Mercury (Hobart, Tas. : 1860 - 1954), Wednesday 4 June 1913, page 3


' LUNGJ3E SIGNAI*.

Theio are two serious signuis of ki'dn«» ? Iii,'. The first signal comes from th» back with numerous aches and d.iihb Tho second signal comes In the kidney ,-ecretioiis, the uri no is thin and yale or too highly coloured, and showing brickdust-like-deposit. Urination is ¡nfrfc queilt, too Infrequent, or excessive. Yon should heed these (Unger signals before

chronic . complications sot in-Diabote-j. Dropsy. Bright's Disease. Take Doan'b Baokacho Kidney Pills :n lime, and th« cure is sininlr

Mi«. I1'- dales. 2.1 Lillio-sirccf. Glebe Hobart, says.-"Por many years 1 hava been uiifortiinnip enough lo suffer from kidney trouble, und uiilv those vvlio have lippu afflicted in this way have any idpu n-iiat 1 wont through. Day ¡end nigh.' llicio was a constant nagging ache in the small of my back, which handicapped nif a, lot, as every movement increased my sufferine. 1 was niau suhiect to dreadful headaches, fifs of dizziness, and bad hilious attacks. Altogether t was fa* from well, and comnlotely run down. ; heard of a cure of kidney trouble by Dean's Backache Kidney i-ills, fo I de-cided to try tbeie Pillo, and tbe resull »-as nothing short of marvellous. Aftei taking (he hist bottle my health was much improved, so I continued with the remedy until I was absolutely cured, using in all four bottles. I cannot say nnough in praise of Uoau'.. Backache Kidney Pills, winch ure. I consider, tnf best kidney remedy known."

Euan's Backache Kidney Pills are «ei'rt by -ill r.bemi'ts and dealers at 219 n"t

Doan's Backache Kidney Pills uro sold by all chemists and 'dealers at :!!) cr bottle (six bottles 13,3), or,will be posted on . receipt of price, by Fostor-McvJeilat Co., "ó Pitt-street, Sydney.

But. bo sure you (jet DOAN'S.

Distraint, was levied last month on the Duchess of Bedford for non-payment of taxes due in respect of Prince's Skating Rink. A silver cup was taken to satisfy the claim. The Duchess, who refused to pay the taxes on suffrage grounds, has in-structed the Women's Tax Resistance League to point out that the distraint is quite out of order, because as a married woman she is not liable to taxation. The assessment or demand not should have been served not upon her, but upon the Duke of Bedford. "Obviously," she adds, "it, was not my business to point out the law to those duty it should be to under-stand it."