Henry Cherry

From Hotels of Ballarat
Henry Cherry
Died 4 December 1901
Hobart, Tasmania
Occupation Publican
Years active 1857-1886
Known for Eureka Hotel
Royal Hotel
Victoria Hotel
Stork Hotel
Royal Exchange Hotel (Stawell)
Carlton Club Hotel (Hobart)
Home town Ballarat
Spouse(s) Emily Bosustow
Children Emily Sarah (1858)
Edwin Mark (1861)
Emma Josephine (1863)
Charles Edward (1866)
Marion Eloise (1868)
Loyal Stawell

Henry Cherry was a publican in Ballarat, Victoria, <1857-1886.

History[edit | edit source]

Henry Cherry is included on a list of unclaimed letters at the Labor Market in Melbourne on 2 August 1853.[1]

In 1854, Cherry married Emily Bosustow in Victoria.[2] They had several children including:

  • Emily Sarah (1858), Ballarat East.[3]
  • Edwin Mark (1861), Ballarat East.[4]
  • Emma Josephine (1863), Ballarat East.[5]
  • Charles Edward (1866), Ballarat East.[6]
  • Marion Eloise (1868-1869), Ballarat East.[7][8]
  • Loyal Stawell (1874), Pleasant Creek.[9]

Henry Cherry was granted the license for the Eureka Hotel in June 1857, July 1859, May 1860, June 1862, and 1863.[10][11][12][13] The Licensing Court postponed his application hearing in June 1863.

In November 1857 he purchased the Royal Hotel in Main Road. This appears to have been an investment, with the business leased to a Mr. Phipps. There were problems with the former publican's housekeeper:

WlLFUL DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY. Cherry v. Mary Jones.-Mr Wigley appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Harris for the defendant On the 23rd instant, plaintiff purchased the Royal Hotel, on Clayton's Hill. The defendant had come and broken in his windows. From the statement of Mr Harris it appeared that the defendant had been for three years in the Royal Hotel, as house-keeper, to a Mr Henson, the owner, who had gone to Adelaide to get money. The defendant had been ejected from the premises in a most disgraceful way. Mr Wigley said, Mr Henson's interest in the premises had been sold by the sheriff. Mrs Jones had, therefore, no right to be on the premises. The Bench dismissed the case.

ASSAULT.-Mary Jones v. Phipps.-This was a summons for the defendant, the representative of Mr Cherry, the owner of the Royal Mail, having assaulted and turned the complainant out of the hotel. The defendant was fined 40s., or in default 48 hours imprisonment.[14]

From at least July 1864 to 1873 Cherry was at the Victoria Hotel in Armstrong Street.[15] In February 1869 it is described as Cherry's Victoria Hotel.[16]

In October 1869 Cherry was charged in the Police Court, Ballarat:

Police v Hy. Cherry, allowing his chimney to take fire. The case was withdrawn, as defendant had gave a small sum to the fire brigade.[17]

In July 1870 the newspapers were reporting on Cherry's son and his remarkable escape from certain death:

An almost miraculous escape from a frightful death, is reported in the Courier to have happened yesterday afternoon to a little boy about eight years of age, son of Mr. Cherry, of the Victoria Hotel, Ballarat. He was crossing the centre of Sturt-street, near Armstrong-street, when the Ararat coach came dashing along. The little fellow did not see his danger until it was too late, and he was knocked over by the foremost horses, the coach passing over his body without the wheels ever touching him. But even a stranger feature of the accident is that, although the driver did not even attempt to pull up his horses, they appeared instinctively to choose their steps so that they should not hurt the child, who is very little the worse of his mishap, beyond a bruise in his face, supposed to have been caused by his being knocked down.[18]

In January 1873 a dinner was held at the hotel to mark the Cherry family leaving Ballarat to take up a hotel in Stawell:

A complimentary banquet was given at the Victoria hotel, Armstrong street, to Mr Henry Cherry, proprietor of that hotel, who is about leaving Ballarat, having taken the Exchange hotel at Stawell. Between thirty and forty gentlemen assembled to do honor to the guest. Mr Robert Lewis occupied the chair, and Mr G. Duncan the vice-chair. Mr Duncan, on behalf of those present handed to Mrs Cherry, as a souvenir, a handsome colonial gold locket and chain. Inside of the locket the following is photographed:— "Presented to Mrs H. Cherry at a banquet given to her husband on their departure from Ballarat. (Signed); Robert Lewis and Gilbert Duncan. 13th January, 1873."[19]

