The age-herald., 1902-02-06
DOdd Sues for Alleged
 Malicious Prosecution

William L. Dodd has filed suit In the City Court against Charles B. Powell, Felix E. Blackburn, Powell 6, Black burn. E. ". Whaley. J. T. Norwood J. T. Chamblee, J. D. Tyson and J. M. Turn ham for $5O,OOO damages for alleged ma licious prosecution.
 Plaintiff says that the defendants will fully, wrongfully and maliciously con- spired to have a warrant issued for his arrest on a charge of embezzlement. They are sued, as the petition states. for ma liciously and without probable cause, therefor causing plaintiff to be arrested under a warrant issued by D. A. Greene,
 ,Sr~<~%~~-~&-~-4~~-~ ~-~~~- < e-e-~ <-<-~>-t learned counsel now attempt to justify their conduct in denying Robinson's s right of inspection. They denied the right because they had the power. The purpose of the appeal to the Supreme Court was manifestly not to correct anything in the order of the court, but simply to delay Robinson for four months and to have that time within which to use the books for such purpose as they might care to make of them
 Those who refuse to obey an order of the court, or by so arranging conditions as to put it out of their power to obey after the order-or before the order but in anticipation of it, alter the court has taken Jurisdiction of the cause-must abide the penalties. As these involve the liberty of the citizen the case will be tried by the rules in criminal proceed ings. Before adjudged guilty he must be proved so beyond a reasonable doubt.
 The court then refers to the "construc- tion books kept by the Alabama Steel and Wire Company and which were burned up by George H. Schuler the lat ter part of May or first of June. 1901. This was after Robinson's demand to see them, but before the court assum ed jurisdiction of the matter on June Il, by the filing of the petition for man. damus and the judge says therefore that whether this act was right or wrong cannot be now inquired into.
 The plant went into operation about April, 1900, at which time a new set of books called the operating books were opened. These consisted of ledger which contained an itemized account of the operations. a cash book, sales book and journal. These books were in possession of the Schulers when Robinson made his demand for inspection and when he filed his petition for mandamus and when the court issued it's order and assumed juris- diction of the matter. They were used by the defendants nptil tember, 1901. In August new cash book was opened and in September a new ledger. The items from the old books were not carried forward to the new but balances merely. The old books were not used up when the new ones were opened and were In good condition They contained an itemized account of the transactions of the company from April 1900 to August and September, 1901, which transactions involved the receipts and disbursements of about two million dol lars. These books Robinson was never allowed to inspect.
 In September 1901, they were taken from the companys vaults by its cashier and general manager and put in boiler fur mace and burned up. Respondents are thus unable to now produce them for inspection and they say that they are un- able to comply with the order of the court in so far inspection of these books Is concerned, and that through no fault of theirs. That items which should have gone on the construction books were placed on the operating books and that the latter became "all mixed up" and that in December, 1900, they told MT. Thompson, the cashier, to. have the bal ances taken from them and to destroy them. That these instructions were re- peated to him in the spring of 1901 and he was reprimanded at the time for de- laying its execution. That nothing was said to him about it after the first of May 1901, nor was the order ever revok- ed nor did they know of its execution until after the destruction.
 They should have revoked 1t or grant, ed their insistent stockholder the oppor- tunity to examine the books before they were committed to the flames. But they protest they intended no contempt of court. The court entertains no doubt that the respondents did not wish to be wan tonly lacking in respect to the court, but was their attitude or determination fixed in the purpose not to allow Rob- inson an examination of the books, not withstanding the courts order? By their motives they must be judged. Let us consider their demeanor after the books