Bakery Hill Hotel (east)

From Hotels of Ballarat
Bakery Hill Hotel
Picture needed
Town Ballarat
Street Humffray Street
Closed 1891
Known dates 1891
Other names Sir Henry Barkly Hotel
Falcon Inn
Tariff Hotel (1888)

The Bakery Hill Hotel was in Ballarat East, Victoria, <1891.

Site[edit | edit source]

The Bakery Hill Hotel was on Bakery Hill. Hargreaves describes it as being on the east side of Humffray Street, four doors from the north east corner with Main Road.[1]

In the 1940s Hargreaves said it was the site of the ANA Hall.[1]

Background[edit | edit source]

This was one of two Bakery Hill Hotels, the other being on the other side of the road, c.1857[1] There may be some confusion over information between the two hotels. This hotel was probably opened much later, after the Tariff Hotel.

This hotel had formerly been known[1] as the:

History[edit | edit source]

In December 1891 the publican, Kate Butler, was charged for allowing gambling:

Kate Butler, licensee of the Bakery Hill hotel, Humffray street, was proceeded against at the Town Police Court yesterday morning on a charge of allowing an illegal game to be played on her licensed premises. The charge arose out of the case in which four young men were locked up a few days since for playing with dice, and one of them was heavily fined. Yesterday the magistrates, after hearing the evidence of Constable Barrett and another witness, fined the licensee £2, with £1 1s costs.[2]

It was one of the 40 hotels closed in 1891 in Ballarat East as part of the changes to licensing laws.[3]. The owners were paid £933 compensation for the closure of the business.[1] There was a considerable argument about compensation during the court hearing in June 1892:

The greater part of yesterday’s sitting of the Arbitration Court was taken up with the case for the Bakery Hill hotel, Humffray street. The license last year was held by Mrs Butler, a widow, who during the year married a man named O’Brien. As a married woman cannot hold a license, she applied at the December sitting of the licensing court to have the license transferred to her husband. The police, however, though they had nothing against Mrs O’Brien, raised an objection to the license being granted to the husband. At the suggestion of his Honor Judge Walsh the license was then transferred to Miss Cleary, Mrs O’Brien’s sister. In opening the case for the licensee, Mr Tuthill explained this transaction, pointing out that the transfer of the license and the lease had been executed in legal form, but that the arrangement was simply a friendly one, carried out at the suggestion of Judge Walsh to prevent Mrs O’Brien from losing the compensation to which she was justly entitled. Miss Cleary was the licensee nominally, and resided in the premises, but Mrs O’Brien kept the whole management of the hotel in her own hands, and he proposed putting her into the box to prove the case for the licensee.

Mr Barrett, on behalf of the Crown, contended that the present licensee was not entitled to any compensation. The whole matter was simply an attempt on the part of Mrs O’Brien to evade the law and obtain compensation. There had been two convictions, and the renewal was opposed, he felt convinced that the court would not have renewed the license, though for some reason they allowed her to transfer. Now the licensee came forward and coolly asked for compensation, to which she was not entitled, so that she might hand it over to her sister. The transfer of the lease was bad, because no consideration was mentioned. It conveyed nothing to Miss Cleary, and was not meant to convey any thing to her. Section 140 of the Licensing Act provided that “if any licensed person permits any unlicensed person to be the keeper of their licensed premises, the license shall be liable to forfeiture.” The evidence showed that Miss Cleary allowed Mrs O'Brien to be the keeper of her licensed house, and this clearly put her out of court, as she thereby virtually forfeited her license. Mr Tuthill, on the other side, contended that the section would not apply, as the licensee resided on the premises, and simply allowed Mrs O'Brien to manage the business for her. Besides, so long as a license was in existence it was a license as far as this court was concerned, The fact of it being liable to forfeiture could not be taken into consideration. The transfer was perfectly valid. It vested all interest in the license and lease in Miss Cleary, and that lady could snap her fingers at Mrs O’Brien, and turn her out to-morrow if she chose. Mr Barrett still contended that there was an attempt to evade the law. What the court had said to Mrs O’Brien was— " You have married and cannot hold a license, and your husband we cannot trust.” They consented, however, to grant a transfer to Miss Cleary. The licensee was certainly guilty of no improper act, but he would not say who was responsible for it. He also further contended that the transfer of lease was not legal, because it had not been registered; but Mr Tuthill argued that registration of a lease, though convenient, was not necessary. The court reserved the point for further consideration.[4]

In November 1893, the hotel, now delicensed, was being operated as a boarding house. Charles Heinz, the boarding house keeper was fined £25 with £6 6s costs for sly grog selling, after supplying alcohol to an undercover revenue officer.[5]

Community Involvement[edit | edit source]

The People[edit | edit source]

See also[edit | edit source]

References[edit | edit source]

  1. 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 Hargreaves, John. Ballarat Hotels Past and Present, pg. 21, 1943, Ballarat
  2. 2.0 2.1 1891 'No title', The Ballarat Star (Vic. : 1865 - 1924), 8 December, p. 2. , viewed 20 Jun 2018,
  3. 3.0 3.1 Hargreaves, John. Ballarat Hotels Past and Present, pg. 8, 1943, Ballarat
  4. 1892 'No title', The Ballarat Star (Vic. : 1865 - 1924), 17 June, p. 2. , viewed 26 Apr 2017,
  5. 1893, 'MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS', The Age, November 1893, pg.10,

External Links[edit | edit source]