1845 Manwairing & Baetholomew Chitty, Enfield Hotel, Brisbane Street
1846-49 Edward Greenbeck, Enfield Hotel, Brisbane Street
1849-1861 Thomas Hill, Enfield Hotel, Brisbane Street
Courier, 22 February 1845
The Courier, 27 February 1845
Launceston Examiner, 22 March 1845
Launceston Examiner, 30 April 1845
Cornwall Chronicle, 1 August 1846
Cornwall Chronicle, 15 August 1846
From “Annual Licensing Meeting”:
Edward Greenbanks, Enfield, Hotel,-Neat, clean, good accommodation, well conducted.
Launceston Examiner, 5 September 1846
Cornwall Chronicle, 1 December 1846
Robert Radford applied to transfer the Horn and Jockey York-street, to William Cook, but the Police Magistrate gave it as his opinion that Mr. Cook was not a fit person to conduct a Licensed House, and the transfer was refused
The transfer of the Enfield Hotel, Brisbane-street, from Edward Greenbank to Mr. Hartridge, was refused on similar grounds.
Cornwall Chronicle, 9 August 1848
ADJOURNED MEETING FOR TRANSFERS, &c.
The Adjourned Quarterly Meeting of Justices for the Transfer, &c. of Licenses, took place yesterday at the Court House.
Present, J. Robertson, Esq , chairman ; W. G. Sams, R. Gunn, and John Cameron, Esqrs., Justices.
Mr. Douglas appeared on the behalf of Mr. Hartridge, whose application for a transfer from Edward Greenbank, of the Enfield Hotel, bad been refused at the quarterly meeting.
Mr Sams said that since the quarterly meeting he had made enquiries, and his opinion was, that although the applicant had been refused, upon mature consideration, and knowing that applicant had purchased the transfer from Mr. Greenbank, and also that he had expended a considerable sum of money in repairs, and being fully convinced of the utility of the premises to country settlers who had business to transact in Launceston, on account of the extensive stabling,—although he perfectly coincided in the intended restriction of licences-still, he thought the present application, for the above reasons, ought not to be refused.
Mr. Gunn opposed Mr. Sams on several grounds; as to Mr Hartridge purchasing the transfer, be must have known that Greenbank bad no authority to sell—nor did he consider it right to oppose the views of the previous meeting, which consisted of a larger body of magistrates, and knowing the opinion the police magistrate entertained, be should oppose it.
The Chairman stated that he thought the applicant ought to have the transfer granted, and his opinion coincided with Mr. Sams.
After a few more observations from the Justices, the question was put to the vote, when Messrs. Sams and Cameron voted for, Mr. Gunn against it. Application granted.
Mr. Hartridge having, with his sureties, entered into the required recognizances, the other parties who had appealed from the last meeting were called but did not appear.
Cornwall Chronicle, 26 August 1848
Cornwall Chronicle, 27 September 1848
KITSON v. HARTRIDGE.
Mr. Douglas for plaintiff ; Mr. Rocher for the defence.
This was an action to recover the amount of long score Run up by Mr. Hartridge, of the ‘Enfield Hotel, at the ‘Launceston,’ and comprised items for grogs, beds, keep of a horse, &c, &c.
The account was proved by Edward Simmons, bookkeeper to Mrs. Kitson, who stated that Hartridge had been in the habit of dealing at the ‘ Launceston’ at different times up to August, 1848 5 be was travelling about the country and lived sometimes at Hobart Town, sometimes Westbury, and was frequently in and out of town. The account rendered was correct, copied from the books kept by wit ness, and defendant when applied to for payment had said he supposed it was all right, but as he was hard up he must wait a bit, he bad got no money ; had asked for payment in October just after Hartridge had taken the Enfield Hotel.
Mr. Rocher took an objection to a portion of the bill, under the Licensed Victuallers’ Act which precluded the recovery of sums for wine or spirituous liquors unless twenty shillings contracted at one time. The 29th sec tion of the Act ran thus : —
“And be it enacted that no licensed person shall main-
“tain any action for or recover any debt or demand for or
“on account of wine or spirituous liquors unless such debt
“shall have been bona fide contracted at one time to the
“amount of twenty shillings or upwards nor shall any item
“in an account for wine or spirituous liquors be allowed
“where the quantity bona fide delivered at one time shall
“not amount to twenty shillings (notwithstanding such
” ebt or demand or any item may have been secured or
“agreed to be paid) except a written order for the same
“shall be produced and satisfactorily proved to have been
“freely given by the maker thereof before the wine or
“spirituous liquor was delivered or it be clearly shown
“that the debtor was then resident in the immediate
“neighbourhood of the licensed house and one of his
“regular customers for malt liquors or was a person then on
“a journey and calling at such house for the purpose of
“taking moderate refreshment.”
Mr. Douglas contended that Hartridge must be considered as a traveller, and treated as such ; the witness had said he was in and out of town ; and he had no residence in Launceston at the time. Mr. Douglas put the case of counsel coming up from Hobart Town to attend the Sessions ; they surely must be travellers. although they remained here occasionally for a week at a time. There was no doubt Hartridge was a traveller when this account was contracted ; he was, in fact, coming backwards and forwards to make arrangements for taking the Enfield Hotel.
The Commissioner did not agree with Mr. D The amount claimed was then reduced to £6. 8s. 2d.
the sum of £2 16s. being previously struck off for grogs, &c.
Cornwall Chronicle, 9 June 1849
From “Licensing Meeting”:
Thomas Hill was allowed a transfer of the ‘Enfield Hotel,’ Brisbane-street, from John Hartridge. Mr. Tarleton remarked that he considered the premises wanted repairing. Applicant stated to the bench, that the sum of two hundred pounds was to be expended for that purpose.
