Pitfield Hotel

From Hotels of Ballarat
Pitfield Hotel
Pitfield Hotel, date c.1870
Woady Yallock Historical Society
History
Town Pitfield
Closed bef. 1880
Known dates 1855-1875
Other names Emu Inn
Demolished Burnt down 7 August 1880

The Pitfield Hotel was a hotel at Pitfield, Victoria, <1855-1875>.

Site[edit | edit source]

The hotel was at Pitfield in the Piggoreet Licensing District.

Background[edit | edit source]

The Woady Yallock Historical Society described the Pitfield Hotel:

It was described as being 'a truly magnificent property on an acre of land, substantially built of stone, and containing seven sitting rooms, 22 bedrooms, one bar, two pantries, one clothes closet, one underground kitchen and one underground spirit store, plus outbuildings including stabling for 11 horses'. The hotel was delicensed by 1870. This hotel replaced an earlier hotel named the Emu Inn which had been in existence from at least 1841 but was destroyed by fire in 1853.[1]

The hotel was still licensed to David Porter in the 1875, but closed not long afterwards and was destroyed by fire in 1880.[2]

History[edit | edit source]

The hotel was offered for sale in December 1855:

Fortune-making Property! PITFIELD HOTEL, At the Wardy Yallock Gold Fields. O'FARRELL & SON have been instructed by the proprietor, M. H.Baird, Esq., to offer for Private Sale the above well-known hotel, which is truly a magnificent property, substantially built of stone, and containing the rooms, all well finished: -7 sitting-rooms.22 bed-rooms, 2 bar, 2 pantry, 1 clothes closet, 1 underground kitchen, 1 underground spirit store. The following buildings are detached, viz., stone store of two rooms, cottage of eight rooms, wash-house of two rooms, and stabling for eleven horses. The whole in one lot, with An Acre of Land on which the buildings are erected. All the rooms are well furnished with furniture of the best description, which will be sold with the premises. The stock of wines, spirits, &c., and all the stores, to be taken by the purchaser at a valuation. The business done on these premises even at the present dull season, is truly immense, and the purchaser, if only steady and industrious, cannot fail to make a rapid fortune, where such a business is already permanently established in connection with one of the best gold fields yet discovered. Terms - One-third cash, the balance of the purchase money in two bills at one and two years earning interest at 10 per cent per annum. For further particulars apply to the Proprietor on the premises; or to the agents, Ryrie-street Geelong.[3]

In March 1856 the hotel was offered for lease:

TO LET, Pitfield Hotel, Wardy Yallock. Apply to Messrs McPhillimy and Baird, Geelong; or to M. H. Baird, on the premises. Pitfield, March 17, 1856.[4]

The hotel was mentioned in a gold report of August 1856:

Some fine specimens of nuggety gold wore brought to town yesterday from what is supposed to be a rich field, between the Leigh and Wardy Yallock, about a mile from the Pitfield Hotel. A nugget weighing 43 ounces has already been found.[5]

The hotel was mentioned in a news report of a gold rush in April 1858, which was at Welcome Gully, about four miles from the hotel.[6]

In October 1859 two men were charged with having stolen money from a man at the hotel:

