The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1885-01-01
LOVELY scHsME,
Into which u oanton Manufactures Was
Drawn,

Into which u oanton Manufactures Wa
Drawn,
The following particulars OF what
looks very much like a swindling
scheme Into which Fernando Il, Smith,
the garden pump manufactures OF this
city, was drawn, Ia taken from the Gle 49,
land Herald;
According TO amdayite made by the
interested parties, II looks M II a firm In
this city aud a citizen Of Canton had
been taken In slightly by q Nav York
advertising concern. A short time ago
q suit was brought In the United States
Circuit Court by @. 8, &F. M. Scoiield,
advertising solicitors OF New York,
against the Cleveland Rubber Company
Of this city and Fernando b, Smith OF
Canton. II was claimed that a contract
had been entered into with the Rubber
Co, and an agreement had been aligned by
them by which the New York solicitors
were TO place the COmpany'a al
yertiaements In q number OF country
weeklies, not exceeding 1--we hundred,
for ak months. The ScOlelda were To
receive q commission OF " for every
paper In which the adds" appeared,
The first papers In which the notice APP
peared was TO be sent to the Company by
The solicitors. The publisher OF each
paper was TO DO paid with one dozen
Advance wringeIs, for which no was
also 10 pay $50 In money, The sole
itor's contract stated thai the Rubber
Company agreed 10 Issue due billa Ia
the publish IA OF the paper upon the re-
turn OF which with $50 the wrlngera
were 10 DO shipped, provided the adyeI
tlaements were inserted. The Sc0llelde
claimed that they had the "adds" insert.
cd In u large number OF papers and
that the Rubber Company were Indebted
TO them to the amount OF III, 100 10 com.
mission.
In the other case II was alleged Mr.
Smith was to Issue due bills, on the re-
turn OF which and $40 lfty patent force
pumps were 10 DO sent TO the publishers,
The solicitors were 10 send the papers
on the frat day the notice appeared, and
then Mr.. Smith was 10 send q commits
sion OF 10 for each paper TO the sole
ltors.
Answers to those cases were died yes
terday. The Rubber Company claims
the scheme IN n snare and u delusi0n,
They say that the contract was signed
by them, but the signature was obtained
by false and fraudulent representations
on the part OF the solicitors agent,
What the contract ~purported TO DO, and
what the signer supposed he was put
ting hla name TO, was an agreement, by
which tho company was to pay a com
mission TO the solicitors on the number
OF due bills returned with $50, an this
was q desirable way 70 place their goods
on the markedly making the country
editors dealers In wrlngers. Instead OF
this, however, the solicitors claim that
by the terms OF the contract they were "a
receive 2 commission on every paper
sent the company containing the notice
without regard TO the due bills aud the
$50 II this was 40 the solicitors would
not DO constrained In any manner In the
number OF advertisements they could
insert up to i've hundred. II Il further
claimed on the part Of the Rubber Com.
pany that the solicitors arranged will
the proprletors OF country weeklies u
have the advertisements published o ,ly
until q pApar could DO sent TO them ant
not Tor six months as named In the con
tract.
Mr. Smiths answer simply denleitha
hls advertisements were inserted, ant
states that no received no papers Will
them In.