Barley Sheaf Hotel (Barkly Street)

From Hotels of Ballarat
There was also a Barley Sheaf Hotel at Miners Rest.
Barley Sheaf Hotel
Picture needed
Town Ballarat
Street Barkly Street
Closed 1920
Known dates 1861-1920

The Barley Sheaf Hotel was in Ballarat, Victoria, <1861 - 1920.

Site[edit | edit source]

The Barley Sheaf was at 35 Barkly Street.[1]

Background[edit | edit source]

History[edit | edit source]

In January 1868 the hotel was advertising in the Ballarat Star for a "good general servant."[2]

In June 1908 a former publican wanted to transfer his license. The transfer was objected to on the grounds that he had carried on Sunday trading at the Barley Sheaf, and had allowed bad characters to congregate there:

License Transfer Opposed. HOW THE BARLEY SHEAF HOTEL WAS CONDUCTED. THE APPLICATION GRANTED. At the City Police Court yesterday, before Mr H. M. Murphy, P.M., John Cantillon applied for the transfer to him of the license of the Limerick and Clare Castle Hotel from Duncan McLennan. J. B. Pearson appeared for the applicant, and Sub-inspector Ryan opposed the application. John Cantillon said that up to April last he was licensee of the Barley Sheaf hotel. His license there had been twice renewed without objection. Sub-Inspector Ryan--Did the police succeed in catching you at Sunday trading ?— No. Have you done Sunday trading ?-At one time I did. Mr Murphy, P.M.—Does that mean that you stopped-it?—Yes. When?—Six months ago.

Plain-clothes Constable Montague said he knew defendant when he was in the Barley Sheaf hotel. On different occasions, in company with other police, he had seen men entering the house on Sundays. After seeing men go in on one Sunday witness gained admission to the place, and searched all the rooms except the licensee’s own bedroom. That, was locked, and the licensee said the key was gone. They found no one in the other rooms. To Mr Pearson—All this occurred prior to the end of last year. To Sub-Inspector Ryan—At other times witness had found convicted thieves on the premises. One of these thieves was named Ryan. Sub-Inspector Ryan—But surely that was an alias. (Laughter.)—No. Witness, continuing, said that he had warned applicant not to allow bad characters to come to the hotel, and applicant said he could not stop them. Constable Carey said he knew the applicant when he conducted the Barley Sheaf hotel. On Sunday, 29th September last, witness saw 16 men enter the hotel, one at a time, within 20 minutes. Previous to that he had visited the hotel, and found a lot of men hanging about there. He had spoken to Cantillon about having men hanging round there on Sunday. Witness had known Cantillon for many years, and had got on well with him. In his opinion, the applicant had been one of the most systematic Sunday traders in Ballarat.

Constable Austin said that he had seen convicted thieves on the premises of the Barley Sheaf hotel, and had on several occasions seen evidences of Sunday trading. The house was badly conducted. Mr Pearson objected to a witness's opinion being given as evidence. Mr Murphy, P.M.- It is not for a constable to state, whether a house is conducted well or badly. He can state facts, and we can draw our own inferences. Constable Austin mentioned the name of two convicted thieves in addition to those previously mentioned who had been in the habit of visiting the Barley Sheaf hotel. Mr Pearson-Was it not 11 years since one of these men was convicted, and 12 years since the other was sentenced?—l could not say. Sub-Inspector Ryan—Did not you and Craig secure a conviction against the house in October last for Sunday trading ?—Yes. Constable Craig also gave evidence with regard to Sunday trading at the Barley Sheaf. On one Sunday he had seen a string of men go in singly. He had heard Cantillon let one man in and say, "Come on, Wally, it's your turn now." Constable Elliott gave similar evidence. Sub-Inspector Ryan—Why didn't you catch Cantillon ?—He had too many men out watching. He had "spotters" ?—Yes Did you ever see a man named Young knock at the side door and run away?—Yes.