STEALING MONEYS. James Purnell andThomas Lester pleaded "Not guilty" to stealing a sum of money from one John Scarr, on the 23rd August last...John Scarr deposed.-I am a labourer at Pitfield. Was splitting there for Mr. Currie. About the 20th of August last I received a cheque for £20 10s,, for wages. I went with it to the Pitfield Hotel, and gave it to the housekeeper, Mrs. Rix. It was on Sunday morning. On the Tuesday following she gave me £7, balance due for this cheque. The prisoners were there then. I shouted for both prisoners; they had no money-at least they said they had none. The prisoners seemed to know each other. A woman joined them on Monday, and I continued to shout for the three. I shouted for all hands-all round. I don't know whether the woman slept there that night. I was too drunk to know anything. We all drank as fast as we got dry, and I always paid the reckoning. On Tuesday afternoon I was rather drunk-not very lively-I lay down to sleep. I had my £7 in my pocket then-I got it about 11 or 12 o'clock the same day and went to sleep immediately afterwards. I slept till a policeman came. When I awoke I missed my money. The prisoners were both in the room, and the woman. The prisoners, who were undefended, asked the prosecutor some questions. He said-I might have slept in the fireplace on Monday night. I never saw the woman in bed, I was I too drunk. Margaret Rix, housekeeper at the Pitfield Hotel, deposed to the prosecutor and the prisoners being at the house drinking. Prosecutor presented a cheque for £20 10s. On the Tuesday following she got £7 to return to Scarr from the landlord. The storekeeper gave him the money. The prisoners, the woman, and tho prosecutor were all drinking together. Scarr paid for all they had to drink. The prisoners said they had no money ; they paid for nothing. The 71. was in six notes and one sovereign. Thomas Rothwell, storekeeper at the Pitfield Hotel, said on the 23rd of August he was attending in the bar, when the last witness gave him six notes and one sovereign to pay Scarr. He handed them to Scarr in the taproom, in presence of the two prisoners. The prosecutor was drunk when he got the 7l. He had sent for a constable to rid the house of the woman before Scarr got his money. As soon as Scarr found he was robbed, the constable searched the prisoners, aud took from Purnell a 1l note and some silver, and from Lester 4l., in notes. Samuel Spidall, groom at the inn, proved that when he went into the taproom on Tuesday afternoon, the prisoner Lester handed him a 1l. note -" to say nothing about it," as he said. He pulled two or three more out of his pocket, and said, " Well, I've got the old ___'s notes, anyhow." Scarr was lying asleep then. Witness gave the note to the mistress, telling her that he thought Scarr was robbed. (Left sitting.) (We learn by telegraph that both prisoners were acquitted.)[7]

In June 1861 a local policeman was taken to the hotel for treatment after breaking his leg:

I regret to say that mounted constable Hull, of Skipton, met with a serious accident in passing down old Moonlight on Saturday night in company with constable Jordan of Pitfield, to which place they were going for the night. It was very dark, and Hull's horse stepped into an old wheel track, which caused him to fall upon his rider's leg and break it in two places, between the knee and ankle. He was taken to Pitfield by Mr Low and Jordan, where Dr Watkins was called in to attend him, and after reducing the swelling lie succeeded in setting his leg at 10 o'clock on Sunday morning. Hull is lying at Mr Fernald's Pitfield HoteL I have just heard that he is getting as well as can be expected.[8]

While the constable was being treated there was a rather bizarre incident involving two local doctors, Watson and Currie, at the hotel, with one accusing the other of cutting him socially, and then going through an elaborate scheme of disguise to prove his point. It all ended up in the Linton Police Court. Interestingly Dr. Watkins had tried to bring a charge against the publican at the same court hearing on another unrelated matter:

