New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1871-03-15
PROFITS or an ADVERTISING AGENT
HOW PROMINENT PATENT-MEDICINE MEN WERE
TAKEN IN CUBAN AND SOUTH AMERICAN

TAKEN IN - CUBAN AND SOUTH AMERICAN
NEWSPAPERS AS ADVERTISING MEDIUMS.
The New-York correspondent of a Boston
paper, under the caption OF AN Immense Swinde,"
gives "A detailed account Of alleged swinding opera
ton Of which several patentmedicne btters and dye
manufacturers have been the victims, and OF which
prominent advertising agent from Boston is said to be
the originator The correspondent says that the victims
waited upon by the "operator who solicited ad.
vertising in the Cuban newspapers and received six
months order from each. for which he paid in full
That at the expiration OF two years each OF them
receiv ed bill for eighteen months additional adyeTts
ing for which the amounts charged ranged from $4,000
$4,000. Payment Of these amounts was Indignantly
refused, wbereupon suits instituted and when the
victims came I'm with their defense they found that one
OF the Judges OF one of Courts invariably occupied
the bench when these up, and discovering
that no approach justice could be obtained before him.
they gave up and settled the matter
these: In 1866 benjamin f. Stephens representing him
self to he advertising agent and to have through ms
connection with the Cuban press superior facilities in
the way of cheap advertising called upon some OF the
more prominent advertisers of Newfork and Boston;
soliciting orders from them for the Cuban central ana
South American, and Mexican newspapers. lie stated
that the prices would be from four to 1--WE cents me-
payable In gold and agreed to take goods Of the nature
advertised In payment lie succeeded m making con
tracts with p H. Drake & CO.. H. T. igIm6old and s. io
and others The contracts OF all were similar IN tner
purport and substantially as follows, the blanks
being left for the insertion of the nature OF the article
advertised the names, dates and the amounts to DC De
This made ih day flame 1905 by s9 between Benz p
l Geu1 o '' and State Of YewYo Snsseh That r
Consideration Of The sum Of dollar paid parties the second
Eaovd ied agreed os viz s,l .y Of lhesr'. part
viii within EIGHT months from me af p, S0 IN the manner IN
The humber e Insertions and the matter 2. specified IN
to six months advertising paper that he viii furnish
B e D Of sGId Ss R price 'SsS .iyF &
,T; m az s IS sd "S in See month";: and
months from the commencement Of said aiverg which 'ha be
described & value Of s III. 6g 9 az. s,eeP .nsp
containing advertisements, appropriately marked to go IN
I ersd as the Demand Of the Cubn market may require when
ordered party Of tie 6si ar That sad goods shall be a. the lowest
Island Of Cuba expense Of party Of frs. Pa and
SFi iRe e 1c 1 81 STAND Of &c cd ND st
Show ny hat aid goods have been landed island and the duties
thereon paid Party of first part shall be pnvg to attach tue name
On this agreement stephens proceeded to advertise s
ne claimed, in all the papers, as ne had agreed TO- "a.
the first nstament. Hembod and Drake, ana stevens
Howe, were prompt but David PrimDle, manager Oh
biiy IN hind the house 10 the payment
of any such money Uhe amount claimed was sl7l,0oG
Mr.. Primhle further told him that at the
time he protested TO advertise in the papers
mentioned they had been used for advertising
by the London house, ana that he CScphens) knew H.
He declined to pay the sum demanded whereupon ste
phens brought action in the Supreme Court OF ths
state. The referred 10 +. j. Fithian now
Justice OF the Superior Court of TINS ely III Is slaeu
that evidence adduced on the part of the PLAIN
thqtkeE tpqM bis own uncorroborated statement, ana
On behalf tine defendant it conondod tfdt
his discharge from the business, and that he had
hOrity do that the contract had not been kept
all It's particulars by the plaintiff, and that he had not
extended any such money claimed. Mr.. Fitlan. how
ever reported In favor OF the plaintiff fixing the amount
of his recovery at S7lO and the Court gave his cOun-
sci $4,000 allowance. The defendants appealed
from this Judgment and tie appeal j. still pending.
On demanding the second nsallment of 5000 rom II.
II. Drake * CO., he met by fiat refusal to pay him
any thing more the ground that he had wholly failed
TO advertise I'm accordance with his agreement, whereat
he commenced suit against them for $1,000 This care
was referred by Mr.. Justice McCunn of the Superior
Court TO Edward Fitch who rendered report In favor
OF the plaintiff for the full amount, and "a Judgment
thereon for $1,000 entered From this judg-
ment the defendants appealed To the General Term and
the appeal was argued at the November term, 1861 be-
fore Justices Barbour and Garyin In April 1858, the
Court rendered decision setting aside the report OF the
referee, Judge Garvin delivering the opinion In
February, 1869. "A motion made behalf of
the plaintin for a rcargumcnt the ground that
Judge McCunn, having been member Of the Cen
erd Term before which the appeal was argued, should
have been present, and should have joined in the
decision. This motion made before General Term,
OF which Judge McCunn "a member and was granted.
The never was retired.
r. II. Drake d Co. paid 5000 in full settlement. Mr..
Stephens directed his attention to HelmbOld He
had already received about 10000 gold worth Of goods
which had disposed less than the market price,
and he came In for more money" Mr.. lIemb0id
paid the claimed without suit. and took
lease from the enterprsing agent II is claimed by Mr..
Helmbold that stephens paid for what advertising he
did with One-eghth of what he charged Mr. stephens ia
said 10 have recently opened suit against stevens
Howe of Boston, whose account with him Is the only
ct unsettled.