Mr Pearson said his client had admitted Sunday trading some time back, but he got his renewal last December. If there had been serious objections against Cantillon they would have been brought forward then. During the three months that he was in the hotel after that renewal he had conducted the hotel well, and there were no black marks against him. Apart from his connection with the hotel, Cantillon was a man of irreproachable character. John Cantillon, re-called, said that the men had served on Sundays were regular customers, and it would have been awkward to refuse them. Regarding the convicted thieves, he had never met any of them till he had gone into the hotel. He did not encourage them to remain about the place.

Mr Murphy, P.M., said he considered that it had been proved that the applicant had at one time carried on systematic Sunday trading. It had also been proved that he, had allowed undesirable characters to assemble at his house. At the same time he believed that during the latter part of his tenure of the house Cantillon had given up Sunday trading. The fact that no opposition had been made to Cantillon getting his license renewed last December would weigh considerably with the bench. He considered that the police had given their evidence fairly and capably. He would give the applicant another chance of showing that he could conduct a hotel properly, and the transfer would be granted.Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; invalid names, e.g. too many

In June 1910 the publican was fined for a breach of the licensing laws:

PROSECUTIONS UNDER LICENSING ACT. TWO LICENSEES FINED. THE POLICE DELAYED. BARLEY SHEAF HOTEL. At the Town Court yesterday morning, before Messrs H. M. Murphy, P.M., and A Levy, J.P., John J. Moloney, licensee of the Barley Sheaf hotel, Ballarat East, was charged with having on the 29th May delayed the admission of Constable Carey on to his licensed premises. Mr Fred. Ham appeared for the defendant.

Constable Carey said—At 11.7 on the morning of the 29th May, in company with Constable Featherstone, I visited the Barley Sheaf hotel, in Barkly street. I saw a man coming from the direction of the back door, and hastened there, but was just in time to see the door closed. I knocked, and when the licensee asked who it was I replied, "Constable Carey, don’t delay admission." After that defendant left the back door, and I heard steps retreating. I continued to knock. Shuffling was heard, and I heard what appeared to be tinkling of glasses. I continued to knock until the licensee came to the door. He called out, "Who is there?" and I said,"Constable Carey." The door was instantly opened, and I told Moloney that I had been delayed five minutes. He replied that he did not hear me. I told him he did, and I then went along the passage, and admitted Senior-constable Featherstone, who was in company with a young man named Cartledge, who had left the hotel by means of the window. Featherstone remarked that a child was handed to Cartledge by a stout man with a stubbly beard, but defendant said it was he who handed out the child. The key of the bar was handed over when demanded, and when I went in I saw a large glass. Mr Ham—We are charged with delaying the police. Mr Murphy—I think it is evidence. All the surroundings and the circumstances should be taken into consideration. Supposing the constable went into the hotel and found everything clear we should want much clearer and stronger evidence before imposing a fine for delaying admission. Sub-inspector Ryan—The bench I take it are entitled to all the information available. Mr Murphy—It is purely a question of law. On a question of equity we should know all the surroundings. If there is to be a conviction I do not want to admit evidence that would jeopardise that conviction.

Continuing his evidence Carey said—When I looked in the glass I saw the fresh dregs of a "shandy." A girl said she placed the glass there on Saturday night. I went upstairs and through all the rooms except one looking for the stubbly bearded man. The licensee said he lost the key of the locked room about three weeks ago. I looked through the keyhole, and said it appeared to me that the room had been recently cleaned out. The licensee said that Cartledge came for a pony and gig. Moloney was not the stubbly bearded man who handed out the baby. To Mr Ham—He did not know that Moloney had been in bed, and was only partly dressed when the police arrived. There was no doubt that the voice behind the door was that of defendant. Although he had never seen the froth of beer after it had been in a glass overnight, he would swear that the froth in the glass in the bar that morning had not been in the glass throughout the night. Senior-constable Featherstone said that whilst waiting at the hotel for admission a man named Cartledge jumped out of the window, and a child was handed to him. When asked for an explanation, Cartledge replied, "I was in seeing a girl; a man can do that if he likes." Moloney, who was partly dressed, was not the person who handed out the baby.