Watkins v Currie-Using abusive and insulting language. Mr Booker for complainant. Dr Watkins sworn, deposed, l am a duly qualified medical practitioner residing at Pitfield. I recollect the 9th instant, it was a Sunday. I was engaged part of that day setting the leg of a constable at the Pitfield Hotel. During that time I was sent for by one of the servants of the hotel, who told me there was a person in the public room who had met with an accident, and wished me to examine him. I went and did so. He told me his horse had fallen on him. He was dressed as a digger, and lying on a sofa, with his boot and sock off. I thought he was a miner. He seemed in great pain. I thought he was a digger, from his dress. I did not know who he was at the time. His hat was pulled down on his forehead. He had not told me bis name at this time. During my examination he shouted and swore, and called for some one to hold him. I remonstrated with him for using such language. Mr Fernald came in. Defendant had been speaking loud enough to be heard in the room where my patient was, and it is a considerable distance off. When Mr Fernald came in defendant asked if he was the landlord, and, on being answered in the affirmative,- suddenly jumped up and said, "send for a doctor for that damned idiot" -meaning witness-"was no doctor," or words to that effect. He then jumped up, drew on his boot, pushed up his hat, and said "Damn you, do you know me now;" shook his fist in my face, and said, "I am John Currie. I intended to have been down last night and to have got you out of bed, but I lost my way." It was then I recognised him as Dr Currie. I had seen him the day before. I do not know if there were many persons in the house, but there were some strangers in the coffee room. He said that was his revenge for my not condescending to know him the previous day. I have I been practising in this district as a doctor tar seven years. I am not aware how long he has been practising here. I only know from reports in the newspapers. I did not provoke him in any way prior to this language of his. I did not retaliate, but I asked for my fee. Cross-examination-I was in the habit of visiting Rokewood some three years ago when there was a rush there. I do not know that I saw you there, but may have done so. I remember one day when I rode up to the Robert Burns Hotel. You held out your hand and asked how I was. I said I had not the pleasure of your acquaintance. You told me your name, and I repeated that I had not the pleasure of your acquaintance. I did not say I don't know you I was asked, "don't you know Dr Currie " and I said, "I don't want to know him." I found nothing when I examined you. I never stated that I was not accustomed to diggers' language. I told you that if you did not cease such language I would have nothing to do with you. You jumped up and said, "I am John Currie." I asked for my fee for examining your leg. You put your tongue in my face, Mr B. H. Fernald sworn—I am a publican residing at Pitfield. I recollect Sunday the 9th inst. Dr Watkins was engaged during a portion of that day with a patient in my hotel. I do not exactly know if it was while he was so engaged Dr Currie came, but think it was about it. I did not know who it was when I saw him, but found I had seen him ride past afterwards. He was dressed in a digger's dress, but I do not know if it were a disguise. I heard him call out. I was sent for to the room. When I went in Drs Watkins and Currie were alone. I heard Dr Currie speak to him. He asked was I the landlord, and asked was there not a surgeon in the place who could attend to a man when he met with an accident. He then jumped up, pulled out what seemed to be a case of surgical instruments from his pocket, and said, "Now do you know me? I am Dr Currie, of Linton."I did not see Dr Currie put his tongue out at Dr Watkins, nor shake his fist at him. I think there were one or two strangers in the coffee room. Cross-examined by Dr Currie—I did hear you make use of coarse language while I was present. I did not hear you swear. If anybody stated you said "Damn you, do you know me?" he would not be telling the truth. I did see Dr Watkins examining you for a short time. He could not well know what was the matter with you. You were not quiet enough. I do not know if it was immediately before you jumped up that Dr Watkins said if you were not quiet he would have nothing more to do with you. He said he was not used to that digger's language. I heard loud talk before I went into the room. I heard Dr Watkins ask for his fee. I think he held out his hand and said, "Now, I will have a guinea for my fee." To the Bench—Dr Currie said something; I do not remember what. He did not pay it. Dr Watkins said, "I saw an account of you in the paper the other day, and that is enough for me." Dr Currie asked, "Who made a monkey like you a magistrate?" Dr Currie asked for a glass of brandy, and Dr Watkins went out. Dr Currie told me he met Dr Watkins at the Robert Burns Hotel the previous evening, and asked him how he was and held out his hand, and Dr Watkins told him he did not know him, and that he came down intending to have Dr Watkins out of his bed the previous night, but lost his way, and that he regretted there were no more persons present at the hotel then. To Dr Currie—There was nothing to indicate that you were not in your sober senses. Dr Currie addressed the Bench, arguing that Dr Watkins must have known him when they met at the Robert Burns Hotel, though he said, "I do not know you," and therefore his evidence could not be believed now. The Bench stated that they did not consider the language used came within the meaning of the Act, and dismissed the case, saying there was no doubt Dr Currie had attempted a very silly practical joke, disgraceful both to the profession and himself. (During the above case, J. Lewers, Esq, took his seat on the Bench.) Watkins v Currie, for 21s for work and labor done. This arose out of the same occasion as the previous case, and resulted in a verdict for amount, with 42s costs. Dr Watkins requested that the 21s should be placed in the poor-box.[9]

In August 1861, James Hamilton was charged with being drunk and disorderly outside the hotel, and threatening the Returning Officer, the same Dr. Watkins, and who as magistrate, presided over the court hearing:

