The age-herald., 1902-02-03

was total Of l06 miners at work in the mine when the explosion occurred, and all of them are dead. The majority of the victims are Mexicans and Chinamen very few Americans being at work in the | mine
 Every mule in the mine was killed. three dead ones being taken from the debris -s-s-S-~->~>->~-~-N<< e>->-~-H-. | company in reference to that transaction With the said W. J. Rich, Mir. Robinson oontending that said transaction was not real but only pretended, and that it was made for the purpose of placing this stock in the name of an individual who might vote 1t. while in reality 1t belonged to the Ala bama Company. and thus an attempt had been made to evade the laws of Illinois
 1 such being the state of the litigation in Illinois, in May, 1901, commission was 1 issued to Mr. Rudulph of Birmingham, to . take the dispositions of George H. and l E. T. Schuler in their on behalf and at l that time, MT. Robinson, accompanied by his counsel. MT. Crafty of Chicago came to Birmingham to cross-examne said witness
 i On that occasion the Schulers gave tes- l timony in reference to the Alabama Com pany against the Joliet Company and In | reference to the transactions involved In | the litigation. and at that time, MT. Rob- inson, by his counsel MT. Crafty, made repeated efforts to induce the Schulers ] to bring before the commissioner their 1 books and records so that the entries thereon in reference to those transactions might be made to appear, and that he might have the use of those. records in the cross-examination of the Schulers
 Failed to Get Books.
 This effort on his part did not suc- ceed. Although a subpoena duces tecum l the Schulers at first refused to bring them before the commissioner, saying that they were advised by their counsel that they were not authorized or required to bring said books before the commits | sioner for the inspection of MT. Robinson. l They were requested>sby MT. Robinsons S counsel to allow them to go to Ensley | with the commissioner and there exam inc the books, and this was likewise re- | fused.
 But. at last the Schulers came in and said that they feared it might seem to l the Illinois court that they were trying to hide out something; that they had de- cided to bring in the books, and they did so, but when they brought them in, they refused to surrender the control of them to the commissioner or to allow MT. Rob- inson's counsel to look into them unless he could first state what he wanted to see. and then only if they deemed it | material.
 The result was that he entirely failed to get access to the books and the re- cords of those dispositions show that at that time the books were in existence. which it now appears from the testimony. were subsequently, destroyed and burned. The Schulers were then fully informed and advised of the fact that these de- stroyed books contained testimony rele- want and material to the Illinois contro- versy and that MT. Robinson desired the right to inspect and examine them.
 Resorts to Mandamus Suit.
 It furthermore appears without dispute, that on that occasion. Mir. Robinson em- ployed MT. Weakley to institute a pro- ceeding to secure him the right accorded by the statutes of this state to a stock holder, to examine the books and records of a company. Accordingly he, with his Birmingham counsel went to the office of the Alabama company May 18th, and demanded such right of inspection, which was refused by MT. Carver, the only director then present
 In a few days, at Mr. Rudulphs office, the demand was again made upon the Schulers. who failed to grant the same. That on June 4. 1901 the Schulers were informed that their failure to give an affirmative reply to his demand would be treated as d continued refusal, and no affirmative reply being given, pe- tition was filed in the City Court of Bir- mingham, setting up the facts and ask ing for a writ of mandamus to compel the recognition of his said right.
 It is now accepted by counsel for de- fendants that said demand was proper. and that the refusal to grant it on the part of defendants was wrongful and without authority of law. Indeed this question Is now settled by the adjudica- tion for on June 26 1901, the court order- ed the pre-emptory mandamus to issue, and decided that MT. Robinson had this right and that it had been wrongfully refused
 Court Issues It's Order.
 When this order was issued on June 26, 1901, the three directors of the Ala bama company applied for time to file their bill of exceptions and to execute a supersedias appeal bond to carry the case to the Supreme Court, and to sus- pend the execution of the courts order and on July 16. 1901, this appeal bond was executed and the judgment thereby sus- pended so that Mir. Robinson could not get access to the books until the case was disposed of in the Supreme Court
 It is charged by Mir Robinson in his pe- tition in this case, and is not denied by the answer of defendants and is prac- ticaly conceded, that this appeal was taken entirely for delay. That they knew there wae no merit in the appeal and that 1t was not their purpose and good faith to prosecute the same.
 Mr. Robinson charges in his petition, and we contend that said appeal was taken in order to give the defendants more time in which to mutilate or destroy