John Joseph Moloney said that the first intimation he received of the presence of the police was when Cartledge called out from down stairs that he thought they were at the door. He was just getting out of bed. He went down and opened the passage door, and Carey entered. Until he came into court that morning he knew nothing of the froth in the glass. He had about four days growth of beard, and it was he who handed the child out of the window. Cartledge came to the hotel for a pony and gig. No other man was on the premises. To Sub-Inspector Ryan—Cartledge jumped out of the window because he did not wish to be on the premises when the police went there. Sub-Inspector Ryan—If Cartledge told the senior-constable that he came to the hotel to see a girl, and not as you say, to get a pony, he is telling an untruth?—Yes; And Carey is telling lies when he says you answered when he first knocked at the door?—Yes. Mr Murphy—It will be interesting to know if your voice is like Cartledge’s If you are going to carry on a successful hotel business, you will have to be quicker in answering to the door.

Henry Cartledge, miner, said that on the Saturday night previous he had arranged to have the loan of defendant's pony and gig, and was at the hotel to receive it when the police arrived. His evidence was in corroboration of that given by Moloney about handing the child out of the window. In answer to Sub-Inspector Ryan, witness said he told Featherstone he had come to see a girl who visited his place. He did not know the girl’s name. It was not a lie that he told when he said he came to see the girl; he came on both errands. Bertha Moloney, aged 19 years, said she admitted Cartledge into the hotel and told him to wait until she informed her father that he was there waiting for the pony. On Saturday night arrangements were made for Cartledge to have the use of the vehicle, so that he could go "mushrooming." Replying to Sub-Inspector Ryan, witness said that two men came to the hotel, but only Cartledge was admitted. She was outside the hotel, but was sure that the voice that responded to Carey’s knock was that of Cartledge.

Mr Murphy—ln this case the object of this section 93 of the new Act is to prevent Sunday trading being carried on in licensed premises, and with that object the Legislature has said that when a constable knocks, the door must be immediately opened, and if there is any delay, the licensee is liable to a penalty In this case we believe that Constable Carey knocked, and we believe that he was mistaken in thinking it was the licensee who was there. Nevertheless, the licensee should have got up at once, and gone straight to the door. His own story shows that he did not do so. He had no right to wait while Cartledge got out through the window, and then hand Cartledge the child. Certainly he has committed an offence in not immediately opening the door. When everything is above board the door should fly open when the constable knocks. In the opinion of the bench there was a distinct delay. Defendant will be fined 2 pounds.[3]

The Licenses Reduction Board held a hearing into the hotel in February 1911:

BARLEY SHEAF HOTEL. Evidence was then, taken with regard to the Barley Sheaf hotel, Ballarat East. Mr Pearson appeared for the owners (Coghlan and Tulloch) and licensee. Senior-constable Wallace said the licensee relied principally upon bar and jug trade. The house was poorly furnished. To Mr Barr—He had not formed an opinion as to whether the Barley Sheaf should go before the All Nations. Inspector Ryan.—Is it required at all, for public convenience?—No. Evidence was also given by Constable Harnetty and the licensee, John Joseph Moloney, and another witness as to the justification for the license being retained.[4]

In March 1920 the hotel was one of 31 hotels in the district threatened with de-licensing by the Licenses Reduction Board.[5] Hearings were held in the Ballarat Supreme Court:

The first case dealt with was that of the Barley Sheaf hotel, Barkly street south, Ballarat East. Constable Geddes gave evidence that the hotel contained 15 rooms, including 9 bedrooms. The house was fairly well conducted. The present licensee, Mary Kelly, had been in the house for nearly three years. Beacham’s hotel, in Grant street, was about 200 yards away, and the Grapes hotel was 300 yards away. There was more traffic around these houses than the Barley Sheaf hotel, which had four convictions against it for breaches of the Licensing Act. As far as he knew, no provision was made for meals or beds for the public. The hotel was not in a thickly populated locality, and in his opinion it could be closed, without causing inconvenience. At the Barley Sheaf hotel the trade was chiefly a bar one. There was only one small mine working in the district. Plain-clothes Constable Morgan corroborated the evidence of the last witness. He said he visited the hotel six weeks ago, and found the rooms in a very dirty condition. Three of the bedrooms were very poorly furnished for the family, and the other six bed rooms were not furnished. In his opinion, the Barley Sheaf Hotel was not required. The Grapes Hotel was the better of the ether two houses in the locality. Beacham's Hotel was a wooden building not in very good condition. The place was well kept, the rooms were clean, and meals and beds were supplied to the public occasionally. To Mr. Pearson: The Barley Sheaf building was a substantial two-storey brick one. This was the evidence for the police. Mr. Pearson intimated that he had nothing to say on behalf of the owner or licensee. The Board reserved its decision.[6]