THREATENING A RETURNING OFFICER. James Hamilton, charged with being drunk and disorderly in a public place on the 12th of August, pleaded not guilty. Constable Jordain-I saw prisoner drunk and disorderly in a public place on Monday, the 12th August Cross-examined-I returned from Lucky Woman's to Pitfield. I was sober. I saw you outside the Pitfield Hotel with your cap off. Your disorderly conduct was threatening Dr Watkins was Returning Officer. Constable Hamilton sworn-I was on duty at the hotel at Pitfield on that day, and saw the prisoner drunk and disorderly. My attention was called to his conduct by the Returning Officer. He ceased swearing when I told him. His conduct was thought calculated to lead to a breach of the peace. Cross-examined- That was about 1 o'clock. I never wagered that your name was not on the roll. I do not remember any such wager being laid on the subject. I am aware you voted afterwards. J. B. Fernald sworn The prisoner was drunk, but I did not see anything disorderly about him. He came in about 12 o'clock for more, and wanted more, but I told him he had had enough. At his request I supplied some to his friends, but he took none. Cross-examined-You did on one occasion call for water instead of grog and pay for it. The Bench thought he had acted wrongly, but as it was election day they would make allowance and dismiss the prisoner.[10]

Hamilton was also charged with drunk and fighting outside the hotel three days later:

James Hamilton, was charged with being drunk and disorderly on the 15th August. Constable Jordain-On the 15th instant I received a message from Dr Watkins that there was a row, and when I went down I found him in front of the hotel without a shirt. I arrested him. He and Bailey were sparring at each other. After I brought him to the station he tried, though handcuffed, to jump through the window, and we had to tie him. Cross-examined -That was about half-past 12. I arrested him for being drunk and disorderly. I did not tell him it was under Bailey's charge I arrested him. Constable Hamilton-I went down with the last witness and saw him as described. He was drunk. He could walk, but was mad from the effects of liquor. You was sparring at Hamilton. You were not on Mr Fernald's Hotel verandah. I did not go there since to ascertain what drink you had taken, nor did Mr Jordain, to my knowledge. I do not know if you asked Mr Jordain why he arrested you. You walked up quietly with us. Mr Fernald - On the day in question the girl came and told me there were some persons about quarrelling. I went and found Bailey and Hamilton disputing. I got them away, and about 15 minutes afterwards saw Hamilton stripped. Cross-examined You were decidedly drunk. Jordain did not enquire what drink you had. I thought he could see as well as I or any other person, you were drunk. I do not know what you had. I had not given you any myself that day. The prisoner called for the defence a person in Court, who said-I saw Hamilton and Bailey sparring on Thursday. I wentto see what it was. A few minutes afterwards they said it was fun, and shook hands. The constable came afterwards, and I heard Bailey tell him to take Hamilton in charge. Hamilton said, what are you taking me in charge for. Constable Jordain said, "That has nothing to say to if, this man gives you in charge, and I must take you." Cross-examined-I swear he was not incapably drunk. I swear he was not excited by drink. At Pitfield men perfectly sober do not ordinarily strip themselves to spar. The prisoner asked me about my evidence. I did not tell him exactly what I would say, but I did tell I would say I did not think him drunk. Harry Bennett, sworn-I was at Pitfield on the 15th inst, and went to the prisoner's residence for a pair of boots. We went to the hotel, and had one glass, a short time after I saw him sparring with Bailey. The Bench thought the evidence proved that the prisoner was excited by drink, and fined him 40s.[10]

The hotel was offered for lease in September 1862:

TO LET, PITFIELD HOTEL. Pitfield, situate on the great Western-road, 50 miles from Geelong, 20 miles from Ballarat, and eight miles from Linton. The only hotel in the township. A now substantial, well built stone building, containing 25 rooms, with bar and fixtures, taproom, kitchen, detached, and a good cellar underground. There are also two good stables, bakehouse, washhouse, fowlhouse, &c., a large yard and spacious garden. A store, adjoining, also to be let with the above (to which a post office is attached). A profitable business has been carried on, as the books will show, for the last four years. Furniture, fixtures, and stock in the hotel and store to be taken at a valuation, Terms liberal. Apply to BISHOP and KEEP, Melbourne; or to B. H. FERNALD, Pitfield[11]

