Robin Hood Hotel (Peel Street)

From Hotels of Ballarat
For other hotels with the same or similar names, see Robin Hood Hotel.
Robin Hood Hotel
Robin Hood Hotel, December 2011
Town Ballarat
Street Peel Street
Known dates 1873-2018
Evidence Building still in use

The Robin Hood Hotel was a hotel in Ballarat, Victoria, <1873-2018>.

Site[edit | edit source]

The hotel was in Peel Street.[1]

Background[edit | edit source]

History[edit | edit source]

The hotel was one of the hotels reviewed at the Licensing Court 1888 hearings. The court recommended that the hotel be delicensed. It was said to be well conducted, with Margaret Bregazzi holding the license and Henry Leggo the owner[2]:

Robin Hood hotel—Margaret Bregazzi, licensee; Mr Leggo, owner. A wooden building, containing 13 rooms, fairly furnished, and well conducted; chiefly bar business; averaged six beds per week...The back entrance to the Robin Hood hotel was opposite the Militia barracks...Colonel Sleep, commanding officer of the 3rd Battalion of the Militia, gave evidence in support of the retention of the license of the Robin Hood hotel. Including the reserve, there were 559 members of the battalion. He considered it necessary to keep the men together during intervals in the parade. The Robin Hood hotel had been opposite the Orderly Room for 25 years. He, as colonel, objected to men in uniform going about the streets and into hotels, but it was necessary that they should be able to obtain some refreshment. They held Privates’ and Non-commissioned Officers’ Clubs at the Orderly Room, and obtained their refreshments from the Robin Hood. Sergeant-Major Carey and Private Adam and Private Sherry gave similar evidence in support. Mrs Bregazzi, the licensee, also deposed as to the nature of the business done...[3]

In September 1898 the licensee was charged with several counts of serving adulterated spirits:

Excise Prosecutions, Michael Reidy, Government inspector of liquor, proceeded against John Skewes, licensee of the Robin Hood hotel, Peel street, Ballarat East, for having on the 4th ult. falsely applied to a bottle of whisky the trade mark of Messrs A. Usher and Co. The defendant, who pleaded not guilty, was represented by Mr H. S. Barrett. Francis Patrick Ignatius Graham, inspector, deposed that on the 4th inst. be called at the defendant’s hotel and examined the bottles in the bar. He discovered a bottle of whisky bearing the trade mark of A. Usher and Co., but the whisky was not of the brand of that firm. John Peter Smith, an expert, said that he had examined the contents of the bottle submitted to him. Genuine Usher's whisky was 13 degrees under proof, but the sample referred to was 24 8 under proof. The spirit was also inferior to Usher’s, although there was nothing deleterious in it. The defendant gave evidence to the effect that he had only recently entered the liquor trade. He had not watered any of the spirits himself, and would not allow anyone else to do so. The only way be could account for the whisky being diluted was that he had two girls in his employ, whom he dismissed because his wife found they had been taking spirits. He believed they had filled the bottle wish water in order to conceal their dishonest acts. Mrs Skews and Albert St. Clair gave corroborative evidence. The bench considered that there was some doubt as to the blame attaching to the defendant, and dismissed the case, with costs. The inspector proceeded against the same defendant under the Health Act, on a charge of having sold to the prejudice of the purchaser some whisky which was not of the substance and the quality demanded by the purchaser. Mr Barrett, who appeared In this case also for the defendant, intimated that his client pleaded not guilty as in the first charge. Mr Graham gave evidence to the effect that he called at the defendant’s hotel on the 4th ult. and purchased 2s worth of whisky in a bottle exposed in the bar. He sent a sample to Melbourne for analysis and received a report (produced) that the whisky was 39 3 per cent, under proof. By mutual consent the former witnesses were not re-examined, as the same defence was set up as in the previous case. Mr Barrett asked the bench to dismiss the case on the same grounds as the former one, and maintained that the proceedings did not lie under the Health Act. The bench, however, considered that the charge was proved, and imposed a fine of £2 with £3 1s costs, in default fourteen days’ imprisonment. The fine and costs were paid. [4]

Community Involvement[edit | edit source]

The People[edit | edit source]

See also[edit | edit source]

References[edit | edit source]

  1. 1888 'THE BALLARAT LICENSING COURT.', The Argus (Melbourne, Vic. : 1848 - 1957), 30 June, p. 14, viewed 28 October, 2015,
  2. 2.0 2.1 1888 'THE BALLARAT LICENSING COURT.', The Argus (Melbourne, Vic. : 1848 - 1957), 30 June, p. 14. , viewed 22 Nov 2017,
  3. 1888 'PEEL STREET HOUSES.', The Ballarat Star (Vic. : 1865 - 1924), 27 June, p. 4. , viewed 27 Sep 2018,
  4. 4.0 4.1 1898 'TOWN COURT.', The Ballarat Star (Vic. : 1865 - 1924), 16 September, p. 1. , viewed 22 Apr 2022,
  5. 1873 'LICENSING BENCH.', The Ballarat Star (Vic. : 1865 - 1924), 23 December, p. 2. , viewed 09 Jun 2017,
  6. 1874 'BALLARAT EAST LICENSING BENCH. ANNUAL MEETING.', The Ballarat Star (Vic. : 1865 - 1924), 15 December, p. 4, viewed 9 November, 2015,
  7. 1896 'No title', The Ballarat Star (Vic. : 1865 - 1924), 22 May, p. 2. , viewed 31 Jul 2017,

External Links[edit | edit source]