Cornwall Chronicle, 8 August 1849
THE FIRE AT THE “ENFIELD HOTEL” BRISBANE-STREET.
An inquiry into the origin of the: late fire at the Enfield Hotel, Brisbane-street, took place on Thursday afternoon at the Wilmot Arms, corner of Wellington and Brisbane-streets, before F. Evans, Esq., Coroner.
Jury,–Messrs. J. J. Hudson (foreman), R. Z. Poole, J. Fish, W. Davey, A. Legge, W. R. Woolgate, and T. F. Probin. The coroner and jury having viewed the premises the following witnesses were examined.
Constable Harper, sworn, deposed–I was on duty in Charles-street on the night of Tuesday last. About half-past 11 o’clock, as I approached the corner of Brisbane and Charles-streets, I perceived a smell of fire and saw smoke issuing from the top of Mr. Hill’s hotel; I ran towards the hotel immediately, and on approaching the doer l I heard a female screaming inside ; I rapped at the front door, and was admitted by Mrs Hill ; she screamed out to save her children if possible as the premises were on fire at the back; she ran out at the back, and I followed her and saw two beds lying in the yard smouldering and burning, and smoke issuing through the roof of the house at the back and also out of the door of a room in the house; I also saw a man in that room throwing out bedding and chairs; I saw that the fire was likely to be serious, and I went to the front and sprung my rattle; I had previously found that the children were safe, not near where the fire was.
Launceston Examiner, 17 Decemeber 1859
From “Annual Licensing Day”
The Police Magistrate said that this house was in a state of decay, and falling to pieces, and the floor was giving way; the back premises were also open. Objections had been made to it at former licensing meetings. Applicant said that his lease had only one year and nine months to run; he would make any alterations in his power. The Mayor said that there was no doubt but that Mr. Hill would make all the alterations he could; but it would be of no use; the only thing to be done would be to erect another house. Granted ; but with a warning that unless a new house were built, the license would not be again renewed.
Examiner, 4 December 1860
Robbery in a Cab.
Thomas Hill, landlord of the Enfield Hotel. was charged by Joseph Radcliffe, with stealing from his person in a cab, on the Carrick road, on the 5th inst, the sum of £49 4s 8d ; consisting of thirty two 1l. notes, one 5l note, and a cheque for 12l 4s 8d.
The evidence of Radcliffe was taken, and he was closely cross examined by Mr Adye Douglas who was present to watch the proceedings on behalf of Hill. The prisoner was remanded until Thursday, and Mr Adye Douglas requested the Police Magistrate to accept bail for Mr Hill’s appearance on that day, but, Mr Gunn declined to accept bail at that stage of the case.
Joseph Radcliffe was bound over in his own recognizance of £50 to appear on Thursday to prosecute. (We withhold our report of Radcliffe’s evidence from this issue, as its publication now might tend to defeat the ends of justice.)
Cornwall Chronicle, 10 April 1861
Thomas Hill, Enfield Hotel, Brisbane-street.
Mr. Douglas appeared in support of the application.
The Police Magistrate said it was a very bad house, and he objected to Hill having a licence at all. He would most distinctly state that there had been sufficient evidence to send Hill to trial, and the Attorney-General had fi?ed a true bill against him for robbery in a cab, though he was acquitted.
Captain Neitley said it was the worst house in the town; it was actually tumbling down.
The minutes of the Clerk of the Pence made at the meeting last year, set forth that the Magistrates had then declared the house to be unfit, and had determined that the licence should not be renewed this year.
Licence refused on ground of unfitness of house.
The Police Magistrate wished it to be understood that he did not withdraw his objection to applicant’s character.
In the event of this license being refused, Hill had sent in another application for a new license for the house at the angle of Brisbane and Charles-streets, to be called the Bristol Arms, but he withdrew this application.
Launceston Examiner, 10 December 1861
Launceston Examiner, 14 December 1861
Launceston Examiner, 7 August 1862
Thomas Hill was charged with stealing a quantity of lead from an unoccupied house (the Enfield Hotel), the property of Thomas Field. He was remanded until Tuesday next.
Launceston Examiner, 4 April 1863
From a longer report:
George Thomas Collins, of the firm of Douglas and Collins, attorneys and agents for Mr. William Field, deposed to the fact that the Hill family had vacated the Enfield Hotel, which was now unoccupied. The key had not been given up. Detective Lanham deposed to apprehending prisoner on the let instant, in consequence of information he had received, and the description given to him by Mr. James French of the person who had sold him the lead produced in Court. When apprehended and told of the charge against him, prisoner said nothing respecting it, but merely requested that his mother might be made aware of the fact. Prisoner’s father had left the colony several weeks. ago in a vessel bound for New Zealand.–This closed the evidence for the prosecution. — When asked what he had to say in answer to the charge, prisoner stated that he received instructions from his mother to take all the lead about the place belonging to his father and knowing that his father put the lead produced on the roof, he took it, not knowing that in doing so he was acting wrongly.
Launceston Examiner, 14 April 1863
Launceston Examiner, 10 June 1865
In consequence of Hill being refused a renewal of the license for the Enfield, the Fire Brigade Hotel, nearly opposite to it, was licensed.
Hill proposed to connect the [new] house with the Enfield Hotel premises
He had the use of the adjoining premises, the old Enfield Hotel, and a paddock opposite
Mr. Dowling said there was a common right of way between the premises and the old Enfield Hotel, which led in to Mr. Bennell’s premises.