In April 1863 a man attempted to take legal action when he was refused service at the hotel:

O'Neill v Arthur, for refusing to admit a traveller into the Pitfield Hotel. His Worship said the case should be against Mr Fernald. The plaintiff said he was ordered out because he had to serve a summons. His hunger was great, and his horse had not a "bite." He lived at the Anakies. The defendant grumbled about the expenses he had been put to, but his Worship refused the account. His Worship said Rokewood was the nearest court, and dismissed the case allowing no costs.[12]

In July 1863 the hotel was offered for sale:

PITFIELD. PITPFIELD. Wednesday 8th July, At 11 o'clock, On the premises, Pitfield Hotel, Pltfield. FURNITURE OF THE PITFIELD HOTEL. STOCK-IN-TRADE OF WINES AND SPIRITS, &c. STOCK OF THE GENERAL STORE. HORSES, COWS, DOG CART, WATER CART, etc. GOOD WILL OF THE HOTEL AND STORE. INTEREST IN THE LICENSE AND POST OFFICE. JOHN PURDUE has received instructions from James Arthur, Esq, to sell by auction, Wednesday, 8th July, at 11 o'clock— The Hotel and Household Furniture of the Pitfield Hotel. Pitfieid The stock-in-trade of wines and spirits, &c. Stock of the general store, comprising— Flour, sugar, tea, Boots, shoes, clothing Ironmongery, general stores, ALSO, Horses, cows Dog cart, water cart, harness, &c The good will of the hotel and store, and Interest in the license and post office. This hotel is situated near a most extensive gold field, is well-known, and contains about 24 rooms, exclusive of out offices and stables. Terms at Sale.[13]

The hotel did not sell, and it was offered for auction again in May 1864:

PITFIELD. PRELIMINARY NOTICE Important Sale of HOUSEHOLD FURNITURE, STOCK-IN-TRADE, And other Valuable Effects, at the Pitfield Hotel. O'FARRELL and SON have been instructed by Mr James Arthur, to sell by auction, on or about Tuesday, the 3rd May, at 12 o'clock, The whole of his valuable furniture, stock in-trade of the Pitfield Hotel, &c, &c, in consequence of the proprietor being about to remove to Geelong. Terms-Liberal. Day of sale definitely fixed, and further particulars published prior to the day of sale.[14]

In June 1864 the publican attempted to get permission to be absent from the hotel:

James Arthur, of the Pitfield Hotel, applied for leave of absence from his licensed house. The Bench informed the applicant it had no power to grant his request, as the officer in charge of the Pitfield Station had not signified his willingness.[15]

In March 1870 a burglar was caught at the hotel:

A would-be robber at Pitfield, the other day, was pluckily resisted by a boy. The Smythesdale correspondent of the Ballarat Star writes:-"Mrs. Rowe, who resides by herself in the building known as the ' Pitfield Hotel,' had on Friday gone on a visit to her son, Mr. Henry Rowe, Naringhil Station, leaving no one behind in the cottage. That same night Mrs. Whitecross, a neighbour, happened to observe light in the cottage, and knowing Mrs. Rowe to be from home, suspected that something was wrong, and went to the house to satisfy her curiosity, when, on looking through the window, she saw a man inside who was unmistakably a burglar. Mrs. Whitecross at once hastened to the residence of a neighbour, Mrs, M'Intosh, and gave the alarm, whereupon Mrs. M'Intosh's son, a mere youth, reached a gun, and pluckily marched off alone to encounter the robber. On arriving at Mrs. Rowe's cottage, young M'Intosh presented his gun at the burglar, and called upon him to surrender. The man, finding himself covered by the gun, was forced to submit ; and some of the boys in the locality instantly called Constable Allan, who took the thief into custody, and lodged him in the lock-up.[16]