In February 1873 John White was advertising he had taken over the Victoria Hotel from Henry Cherry.[20]

In July 1873, two Ballarat solicitors claimed they were robbed while staying in Cherry's Royal Exchange Hotel in Stawell.[21]

In 1874 one of Cherry's children, Loyal Stawell Cherry, was born at Pleasant Creek (now Stawell).[9] In April 1878 the newpapers reported Henry's hotel in Stawell:

We are glad to hear from our old friend Mr Cherry, so long of Ballarat, and now mine host of the Royal Exchange hotel, Stawell, that some capital brown trout have been taken from the water at the Grampians, and that one of these fish turned the scale at 4 lb. [22]

In March 1886 Cherry was in Ballarat, at the Stork Hotel, where he wanted permission to operate a second bar.[23]

Two months later he is in Hobart, Tasmania, where he has taken on the Carlton Club Hotel:

The many patrons of the Stork hotel, in Armstrong street, will regret to hear that Mr Henry Cherry, who for several years past has acted as host, will leave for Tasmania in the course of a few days. Mr Cherry has taken the Carlton Club hotel, at the corner of Argyle and Liverpool streets, Hobart, and doubtless the genial manner that made him so many friends in Ballarat and Stawell will soon secure him as good a name in his new place of residence.[24]

THE CARLTON CLUB HOTEL -This well known hostelry has fallen into good hands. Mr. Cherry, of the Stork Hotel, Ballarat, has bought in, and takes immediate possession. Travellers who know the Stork agree that it is one of the best conducted family hotels in Australia, and under Mr. Cherry's management the Carlton has now a chance of gaining an equally good reputation.[25]

In January 1887 Cherry was the foreman of a jury for an inquest held in the hotel on the death of John Charles Connolly who was found drowned in the River Derwent.[26]

His daughter married a local wine merchant in Hobart in July 1887:

MITCHELL-CHERRY.-On July 6, at St. John's Church, by the Rev. H. B. Finnis, Alfred I., youngest son of the late James Mitchell, Wine Merchant, Hobart, to Emma Josephine, third daughter of Henry Cherry, Carlton Club Hotel (late of Ballarat).[27]

The marriage of Alred and Emily was unsuccessful, and ended in court over the disposal of the groom's furniture:

MITCHELL v. CHERRY AND OTHERS. Claim, £400, for illegal conversion. Jury : Messrs. F. Pocock, Win. Weymouth, J G. Moir, Charles Westwood. Ellis Dean, J. G. Parker, and S. T Kirby. For plaintiff, the SOLICITOR-GENERAL (instructed by Messrs. Ball and Ellis) ; for defendants, the ATTORNEY GENERAL (Hon. A. I. Clark) (instructed by Messrs. Elliston and Featherstone) The SOLICITOR GENERAL, in opening the case, said the plaintiff, Alfred Isaac Mitchell, was an insurance agent, and one of the defendants, Emma Josephine Mitchell, was his wife, the other two defendants being Henry Cherry and Emily Cherry, father and mother to Mrs, Mitchell, and they kept the Carlton Club Hotel in Hobart. Plaintiff sued the defendants for £400, being £300 for the wrongful conversion of his furniture and wearing apparel, and £100 as damage for inconvenience caused thereby. It was to be regretted that family quarrels of this kind should be brought into court, but when he told them the wrong his client had suffered they would see it was a good thing there was a court and a jury to which a man could come to get his wrongs righted. Mitchell was married to Miss Cherry in 1887, and they lived together at Battery Point and other places up till August, 1891, when plaintiff went to Zeehan. Before he left it was arranged that his wife should take rooms in a house at Sandy Bay and remove the furniture there, but instead of that the furniture was removed to the Carlton Club Hotel. When at Zeehan he received a letter from his wife asking if he would permit her to receive the purchase money of the house. He refused to allow her to do so, and he never heard from her again. On returning to Hobart he found the furniture removed to the Carlton Hotel, and his wife residing there. He made several attempts to see his wife and recover his furniture, but was refused both. Alfred Isaac Mitchell, the plaintiff, said he had seen a list of the furniture he claimed in the deposition-a drawing-room suite, dining-room suite, bedroom and kitchen furniture. That furniture belonged to him. He acquired some of it before his marriage, and furnished a house on his marriage, and bought some after his marriage. He bought it in different places, and it was all paid for by him. He went to Zeehan on August 14, 1891, and before that he was living at the corner of Cromwell and Colville streets, Battery Point, and all the furniture was then in the house. A week before he left for Zeehan it was arranged that the furniture should be removed to Mrs. Goodfellows house, Sandy Bay, where they were to pay 8s. a week for the use of the rooms. His wife knew that arrangements had been made with Mr. Elliott for the removal of the furniture. When at Zeehan he got one letter from his wife asking him to let her have the balance of the purchase money of the house at Battery Point which amounted to about £200 He replied that the money was to be paid into the bank. He never heard again from his wife while he was at Zeehan. He returned to Hobart on January 14, and went to Goodfellows, but did not find the furniture there. He then went to his mother's, and in consequence of what he heard, wired to his wife to come and see him, and bring the little one, but she did not come. The next day he sent to his wife for some of his clothes, and all they sent him was a top hat (crushed) carefully packed in a hat box. (The hat was produced and certainly bore a dilapidated appearance). That hat was in good order when he left. He subsequently got some of his clothes sent. He afterwards sent a messenger to the Carlton Club Hotel, and he was told there were no clothes or furniture in the hotel belonging to plaintiff. His wife's father told him he could go to the police for satisfaction. He went to the police and asked for a search warrant, but Mr. Tarleton advised him to try and settle the matter. He tried to see his wife several times after that, but her father would not allow her to see him. He got some of his clothes, and one day received an account from Mr. Cherry for 10 weeks' board and residence for his wife, at two guineas a week. He never gave his wife permission to stay at a hotel. To the ATTORNEY-GENERAL : At one time he did take a little drink. Before his marriage he showed Miss Cherry the furniture, but he did not say he would give it to her when they were married. There were a few debts standing against him in Hobart when he left for Zeehan, but he would be surprised to leam he owed £80. During the first two months he was at Zeehan he sent his wife £4, but receiving no reply to his letters he sent no more. His wife had some money to go on with when he left. One of the messages he sent was asking his wife to meet him at a public-house, and another to meet him in the street. He never tried to see his wife where she was living. When he went there on a previous occasion his mother-in-law told him he had crept into their family before he was married, and he replied he would now walk out, and did so. To the SOLICITOR GENERAL : His wife had in all £21 to go on with while he was at Zeehan, He was never on good terms with his wife's mother.

James Elliott, drayman, said he went to Mrs. Mitchell's house to remove the furniture as arranged, but she said she was not ready. She called on him shortly after, on August 27, and told him the things were all ready to shift, and he promised to send round the dray next morning. She said then the furniture was to be taken to Sandy Bay. He sent two men to remove the furniture, and afterwards sent his account to Mr. Mitchell at the Carlton Club Hotel. He would not be sure whether he addressed it to Mrs. or Mr. Mitchell. It was returned to him with the message that he would require to send it to Mr. Mitchell at Zeehan. John Thomas Elliott, one of the draymen, said he remembered going to Mrs. Mitchell's house with Ernest Rooke to remove the furniture. He asked what part of Sandy Bay he was to take it to, and she said they had changed their mind, and had decided to take it to the Carlton Hotel. He was sent to the hotel on one occasion with a demand for Mitchell's furniture. He saw Mr. Cherry, and he said there was no furniture in the house but what belonged to him, and that Mitchell could go to Mr. Pedder if he wanted anything. Ernest Rooke, drayman, corroborated John Thomas Elliott's evidence with regard to the removal of the furniture. There were four loads of furniture and one of wood. Henry Cane, manager of the Mutual Union Insurance Co., produced plaintiffs policy for £300 for insurance of his furniture. On September 1 the furniture was changed from Battery Point to the Carlton Hotel, and the policy was altered accordingly. He could not say who got the policy altered. It was very good furniture. He saw it in plaintiff's house. It was exceptionally good and well kept.

