The Adminally that from the
$500,000
Que
the Fand
removing
final instalment
f
8
form the NK bout to the Adininally
There should be deducted itre cost
The napeway
т
a jinapontinate anunnt
pouce paid for the Yard in nexspect of any
of the price paid
pant thereof
J oven which the
5 in 92008
The
that the
порошкам
should be cosmid.
Adminally replied that the WD. had agreed
The question
was
Entirely
ine
for unrespondence
between the WO CO.
ف
in 92608
18m 92608
fall on naval funds.
< that no cxpenditure should
We then approached WO. enquining
were prepared to meet the cost
that
If they
were not,
the questions of the ropeway
for
for the Yand as
separate.
enquining whither
They
f t wave, adding
we could not ve
меда
vegand
o the payment $$$2,000,000
The W.O. ryphed in De 1932 that the continued
of the Kennedy. Read
ompatin & the
Road Magazines
& the continued
The
naval evacuation
aming
the Colonial
user
by the military the ropeway after
Ithe Yard would be due to the factive
Dout. to implement their proposals to provide
alternative
magazine
accommodation for the
for the Canony
while at the same time
same trove preceding with then proposals
to enable the Admiralty to vacate. They, therefine,
Page
q
Page
the ropeway.
In March 1933 the
24x in 92608
duersun & remuvel
declined liability for
liability for diversion
8
Asuunally requested
in the
proposal that
pending
a settlement
The sum
6 in 53547
I the question of the depeway,
money involved (£5,000) should be withheld
ment due to them from N.K.
form the final payment.
sum
This was accordingly
L
made
early
Meanwhite
withheld
done when
payment
was
this
yean.
the question of the noseway
Las
been the subject f
connependence between
Lanimally
✓ Wash Offere
The C.O. position remains unchanged,
Viz that so
ling
as
one or
in her of the two
of the
Defence Dgits concerned pays, it does not mind.
Techersally
мле
are
auruting
a
перву
reply 15 (0) in
33743. We had an unteren answer at I'm this
file
11 in 58547
failed