In November 1875 the hotel was offered for sale:

PITFIELD, WEDNESDAY, 17th NOVEMBER, At 12 o'clock, To Hotelkeepers, Investors, and Others. J. S. LYON has received instructions from Mr David Porter, who is leaving the district, to sell by public auction, on the premises, as above, All that valuable Freehold Property, known as the PITFIELD HOTEL, containing 30 rooms, together with the stable and outbuildings, situate, and being on an acre of Freehold Land. Also, A choice lot of most valuable Household Furniture, comprising—Carpets, oilcloths, rosewood and cedar dining and other tables, couches, sofas, horsehair and other chairs, double and single iron bedsteads and bedding, crockery, and kitchen utensils. DAIRY AND OTHER CATTLE. There is a capacious brick and cement tank on the premises, affording a never-failing supply of water. Title Perfect. Luncheon Provided. J. S. LYON, Auctioneer, Smythesdale and Scarsdale.[17]

The hotel was destroyed in a fire on 7 August 1880:

A correspondent writes to state that the Pitfield hotel, which was burned down on Saturday morning, cost £9000, and that the hotel was untenanted and unfurnished at the time of the fire.[18]

After the fire in August 1880, a newspaper article discussed its importance and history:

Old colonists will remember the old Pitfield hotel, built in the early days, of solid bluestone, with cedar doors, pine windows, and wainscoting of like material, at a reputed cost of £16,000. In the times referred to, railways were unknown, and all of the traffic from the Western district to Geelong passed over the Lucky Woman's road, on by Pitfield and M'Mullin's bridge ; but when main roads and railways were constructed and the traffic diverted, the glories of Pitfield and its large hotel faded away. The hotel has changed hands several times since, and latterly be came the property of Mr. David Porter, of Scarsdale, who let a portion of the building, comprising the back premises, to a man named Whytecross. On Saturday morning a fire broke out in the building. and burnt it down, the black stone walls alone remaining. Mr. Porter had taken the precaution of insuring the building in the Smythesdale branch of the Northern Insurance office, for the sum of £300. As is generally the case, the origin of the fire is a mystery, and the building has not been used as a hotel for many years.[2]

Another report denied David Porter's interest in the hotel:

With reference to the burning of the Pitfield hotel, we may state that Mr Porter had no connection whatever with the building, and had no interest in it whatever. A bootmaker worked in the hotel during, the day, but it was unoccupied by night, except by occasional swagmen, who sometimes made it their sleeping place. No clue has been obtained to the cause of the fire.[19]

Community Involvement[edit | edit source]

Mining[edit | edit source]

  • Woady Yaloak Extended Company - celebrated turning the first sod for the reopening of the goldfield, 1 June 1866.[20]

The People[edit | edit source]

Publicans[edit | edit source]

Others[edit | edit source]

See also[edit | edit source]

References[edit | edit source]