The hotel was sold in November 1920 for £320, one of six de-licensed hotels owned by the Ballarat Brewing Company.[7]

Community Involvement[edit | edit source]

Inquests[edit | edit source]

  • September 1861, into the death of Andrew Wilcox, crushed when an untimbered mine tunnel collapsed.[8]

The People[edit | edit source]

See also[edit | edit source]

References[edit | edit source]

  1. 1.0 1.1 1919 Electoral Roll, Ballaarat, Mount Pleasant.
  2. 1868 'Advertising', The Ballarat Star (Vic. : 1865 - 1924), 16 January, p. 3. , viewed 01 Feb 2017,
  3. 1910 'PROSECUTIONS UNDER LICENSING ACT.', The Ballarat Star (Vic. : 1865 - 1924), 16 June, p. 4. , viewed 19 Jan 2023,
  4. 1911 'BARLEY SHEAF HOTEL.', The Ballarat Star (Vic. : 1865 - 1924), 1 March, p. 4. , viewed 19 Jan 2023,
  5. 5.0 5.1 1920 'COUNTRY NEWS.', The Argus (Melbourne, Vic. : 1848 - 1957), 17 March, p. 9. , viewed 15 Jun 2019,
  6. 1920 'LICENCES REDUCTION BOARD.', The Ballarat Star (Vic. : 1865 - 1924), 17 March, p. 4. , viewed 16 Jun 2019,
  7. 1920 'DELICENSED HOTELS SOLD.', The Horsham Times (Vic. : 1882 - 1954), 26 November, p. 8, viewed 4 May, 2015,
  8. 1861 'INQUESTS.', The Star (Ballarat, Vic. : 1855 - 1864), 27 September, p. 2. , viewed 09 Jul 2021,
  9. 1862 'EASTERN POLICE COURT.', The Star (Ballarat, Vic. : 1855 - 1864), 11 December, p. 1. (SUPPLEMENT TO THE STAR), viewed 04 Sep 2020,
  10. 1864 'EASTERN POLICE COURT. Friday, 14th October.', The Star (Ballarat, Vic. : 1855 - 1864), 15 October, p. 2. (SUPPLEMENT TO THE STAR), viewed 04 Sep 2020,
  11. 1873 'LICENSING BENCH.', The Ballarat Star (Vic. : 1865 - 1924), 23 December, p. 2. , viewed 24 May 2017,
  12. 1874 'BALLARAT EAST LICENSING BENCH. ANNUAL MEETING.', The Ballarat Star (Vic. : 1865 - 1924), 15 December, p. 4, viewed 7 November, 2015,
  13. 1879 'BALLARAT LICENSED VICTUALLERS’ ASSOCIATION.', The Ballarat Star (Vic. : 1865 - 1924), 22 October, p. 2. , viewed 27 Jun 2023,
  14. 1889 'No title', The Ballarat Star (Vic. : 1865 - 1924), 26 October, p. 2. , viewed 02 Apr 2017,
  15. 1898 'NEW INSOLVENTS.', The Argus (Melbourne, Vic. : 1848 - 1957), 26 July, p. 5. , viewed 24 Sep 2019,
  16. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named jun08
  17. 1911 'THE LICENSING ACT. TRANSFERS GRANTED.', The Argus (Melbourne, Vic. : 1848 - 1957), 18 March, p. 16. , viewed 11 Jun 2021,

External Links[edit | edit source]