Page 3 Advertisements Column 5

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume L, Issue 12145, 1 September 1908, Page 3

CHAMBERLAIN'S . COUGH REMEDY, FRIEND TO FRIEND. | The personal recommendations of * people who have been cured of coughs ■ and colds by "Chamberlain's Cough 8 Remedy " have done more than all else to make it a staple article of trade and '' commerce over a large part of the 1 civilised world. ■ This is especially true in Australia— 1 where by word of mouth—friend to friend—the good this remedy is doing 'is being constantly repeated. We 1 doubt if there is a single home in the 1 Commonwealth that has not heard of this household article, and in the ; majority it is being used. The makers of "Chamberlain's * Cough Remedy" do not claim it to be a cure-all. They do, however, claim it , to contain the very best drugs that * money can buy, and also assert that the care used in course of manufacturing does make it an ideals cough ■ medicine. a touristTpraise. ' Mr. FRANK W. FRAZER, of Scone, 1 N.S.W., writes : "I was touring New ■ Zealand some time ago, and owing to ; the continued wet weather contracted ' 1 a very severe cold. While staying at ; the 'Royal Oak,' in Wellington, a i friend advised me to try Chamberlain's Cough Remedy. This advice was followed, and after I had taken a few 1 doses was completely cured. I can i confidently recommend Chamberlain's . Cough Remedy to anyone suffering from throat or lung troubles."----i EVERY BOTTLE GUARANTEED. 1 If you fail to get beneficial results : after using two-thirds of a bottle of ; CHAMBERLAIN'S COUGH REMEDY j according to directions,, return it to : your dealer and get your money- back. r It is,well known for its prompt cures of coughs, colds, and croup.

I interesting case, set by Mr 'Watt, is to he argued. The ; question/is 6#e-of, •a carrier's liability. : The ; following, counsel have been retained :~--Merssrs H: Christie and Horsley for the plaintiff-, and Messrs Dave Bell and, (^.-£r. x Tnprpe, for defendant. -w-.-.- : r r ; BREACH OF PROMISE. «» .— —-^ HALLAM v. HODGSON: In the above breach of prbiuise case, the evidence of the defendant was as follows:— Elliott Hodgson, the defendant, who lived at Gonville, and was a gardener. Witness niet Hallain in December on his. section. Hallam came to see him; They were strangers before this. Hallam said;he had a laundry v Witness asked him who. did the washing and Hallam replied that his daughter did. Hallam asked witness if he was going to build. When witness was workingat Miss Imlay's, Hallam came to tee him, and invited him tosee his daughter. "Witness went to Hallam's-house on the Bth January in the evening, and saw Hallam, his wife and plaintiff. The - daughter let him out and asked him to come again next night. Defendant met her at the door next night and went for a walk with her. Something did happen. Next night the same' thing ' occurred again. Witness was constantly visiting the house and was frequently out with the girl. He did not nave a . conversation with the girl and her ."■ -mother and promised to marry her and ' did not go on the verandah after. De- , fendant had never asked the plaintiff '; once to marry him. Went on going out j with the plaintiff till about a fortnight / before Easter. The plaintiff told him ( , of her position in January. Had been L with the girl at the house on more than " one occasion. Mrs Hallam had asked '. him once what time he went home the [■ previous evening. Marriage was never mentioned. Defendant went to the \ house about Easter time, but did not [ cry. >He saw the girl in bed but did , not stop long. He had offered to make ■ provision for the child and gave the \ terms of\ the offer. There was nevei \ any discussion about marriage, and he ■ had: never told the father and mother f he would "fix things up.". Was pre- \ pared to make provision for the child , now Defendant did not know whether . he was married or not He "went j through the performance" about 3C . years ago. His ' 'wife was supposed ■ • ..jjigjbft a widow, bvt he found out thai ,} inerhusband was alive after he had ■■' m.ar,ti"di. her. Ho last, heard; of hif ; ' "wife" about nine years, ago. Witness . owned a section at Gonville, but had . noiother property: ■«,,-■■' . To His Honour: H$ never lived ai . New Plymouth. j.. To Mr Treadwell: Had not been away [ from Wanganui, except once to Mar- . ton. Cross-examined by Mr Mackay, wit- . ness said he was married at Grantham in Cumberland, England. Lived witli [ his "wife" 15 years before he found i out she had a husband living. Couk! not say how long the husband had beer ' aAvay Avhen he married the woman '_ When defendant married her the wo- , man said her husband had been de^c i 12 months. Her son found his fathe) in Michigan, America. Witness livec ' Avith bis "wife" five years after he " heard her husband was alive, and thei left her because he could nob get or \ with her sons., and also because she wa; already married. Had heard nothin.s of her for nine years. Defendant hac ' a daughter and last heard of her five 1 years ago He was living with Heslop = and his wife. Mrs Heslop did not take ' any more interest in him 'than in any--5 one else. Witness had more than words * with Heslop about the latter striking [ his wife. Heslop was.drunk. Mrs Heslop did come to Hallam's house on« 1 night and tell him to come away. He " h-ad never promised to marry plaintiff— 7 what she had said was untrue. He hac I given her money at times. Witness hac v never asked plaintiff's father's conserd * to mari-y her. Her father had nevei ? accused him of anything in connectioi - wjth plaintiff. What Constable Issel i stated witness had said was all treatec - as a joke. He never told Issell thai he would marry the girl. - To Mr Treadwell: Defendant went t< 3 Mr Mackay's office at the interview re - ferred to to try and settle the affiliation -tion proceedings. - To Mr Mackav: He had been seryet 7 in a cell at the lock-up with the breacl 7 of promise suit. ' After he had beei arrested in connection with the affiilia 5 tion caec , 7 This concluded the evidence.