Detective Gavitt said he remembered plaintiff coming to him several times for a search warrant for the Carlton Hotel. He advised plaintiff not to get a search warrant, and went to the hotel as a peacemaker. He saw Mr, Cherry and told him what plaintiff was doing, when Mr. Cherry said plaintiff was a worthless fellow, that had treated his wife badly, that he left her without any money, that she had to sell the furniture to keep herself, that the furniture was sold to a broker in Liverpool street, and that he (Mr. Cherry) bought it. Mr. Cherry told witness his daughter would never live with plaintiff any more. To the ATTORNEY-GENERAL : He did not remember what price Mr. Cherry said he paid for the furniture. Walter Honey, clerk in the Civil Service, said he bought kitchen utensils from Mitchell about the end of August last, for which, along with a carpenter a bench, he paid £6. He gave Mrs. Mitohell a cheque for the amount. This closed the plaintiffs case. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL pointed out on behalf of defendants that plaintiff's conduct had been the cause of breaking up the home before he went to Zeehan. He did not want to open up that part of the case, but he felt compelled to make that statement. He would prove that the furniture was given to his client before her marriage. After he left for Zeehan she paid her husband's debts out of part proceeds of the furniture, and appropriated the other part to maintain herself.

Emma Josephine Mitchell, wife of the plaintiff, said before they were married plaintiff took her to his mother's house at Sandy Bay and showed her a drawing suite, dining-room suite, and ornaments, which he told her would all be hers when she was married. She was married 9 or 10 months after that. He had shown it to her several times in the interval, and passed the same remark. On one occasion her mother and his mother and sister were present when he said it. The first house they went to after marriage was in New-street, Sandy Bay, and the furniture he showed her was all brought there. Her father had now all the furniture except the kitchen suite. On one occasion her husband asked her in the presence of Mr. Honey if she would sell some of her furniture. That was when he was selling the house. She said she would not. There was no furniture brought to the house except what he showed her and what she got from her mother. They lived together till he went to Zeehan. He did not support her very well. She did not know what she would have done but for her mother. When he went to Zeehan he left her with £3, out of which she paid 18s. to the lodge. He sent her £4 from Zeehan, out of which she also paid 18s. to the lodge. She received bills for £80, his debts, after he went to Zeehan, and she removed the furniture to her father's house for safety. She was afraid it would be seized for his debts. She had sold the furniture to pay those debts, including a bill for £35 which he owed her sister. There was still about £40 worth of furniture in her hands, Her husband never came to see her. He offered to meet her in the street. To the SOLICITOR-GENERAL : Witness refused to meet her husband in the street, because she did not think it was the proper place. She would not meet him in the public house for the same reason, and because she was afraid he would be drunk. She would not meet him, because she had made up her mind never to see him again. There was some furniture got after they were married, but very little. She did not make up her mind to remove the furniture to the Carlton till after her husband went to Zeehan, and because of the numerous bills which were coming in. The only debts she paid were her sister's and the lodge. She did not pay any others because she wanted something to keep herself. Although she was parting from her husband she wanted to make him pay for the removal of the furniture if she could. To the ATTORNEY-GENERAL: He said to me on one occasion, " No matter what happens the furniture is always yours." To His HONOR : He had said since marriage that the furniture was hers in presence of his mother and sister.

Emily Cherry, mother of Mrs. Mitchell, said she had heard plaintiff say several times before marriage that all the furniture was to be given to his wife. After marriage, when they were arranging the furniture, he said, " All the furniture is Josephine's ; whatever happens to me she will be well provided for." She heard him say several times after marriage that the furniture was his wife's. The furniture was brought to the Carlton, and a large part of it was sold by her daughter. Witness bought it through an agent and paid £81. Her daughter had been staying with her ever since plaintiff went to Zeehan To the SOLICITOR-GENERAL- : She had never interfered between her daughter and plaintiff.

