The age-herald., 1902-01-25
[. t Robinson Files Suit Against SchuIGrs and
 R. ), Carver
ALL STOCKHOLDERS IN
 STEEL AND WIRE CO.
Privilege, as stoekholder, of Looking at Books Denied-Cialms He Was insulted and Called
 "Sneak."

Suit has been filed in the City Court by Mir. c. E. Robinson. a minority stock holder of the Alabama Steel and Wire Company against Messrs E. T. Schuler, c. H. Schuler and R. D. Carver, majority stockholders and directors in that com pany. in which some startling allegations are made.
 Mr. Robinson claims that he was denied access to the books of the company, right he possessed as a stockholder, and that he had to file a petition in order to obtain a mandamus directing the defen- dants to allow him to examine the books. 1 He says this was granted him, but that the defendants are in wilfull contempt of court because they still refuse to allow l him to inspect certain books, claiming that they have been destroyed. MT. Rob- inson doubts the truth of this, and has asked the court to issue a rule nisi against the defendants to show cause why they should not be attached for contempt of court Judge w. W. Wilkinson issued | 1 9:S0 o'clock this morning.
 CALLED HIM A "sNEAk."
 1 MT. Robinson also states in his petition that one of the defendants has insulted him by speaking of him as a sneak" simply because he was trying to obtain information to which he was entitled. He makes other charges against the defend ants, which if true will make the hearing today quite interesting.
 Asked if he had any statement to make concerning the petition, MT G. H Schuler. president of the Alabama Steel and Wire Company, said: "It Is simply piece of spite work on the part of minority stockholder. The defendants will come out all right They have no reason whatever to think otherwise. Further than this I have nothing to say"
 MT. Robinson in his petition says that he Is a resident of Joliet, H., and that he has been since a time prior to May l, 1sO1 stockholder in the Alabama Steel and Wire Company, whose place of busi- ness is Ensley, and that he then and now owns 400 shares of preferred stock and 400 shares of common stock in said cor poration, each of the par value of s100, and that said stock stands in his name on the books of said company.
 REFUSED HIS REQUEST.
 That about May 15, 1901, as such stock holder be demanded of the directors the right to inspect the books of said cor peration. That the directors, Everett T. | Schuler, George H. Schuler and R. D. Carver willfully refused him the right and that he therefore had to file a petition in the city court June Il, 1901, asking the court to award him writ of mandamus to secure such inspection. This writ was awarded him by the court.
 Shortly afterwards the defendants took an appeal on July 16, 1901 to the Supreme Court and executed a supersedeas bond which superseded the order. The petition CT charges upon information and belief that defendants knew there was no merit in said appeal and that 1t was taken for delay, and with the purpose of hindering petitioner in his right to inspect said books and for the purpose of enabling them to secure additional time In which to mutilate or destroy the books and pa- pers, or some of time of the corporation, so as to conceal from petitioner the real facts which would have appeared from said books and papers when he demanded to examine the same. Petitioner alleges that said defendants dismissed their ap- peal in the Supreme Court in Noverh- Der 1901 and that they never filed in said court the record of the mandamus pro- ceedings. Petitioner alleges that the dismissal of said appeals left the judgm ent in con- dition authorizing the issuance of the writ of mandamus which was according ly issued December 6, 1901 against the said Everett T. Schuler, George H. Schu- Ter and R. D. Carver commanding them to allow petitioner or his agent to exam inc said books.
 IGNORED MANDAMUS.
 Petitioner charges that on January IS, 1902, after service of said writ on defend ants he demanded access to the construc- tion books showing the cost of the plant at Ensley and also the books of account of the company, but that the said direc- tors refused to allow him to inspect said books, that is the construction books and -