had no authority to warrant such a step.
{64} It appears from the books of the GM
andweM.—la. this case it is the more curious that Hasan should have petsistently
neglected to furnish any accounts to his partners and should always have put them
off with vague promises that he would soon make them up. There is good reason
to believe from the reports of the Residency Agent, Lingah , at the time that these
nicely-kept accounts were concocted by Abdullah and Brown at Lingah {Enelo*
sures to Residency letter No. 909 of 21st March 1908 to India).