Fayetteville observer. [volume] (Fayetteville, Tenn.) 1850-1966, 1877-03-22

a. At"Scc, WHICH, Va iuSSoSA
the opinion that j. Haydock,
agent of Holloway e. Co., sis a
fraud" e.did This partly TO
Justify usTin refusingto adver-
tise for him; but mainly, that
our brethren of the press might
watch him, las he was suspected
of being slippery. The Shell
byyille. Commercial excepted to
the Times item, and avowed its
confidence in Holloway & Co.,
on the strength of letter re-
ceived; and there the matter
rested. We now have the fol-
lowing from the Newton (Pa.)
Enterprise of January 20, 1877,
which may be of interest to the
craft
HOLLowAY's MEDICINEs.-A
number of our exchanges are
advertising Holloway's ONT
ment and Pills. Whether they
get pay tor the same is not our
business, but we give our own
experience, and others may see
how it accords with theirs. The
advertisement was sent here
direct from the office in New
York, with directions to pub
lish one year at fair price, pay
able quarterly. AT the end
Of the first quarter a bill was
rendered. An elaborate letter
was returned, stating that mon
ey was scarce and the bill Could
not be met, but q draft or bill
of exchange was sent, for doub-
lie the amount of the BILL pay!
able in ninety days. This in
sured the insertion of the adj
yertisement three months long
er without pay. The bill Of
exchange was placed in bank
for collection, and when due
was returned protested with
the charge of $1.30 on it for
protest. The advertisement
was then taken out. Years
ago we advertised these mcdi-
cines for DIR. Thomas Holloway,
of London, who is the original
proprietor, and who always
paid his bills, This New York
firm pretends to be the Amer
lean branch Of this house, as
per card on letter head as fol-
lows: & VS.
! Son December 21st, 1861,
Mr.. j. Haydock was appointed
sole agent for the United States
for the only original Holloway,
of London, England"
To ascertain whether the
New York concern was really a
branch of the true Holloway
medicine mandatory, or a bo-
gus imitation, we addressed a
letter to friend in London,
and in due time an answer was
received. We will give the let
ter of DIR. Thomas Holloway,
and each one can judge for HIM
self.
1888 OXFORD ST., LoNDoN,(
December IA, 1876.
"MR. WALTER A. ROLLINS:
.DEAR SIR-In reply to your
inquiries respecting j. Hay
dock, | beg leave to say, al
most every mail l haze letters
from editors in the United
States, either sending accounts
for advertising and asking rfor
payment for the advertisement
which Haydock had inserted, Oh
others again to.inquire as you
do now, whether he is an au-
thorizcd agent for me or not.
| reply to all that he is nc
agent of mine, nor has he any
authority 10 use my name.
II had considered it my duty
the day before-I received your
letter, 10 send an advertisement
to the agent of the<New York
HERALD in London, to be inser-
ted twice a week for fifty-twc
times denouncing that Joseph
Haydock.
THOMAS HOLLOWAY"
It may be that Haydock has
paid or will pay some of the pa
pers that are publishing his adj
vertisement. We only know
that he has not paid US, and VIC
take this method TO un-adver.
tisc him. agse 4.e3-
Messrs. Damon s. Poets, deal.
ers in printing materials, New
) York, received a letter from
VIM. II. Davis, atty at law
February %, 1877, and he says
a draft on Holloway & Co. "car