New Britain herald., 1930-07-17
ADVERTISING BILL
 IN COURT DISPUTE
Contract and Duplicate Differ When Shown to Judge

Three angles were presented in an unusual case, heard some time ago in the city court and argued today before Judge Stanley Traceski. but while intimations were made of two angles, but one angle was argued, yet this may not be the nub of the case at all.
 Early in September. 1926, an agent representing Byren Ss Veil of Philadelphia, purveyors of advertis- ing hookups with local firms for presentation on screens in local the aters, induced Ben Baggish, then president of the Baggish Baking Co.,, now the United Bakery Co.,, of this city, to contract for use of an ad- vertising slide in the Strand theater for period of one year.
 The slide was shown for more than a year and then Mir Baggish discovered that the copy of his con- tract called for a period of three years for the slide to be shown in the theater. He ordered the slide stopped and refused to pay any fur ther money, the rate of the contract being $10 weekly. Baggish paid S536.17, this for ., period of one year and one week, plus the service charge on painting the slide
 When Baggish stopped payment the slide was discontinued by the Philadelphia firm and then, a few months later, the firm engaged kirkham, Cooper, Hungerford & Camp to bring suit for the thrilled contract coverage. Baggish employed the firm of Hungerford & Sake, and q rather unusual legal battle was begun.
 In the arguments today, Attorney Harold N. Williams, representing the Philadelphia firm, tried to show Judge Traceski that the original and duplicate contracts, the latter carbon copy, were identical.
 The duplicate copy showed that line had been crossed out by pencil, this line. which appeared on the original copy being two more years for the contract to run over the number of years appearing in the duplicate copy. In other words, the duplicate copy, which was the con- tract returned to Baggish after be- ing entered on the company's books in Philadelphia, showed that an all iteration had been made, and it was MT. Williams claim that an effort had been made to change the dupli- cate, but that his client had no knowledge of this and therefore had q right to demapd that the original contract for the three years be ad- hered to and payments made by Baggish for that contract specified tions.
 Attorney Frederick B. Hunger ford, representing Baggish, suggest ed that perhaps the agent who sold the contract to Baggish might have been working on commission, receiv- ing his pay upon each contract de- livered to his office. and the bigger the contract, the bigger the commits sion, and therefore might have made a slight change in the copy to be re- ceived by Baggisn, and try to get bigger commission. This did not en- ter into evidence, but was thought that Judge Traceski could not fail to understand. This was one angle, hinted at by the defense.
 The angle intimated by the plain tiff was that perhaps Baggish, to get out from under a contract that he did not desire to continue, simply scratched off two years from the contract and then awaited develop ments.
 The third angle was on the evil dence The advertising firm held an original contract showing that Bag gish, then in the baking business, wanted to use an advertising service for three years. Baggish held a duplicate copy of the contract, show ing that two years were scratched out. The whole outcome of the case depends upon which contract Judge Traceski will recognize.
 Decision was reserved.