  1. Woady Yallock Historical Society, 'Pitfield Hotel', Facebook, 24 October 2018,https://www.facebook.com/167087926814982/photos/a.167792553411186/935359559987811/
  2. 2.0 2.1 1880 'GENERAL NEWS.', Hamilton Spectator (Vic. : 1870 - 1918), 12 August, p. 3. , viewed 28 Oct 2018, http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article225486893
  3. 3.0 3.1 1855 'ABSTRACT OF SALES BY AUCTION.', Geelong Advertiser and Intelligencer (Vic. : 1851 - 1856), 27 December, p. 3. (DAILY), viewed 02 Nov 2018, http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article91871278
  4. 1856 'Advertising', Geelong Advertiser and Intelligencer (Vic. : 1851 - 1856), 26 March, p. 1. (DAILY), viewed 03 Nov 2018, http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article91870101
  5. 1856 'COMMERCIAL INTELLIGENCE.', The Argus (Melbourne, Vic. : 1848 - 1957), 25 August, p. 4. , viewed 02 Nov 2018, http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article7135426
  6. 1858 'A NEW RUSH.', The Age (Melbourne, Vic. : 1854 - 1954), 29 April, p. 5. , viewed 28 Oct 2018, http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article154855186
  7. 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 1859 'GEELONG CIRCUIT COURT.', The Argus (Melbourne, Vic. : 1848 - 1957), 11 October, p. 5. , viewed 28 Oct 2018, http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article5689746
  8. 1861 'LUCKY WOMAN'S.', The Star (Ballarat, Vic. : 1855 - 1864), 12 June, p. 1. (SUPPLEMENT TO THE STAR.), viewed 28 Oct 2018, http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article66339873
  9. 9.0 9.1 1861 'LINTON POLICE COURT.', The Star (Ballarat, Vic. : 1855 - 1864), 29 June, p. 1. (SUPPLEMENT TO THE STAR.), viewed 28 Oct 2018, http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article66340261
  10. 10.0 10.1 1861 'LINTON POLICE COURT.', The Star (Ballarat, Vic. : 1855 - 1864), 24 August, p. 1. (SUPPLEMENT TO THE STAR), viewed 29 Oct 2018, http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article66341580
  11. 1862 'Advertising', The Argus (Melbourne, Vic. : 1848 - 1957), 18 September, p. 1. , viewed 07 Nov 2018, http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article5722266
  12. 1863 'LINTON POLICE COURT.', The Star (Ballarat, Vic. : 1855 - 1864), 13 April, p. 4. , viewed 29 Oct 2018, http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article72556209
  13. 1863 'Advertising', Geelong Advertiser (Vic. : 1859 - 1929), 3 July, p. 3. , viewed 02 Nov 2018, http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article150409839
  14. 14.0 14.1 1864 'Advertising', The Star (Ballarat, Vic. : 1855 - 1864), 28 April, p. 3. , viewed 02 Nov 2018, http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article66344528
  15. 1864 'NEWS AND NOTES.', The Star (Ballarat, Vic. : 1855 - 1864), 3 June, p. 2. , viewed 07 Nov 2018, http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article66345385
  16. 1870 'COUNTRY NEWS.', The Argus (Melbourne, Vic. : 1848 - 1957), 29 March, p. 7. , viewed 28 Oct 2018, http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article5816312
  17. 1875 'Advertising', Geelong Advertiser (Vic. : 1859 - 1929), 13 November, p. 3. , viewed 07 Nov 2018, http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article150640343
  18. 1880 'NEWS AND NOTES.', The Ballarat Star (Vic. : 1865 - 1924), 11 August, p. 2. , viewed 01 Nov 2018, http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article202514310
  19. 1880 'NEWS AND NOTES.', The Ballarat Star (Vic. : 1865 - 1924), 13 August, p. 2. , viewed 29 Oct 2018, http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article202514393
  20. 1866 'COMMERCIAL INTELLIGENCE.', The Argus (Melbourne, Vic. : 1848 - 1957), 2 June, p. 4. , viewed 08 Nov 2018, http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article5764152
  21. 21.0 21.1 21.2 21.3 21.4 1859 'CIRCUIT COURT.', Geelong Advertiser (Vic. : 1859 - 1929), 11 October, p. 2. , viewed 28 Oct 2018, http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article146564501
  22. 1863 'NEWS AND NOTES.', The Star (Ballarat, Vic. : 1855 - 1864), 29 May, p. 2. , viewed 30 Oct 2018, http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article72557358
  23. 1863 'LINTON POLICE COURT.', The Star (Ballarat, Vic. : 1855 - 1864), 11 September, p. 4. , viewed 28 Oct 2018, http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article72517152
  24. 1873 'POLICE.', The Ballarat Star (Vic. : 1865 - 1924), 21 March, p. 3. , viewed 08 Nov 2018, http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article219198873
  25. 1873 'POLICE.', The Ballarat Star (Vic. : 1865 - 1924), 18 December, p. 4. , viewed 07 Nov 2018, http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article201608776
  26. 1875 'POLICE.', The Ballarat Star (Vic. : 1865 - 1924), 17 December, p. 2. , viewed 29 Jan 2017, http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article200186348


External Links[edit | edit source]