The Montgomery advertiser., 1907-11-28
Southern Steel Co, Wants Injunction.
APPEALS TO SUPREME COURT
Wants Suits Growing Out of Ex-
 plosion Combined.
Streng Array of Legal Talent Appears Before Supreme Court--Fatal Exc pIosion at virginia city in
 1905 Recalled.

Attorneys for the Southern Steel Com pany. of Birmingham, appeared before the Supreme Court yesterday and ar- gued an appeal from the decision of the Chancery Court of Jefferson county on refusal of that court to combine 1f7 damage suits against the company. all growing out of the catastrophe of February 20. 1905. at Virginia City, when no miners were blown into enternity by an explosion. An injunc- tfoh restraining the plaintiffs from fur ther proceedings is asked for.
 The total of the IF suits for dam ages against the company Is over s1,- O00,000. The explosion was on the property of the Alabama Steel and Wire Company, but since the concern went into the hands of a receiver and was absorbed by the Southern Steel Company. the latter was made defen- {. dants in these suits.
 The case is perhaps one of the most famous argued in the Supreme Court in recent years. Its basis is one of the greatest tragedies ever enacted in Alabama. One-third of the population of the small mining town of Virginia City was destroyed, three hundred per- sons were rendered destitute, the min- ing company sustained loss of $1.- o0p ,o00. which ultimately resulted in it being forced into the hands of re- , ceaver.
 A score of lawyers appeared before the Supreme Court and submitted briefs anG pleas, as well as arguing the case at length, it being unfinished at the time of adjournment.
 Over 100 Killed.
 1,he damage suits grew out of the death of tife 100 miners that were caught like rats in a trap in the dis asErous explosion at the Model Mine." in Virginia City, six miles from Bes- senler on the afternoon of February 20, 1905. Every person in the mine at the time perished, a majority of them being on the sixth level, where the ex- plos occurred. These were rnangled beyond recognition, and those on levels rcssref the surface of the earth were either killed by the shock or suffo- cat.ed by the gases which arose.
 The explosion was the result of what is known in mining vernacular as a dry shot" The contentious of the de- fandants is that the miners violated til cir agreement in using excessive charges, which produced clouds of coal dust. That when the excessive charge was put in 1t blew back out into the mine, raising the temperature to such an enormous degree that the dust was exploded.
 { Following the catastrophe widows and relatives of the dead men filed ranging m amounts IFOIn Sl5 900 to $20,000. There are IF of these, two having already ueen tried and decided in favor of the defendant pil showing that the explosion was the result of the carelessness of the min- CTS and violation of the agreement with the company. Two Wives for Some.
 In the evidence introduced it is shown that several of those killed were either leading double lives or were biyamists. In three cases suits were filed by as many as two women, both claiming to be the wife of the same man. These were cases of the negro miners.
 After trying two of the cases at- torneys for the defendant company ap- pealed to the Chancery Court of Jeffer- san county to combine the suits and try them all together, as the evidence in each one was the same. This was done because the cases were scattered ah out in several courts, and set for such times as made it impossible for the company to properly defend them ali. The Chancery Court denied the pe- tition to combine the suits, and the aC peal is now being argued before the Supreme Court. tiIt was contended in argument of c,o unset before the Supreme Court yes- tarday that the defendant company
 
 SD onsible for the explosion as their N operty was damaged to the extent c,f thousands of dollars by the care- lessness of some of their number.
 A number of decisions were handed down by the court in the following csLses:
 Decisions Handed Down.
 Tyson. c. J.-S. J. Wright vs. Nancy Cunningham, appeal from Walker Cir cult Court; affirmed.
 Dowdell. Jr.-Southern Railway Co. vs. Harrington Weatherlow pro ami. appeal from Colbert Circuit Court; re- warsed and remanded. {s-
 Anderson, J.-Lige Beekman vs. the State of Alabama, appeal from Clarke County Court; affirmed.
 Mcclellan. J.-Warrior River Coal and Land Co. vs. Alabama State Land Co., appeal from City Court; affirmed. Few Presents
 Alive nrPAaf nd as Ia sting A DleaS-