Rose Cherry, sister to Mrs. Mitchell, said she had often heard plaintiff say the whole of the furniture in the house was his wife's. She had heard him say so both before and after marriage. Joseph Turner, furniture dealer, spoke as to the value of some furniture. He was asked to value some furniture in the Carlton Hotel. The first lot he valued at £31, and the second £30. To the SOLICITOR-GENERAL : He considered that a fair price for the furniture. He saw Mr. Cherry after he valued the things, and he gave witness a cheque for £80. He went with Mr. Cherry to the Union Bank to cash the cheque, and then returned to the Carlton and handed the money to either Mrs. Mitchell or Mr. Cherry. The value put on the furniture was auction value. This closed the evidence, and counsel having addressed the jury.

His HONOR, in addressing the jury, said they had to decide whether or not the furniture belonged to plaintiff or his wife. There was no doubt that the goods were originally plaintiff's, and it was said he gave them to his wife before marriage. But plaintiff denied that, and if the furniture was hers why did she send the account for the carriage of it to her husband at Zeehan. Again, if the furniture was really the wife's why was it insured in the husband's name, and why did they find it necessary to make a sale at the Carlton. On the other hand plaintiff's wife stated that the furniture was made over to her as a gift. Mrs. Mitchell's mother and sister corroborated that. You ought to be satisfied before you take away a man's property that it was really a gift, and the question was were they satisfied that a gift was made to Mrs, Mitchell, If they did not find that such a gift was made, then their verdict would be for plaintiff, and they would require to give damages to the extent of what they believed the value of the furniture. The jury, after half an hour's consultation, brought in a verdict for plaintiff, assessing the damages at £145.[28]

In February 1893 the Ballarat paper reported on his health:

The many friends of Mr Cherry, formerly of the Stork Hotel, Ballarat, but now of the Carlton Club hotel, Hobart, will remember that a few months since he was so seriously ill that his life was despaired of. It was believed by many, failing information to the contrary, that he succumbed to the illness he then suffered from. His friends will be pleased to hear that such was not the case, and that the genial host is now in the enjoyment of comparatively good health.[29]

His license was renewed in February 1894:

The Licensing Bench sat this morning. Mr H. Cherry applied for the license of the Carlton Club Hotel, having failed to do so at the annual meeting. The application was granted.[30]

Cherry died in Hobart, Tasmania, on 4 December 1901.[31]

His wife, Emily, died in Adelaide on 2 July 1910[32]:

There died in Adelaide on Sunday an old Hobart Identity. Mrs. Cherry, relict of the late Mr. Henry Cherry, late of the Carlton Hotel. Having arrived in Hobart about 20 years ago, the late Mr. and Mrs. Cherry took the Carlton Hotel, and made it one of the leading hotels in the city; in fact, the name of Cherry was a guarantee of every home comfort There is a grown up family of 10 children left to mourn their loss, most of them in business.[33]

See also[edit | edit source]

References[edit | edit source]

