On Saturday, an appeal was carried to the Superior Court by the former stockholders of the Hudson Coal Company against the decision rendered by Judge Cooper last week. Concerning the appeal, and the deposit of a bond of $250, we brought a report on Sunday. We find we have been misinformed. The report being different from what the case actually was, and because we consider the case as extremely important, we do not hesitate now to bring a correction of the report. As our readers will no doubt remember, some of the stockholders (names given below) at one time placed before the court a request for an accounting. It is to be understood the request was in the form of a suit against the directors of the company. In the meantime, however, the failure of the undertaking, which had been developing right from the beginning, had been brought to the attention of the stock- 2holders. We do not intend to analize the reasons for the failure here. The readers of Denni Hlasatel were able to form their opinion about it from the reports brought from the stockholders' meetings, and they will acquire a much clearer understanding when it is all thrashed out in court. The main issue at present pertains to the stockholders concerned having the right to sue the members of the board of directors for the return of that fifty per cent which they at one time loaned to the directors, or rather to the undertaking.

We remember very well, and we brought it out in the detailed reports of meetings, that at the time when the preservation of the mine in Farmers-burg was being discussed, the stockholders were informed that this could be accomplished only if there were sufficient money on hand to pay off the mortgage. That is the way it was explained to the stockholders in the meetings held by members of the board of directors, Messrs. Ed. Winternitz, 3Ed. J. Novak, Joseph Kokes, and others. The stockholders were called on to deposit a sum equal to fifty per cent of the face value of their holdings, and they were definitely told that this money would be deposited with the treasurer of the company, Mr. Kokes, and in the event the sum gathered was insufficient to pay off the first mortgage against the mine, the money would be returned to those people who advanced it. Further it was agreed, that if a sufficiently large sum of money to pay off the mortgage was obtained, the fifty per cent would be used for that purpose, and those people who advanced it would have their money secured by a prior lien. After such an explanation and assurance, some stockholders did not hesitate to deposit the requested sums, believing that in this way they would save at least part of that which they had put into the enterprise, and which they already considered as lost. It so happened then that the mortgage was paid, but the mine still was not saved for the stockholders.

So far as is known, they finally did not even expect anything of the kind, but seeing that their money, the fifty per cent, was not guaranteed by a prior lien as had been promised them, they demanded an explanation and when that was not forthcoming to their satisfaction, they resorted to the courts. They brought suit against various members of the management, in which they asked for the return of the fifty per cent. In the meantime, the members of the board of directors brought suit for damages against some of the stockholders, who were suing them for the return of their money. Why these suits? What is the motive for them, and what is to be accomplished because of them? We do not understand. The defendants do not understand it, and finally, even the plaintiffs, themselves, do not understand it. As we have already mentioned, the stockholders brought suit for an accounting. By means of the accounting, they hoped to learn how much was actually paid for the mine in Farmersburg, and what kind of management was carried on at the mine proper, and in the local office of 5So far as is known, they finally did not even expect anything of the kind, but seeing that their money, the fifty per cent, was not guaranteed by a prior lien as had been promised them, they demanded an explanation and when that was not forthcoming to their satisfaction, they resorted to the courts. They brought suit against various members of the management, in which they asked for the return of the fifty per cent. In the meantime, the members of the board of directors brought suit for damages against some of the stockholders, who were suing them for the return of their money. Why these suits? What is the motive for them, and what is to be accomplished because of them? We do not understand. The defendants do not understand it, and finally, even the plaintiffs, themselves, do not understand it. As we have already mentioned, the stockholders brought suit for an accounting. By means of the accounting, they hoped to learn how much was actually paid for the mine in Farmersburg, and what kind of management was carried on at the mine proper, and in the local office of 6the company. This matter was dealt with before a master in chancery, and is now dependent on the Judge. Whether he will accept the Master's report, and what disposition he will make of it, remains to be seen. In the meantime, the suits for the refund of the fifty per cent were brought.

At this stage, the members of the board of directors decided to seek an injunction against all suits which might be brought against them until such time as the original suit for an accounting shall have been decided. The stockholders offered objections to such an injunction, and the week before the case was to have been heard before Judge Cooper, both parties appeared, but the directors, through their lawyer, asked that the case be postponed. The stockholders, through their lawyer, raised a decided protest against such action, declaring that either the case would be heard then, or they would not again appear before Judge Cooper, if the 7case were continued. Naturally, they would turn to the higher courts. Overruling their protests, Judge Cooper continued the case to the following Monday. The stockholders kept their word, and did not appear in court, where a decision was then made against them. From this decision, they appealed on Saturday, depositing the prescribed bond of $250.

The case concerns the following named members of the board of directors of the former, now reorganized, Company, though without the old stockholders. Hudson Coal Company: Joseph Kokes, Edward Winternitz, Jacob Kandlik, Anton J. Zahrobsky, Joseph Welky, Frank J. Novak, Frank Wawak and Edward J. Novak.

The following named stockholders, who were seeking an accounting through court proceedings appealed from the decision of Judge Cooper were: William R. Walleck, John Cerny and....