Paris, Dec. 28, The Appeal Court to-day delivered judgment in favour of the owners of the. 42,812-ton French—super-liner T'Atlantique in the appeal brought by the insurers of the vessel against the verdict of the Commercial Tribunal Following judgment being given by the Appeal Court, a claim for. Fr. '56/000,000 against the insurers, who are now legally the owners of the hulk, was lodged with the Bordeaux Commercial Court by two French, tone Netherlands and one German salvage companies.
These concerns took the blazing LiAdantique in tow after the crew had left. They claim that it was entirely due to their efforts that the hulk of the once palatial liner was taken safely to Cherbourg.
T'Atlanique, which was extensively damaged by fire in the English [Channel in January, 1933, with a loss of seventeen lives," was insured for ¥r.170,000,000, of which Fr.70,000,000 iwas due only in the event of the ship being a total loss.
The insurance companies claimed that the vessel could be repaired and }was, therefore, not a total loss, but [the contention was rejected by the Commercial Tribunal. This decision has now Been upheld by the Appeal Court, which has ordered the Irate "cmupaning 'o, poy_ cists and Interest at the rate of six per cent.
Compagnie. de Navigation Sud-'The owners, of L'atlantique the Atlantique—have already announced their intention to build another Jsuper-liner with the sums to be refeelved from the insurance companies.
"The bulk of the insurance falls in the London market.
'Lloyds, the British underwriters, were among the companies appealing against' the original decision.
Lloyds contended that the non-Jdizclosure of the state of the electric wiring aboard the L'Atlantique automatically annulled the policy sued by them.
The insurance companies alleged [that the electric, wiring aboard the {ll-tated vessel was defective and, in [the words of counsel, "electricity was wandering all over the ship at its own sweet will" Counsel added that the 124 miles of wiring aboard the Hiner had been fitted in a most un-[satisfactory manner and claimed that too much wood had been used. Jin the construction of the vessel—Reuter.
"2. (A) In consonance with the spirit of disarmament, the said common upper limit should be fixed 4s Tow as possible, "2, (B) In order to render dificult for any Power to attack another but easy to defend itself, offensive arms should be totally abolished or drastically reduced, and Gefensive arms adequately provided.
"tu the light of these basic. principles, it Is impossible for the Japatiese Government to be acaulescent 10 the continuation for a further term Jof the Washington Treaty of Navat Limitation, which not only permits the retention of offensive "arms. but admits disparity in naval strength through the adoption of a ratio system. Moreover, the allocation of an inferior status,' so detrimental (o our national prestige, is bound to re~ maam a source of permanent and profound discontent to our people. Consequently, our Government have Tong felt incumbent upon them to ive notice of their intention to terminate the said treaty in accordance with its provisions at the end of the year 1936, namely, upon the expira-Yon of the stipulated term of its ite Of this intention, the British and American Governments were given fairly early and clear intimation, The Japanese Government, however, anious to conduct the negotiations in concert with the Powers concerned invited all of them to give such joint notice,
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.