  1. ↑ 853 'Advertising', The Argus (Melbourne, Vic. : 1848 - 1957), 2 August, p. 6. , viewed 03 Aug 2018, http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article4795262
  2. ↑ Australian Marriage Index, Victoria, 1854, Ref. No. 2095
  3. ↑ Australian Birth Index, Victoria, 1858, Ref. No. 6071
  4. ↑ Australian Birth Index, Victoria, 1861, Ref. No. 13623
  5. ↑ Australian Birth Index, Victoria, 1863, Ref. No. 5926
  6. ↑ Australian Birth Index, Victoria, 1866, Ref. No. 19255
  7. ↑ Australian Birth Index, Victoria, 1868, Ref. No. 21044
  8. ↑ Australian Death Index, Victoria, 1869, Ref. No. 412
  9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 Australian Birth Index, Victoria, 1874, Ref. No. 18198
  10. ↑ 1859 'AFTERNOON SITTINGS.', The Star (Ballarat, Vic. : 1855 - 1864), 14 June, p. 3. , viewed 25 Aug 2019, http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article66053609
  11. ↑ 1860 'LICENSING BENCH.', The Star (Ballarat, Vic. : 1855 - 1864), 23 May, p. 2. , viewed 06 Dec 2019, http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article72466933
  12. ↑ 1862 'BALLARAT EAST LICENSING COURT.', The Star (Ballarat, Vic. : 1855 - 1864), 26 June, p. 4. , viewed 02 May 2019, http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article66325077
  13. ↑ 1863 'BALLARAT EAST LICENSING BENCH.', The Star (Ballarat, Vic. : 1855 - 1864), 18 June, p. 4, viewed 7 February, 2014, http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article72515106
  14. ↑ 1857 'POLICE COURT.', The Star (Ballarat, Vic. : 1855 - 1864), 28 November, p. 3. , viewed 02 Nov 2019, http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article66045394
  15. ↑ 1864 'DISTRICT PUBLICANS' LICENSING MEETING.', The Star (Ballarat, Vic. : 1855 - 1864), 2 July, p. 4. , viewed 10 Oct 2016, http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article66346137
  16. ↑ 1869 'Advertising', The Ballarat Star (Vic. : 1865 - 1924), 4 February, p. 4. , viewed 26 Sep 2016, http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article112883096
  17. ↑ 1869 'POLICE.', The Ballarat Star (Vic. : 1865 - 1924), 13 October, p. 4. , viewed 08 Jun 2019, http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article112855117
  18. ↑ 1870 'THE COUNTRY.', The Herald (Melbourne, Vic. : 1861 - 1954), 30 July, p. 2. , viewed 03 Aug 2018, http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article244722755
  19. ↑ 1873 'MISCELLANEOUS.', The Ballarat Star (Vic. : 1865 - 1924), 29 January, p. 4. , viewed 03 Nov 2019, http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article219197725
  20. ↑ 1873 'Advertising', The Ballarat Courier (Vic. : 1869 - 1882; 1914 - 1918), 6 February, p. 3. , viewed 02 Aug 2018, http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article192276238
  21. ↑ 1873 'THE CHARGE OF ROBBERY IN A HOTEL AT STAWELL.', The Ballarat Star (Vic. : 1865 - 1924), 29 July, p. 2. , viewed 02 Nov 2019, http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article199006273
  22. ↑ 1878 'SPORTING NOTES.', The Ballarat Star (Vic. : 1865 - 1924), 18 April, p. 3. , viewed 02 Nov 2019, http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article199323208
  23. ↑ 1886 'BALLARAT LICENSING COURT.', The Ballarat Star (Vic. : 1865 - 1924), 27 March, p. 4. , viewed 27 Apr 2017, http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article204429720
  24. ↑ 1886 'No title', The Ballarat Star (Vic. : 1865 - 1924), 25 June, p. 2. , viewed 03 Nov 2019, http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article204433639
  25. ↑ 1886 'THE MERCURY.', The Mercury (Hobart, Tas. : 1860 - 1954), 7 May, p. 2. , viewed 03 Aug 2018, http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article9121500
  26. ↑ 1887 'INQUEST.', Tasmanian News (Hobart, Tas. : 1883 - 1911), 13 January, p. 2. , viewed 03 Nov 2019, http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article169164192
  27. ↑ 1887 'Family Notices', The Mercury (Hobart, Tas. : 1860 - 1954), 23 July, p. 1. (The Mercury Supplement), viewed 03 Aug 2018, http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article9136339
  28. ↑ 1892 'SUPREME COURT.', The Mercury (Hobart, Tas. : 1860 - 1954), 2 July, p. 1. (The Mercury Supplement), viewed 03 Nov 2019, http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article13270197
  29. ↑ 1893 'No title', The Ballarat Star (Vic. : 1865 - 1924), 27 February, p. 2. , viewed 03 Nov 2019, http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article209783171
  30. ↑ 1894 'HOBART.', Daily Telegraph (Launceston, Tas. : 1883 - 1928), 6 February, p. 2. , viewed 03 Nov 2019, http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article153544423
  31. ↑ Public Record Office Victoria; North Melbourne, Victoria; Victorian Wills, Probate and Administration Records 1841-1925; Series: VPRS 7591
  32. ↑ 1910 'Family Notices', Daily Post (Hobart, Tas. : 1908 - 1918), 9 July, p. 1. , viewed 03 Nov 2019, http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article193264205
  33. ↑ 1910 'MEN AND WOMEN', Daily Post (Hobart, Tas. : 1908 - 1918), 5 July, p. 5. , viewed 03 Nov 2019, http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article193263508

External links[edit | edit source]

Retrieved from "https://ballaratpubs.miraheze.org/wiki/Henry_Cherry?oldid=24006"