Devine Intervention –

The Story of William Devine

1811 to 1906

William Devine was born in Aberdeen around 1811. He was a Roman Catholic and from

17 years old onwards was a shoemaker. In 1829 William was arrested and tried on 19th

October 1829 at the East Riding Quarter Sessions York for the crime of horse theft. He

was found guilty and sentence to transportation to New South Wales for a period of 7

years, 3 months.

William was only 5ft 2.5 inches tall, he had a ruddy, freckled complexion with brown hair

and grey eyes.

William Devine was one of 176 convicts transported on the Lord Melville, 29 May 1830

The voyage was 145 days in duration and the Lord Melville arrived at Sydney Cove on

21st October, 1830.

At Williams’ arrival it was noted that he had brothers, Michael and John Devine in colony

for 2 years.

During his time as a convict in New South Wales nothing is yet discovered about his

service.

He obtained his ticket of leave in 1846 suggesting that his 7 years had stretched some

how into 16 years.

On his certificate of discharge it says he was allowed to remain in the service of Mr & Mrs

Dangar at the Namoi River for 12 months. The Namoi River is located in central New

South Wales:

The next time William Devine pops upon the records is when William Devine was

released from Her Majesty’s Gaol in Brisbane on 23rd September 1855. He was released

as he had served his full sentence:

By 1857 William was working as a constable in the Ipswich Police Force, this we know

because he swore a statement about apprehending a horse stealer, dare I say it, it took

one to know one.

Later in 1857, William found himself in trouble with his employers’ for “suffering a

prisoner to escape” as recorded in the local paper as follows:

SUFFERING A PRISONER TO ESCAPE.

William Devine, late a constable in the Ipswich force, pleaded not guilty to indictment charging him with suffering the escape of a prisoner named Hamilton, while in his custody for stealing a horse, at Fernielaw, on the 18th September last [1857]. Mr. Milford appeared for the defence. Mr. Pring, in opening the charge, characterised it as one of gross carelessness. Edward Quinn, chief constable of the Ipswich force, sworn: I received the warrant produced on the 18th September from the Police Magistrate; it was for the apprehension of James Hamilton, and I gave it to the prisoner Devine, with instructions that he should find Hamilton at Mr. North's, at Fernielaw, working with a man named Turner. I told him to be cautious how he apprehended Hamilton and when he got him to keep him in hand-cuffs until his arrival at the watch-house, as he was a person who would very likely try to make his escape. On the 21 st September I heard of Hamilton's escape, and asked Devine about it. He said that he had kept the

hand-cuffs on all night, but had taken them off in the morning to allow him to dress. The accused also stated that he was seized at the time with a giddiness in the head and a b leeding at the nose which caused him to turn away, and his prisoner escaped. He sought for him, but could not find him.

Cross-examined: I have known Devine for a considerable time, for about fifteen months altogether. I looked upon him as a man of excellent character, and as a zealous and efficient officer. He is the best man in the force. I know Hamilton; he is one of the greatest scamps about the place, as far as honesty goes. I could not swear that he was a dangerous character, but I know he has been tried for robbery. I had no constable to send with Devine at

the time, or I should have done so. By Mr. Pring: The only violence I know of in the man is his dishonesty. I think I could have executed the warrant myself.

Francis North sworn: I reside at Fernielaw, 10 miles beyond Ipswich. I remember Devine coming to my place on the 18th of last month. Hamilton was there at the time in my employ. Devine brought Hamilton to the place where I was and said that he had taken him into custody for felony. He asked me whether I thought Hamilton should stay with his family that night as he wanted to. I told him he must know his own business best. Next morning he came to me and told me that his prisoner had escaped, while his nose was b leeding. He applied to me for assistance, and I recommended what to do. He afterwards asked me to give him some powder and ball, and I did so. I gave him the assistance of four men, some little time after, as he said he had left the prisoner where he could find him. I mounted my horse and went with him, and he told me that he believed he had shot Hamilton between the shoulders, and believed also that he had fallen into the river. Some search was made but we could

find no trace of him. Next day I got a canoe, and searched the hole with poles, but could find no body. I did find, however, the tracks of a man's feet coming out of the river at that place; it was pointed out to me by a b lackfellow. Devine showed me where he shot at prisoner; it must have been a distance of 80 feet. I have not seen Hamilton since.

Cross-examined: When Devine reported his prisoner's escape to me he appeared to be very excited. I could not say of my own judgment whether the tracks were those of a white or b lack man; the gravel was hard, and the tracks indistinct. I did not see Devine gallop after him, but he told me that he had overtaken him in my pad dock,

and had chased him through the scrub, but was afraid to take him because of his defensive posture. In going back from the search we called at the tent where Hamilton was taken, and we found that his books had been taken away. Hamilton's wife threatened Devine for having shot her husband. By Mr. Pring: When Quinn came Devine produced a pair of handcuffs, after the chief constable had asked him for them.

The case for the prosecution having closed, Mr. Milford addressed the jury at some length for the defence, contending that no negligence was shown to have been displayed by Devine. Just as the prisoner escaped the accused (Devine) was suffering from a visitation of God, and through that had lost his prisoner. They had heard the excellent character which was given to his client by his chief constable.

Mr Pring replied, affirming that the question turned upon the negligence or non -negligence of Devine, and the whole evidence went to show that he had not only displayed the negligence implied by law, but the grossest negligence besides. His Honor left the case in the hands of the jury, who, after a brief deliberation, found the

accused guilty of negligence, but recommended him to mercy on account of his previous good character.

Mr. Pring, in praying the judgment of the court upon Devine, drew the attention of the Judge to the fact that he had been assiduous in his efforts to recover Hamilton, after the latter had escaped. The Court sentenced the prisoner to a fine of £10, which was immediately paid. The Court then adjourned till next day at ten o'clock.

On 19th October 1857 the record of the trail was published thus:

On 30th June 1859 William Devine bought some land for himself and with thoughts most likely towards his family

that would soon follow.

First name(s) William

Last name Devine

Year 1859

Date 30 June 1859

Sex Male

Nationality British (Scottish/Irish)

Record land

Source Survey Office. Lists of land sold in the Moreton Bay Region September

1842-August 1859. Queensland State Archives [SUR/4]

Location :5:164:

State Queensland

Country Australia

Record set Queensland early pioneers

Category Travel & migration

Subcategory Migration

Collections from Australia & New Zealand

When the first Governor of Queensland, Sir George Ferguson Bowen visited

Ipswich in December 1859, William Devine was one of the mounted troupers who

acted as a guard of honour for His Excellency and Lady Bowen. This was recorded

in the newspaper some years later as follows:

“Mr William Devine was one of the oldest hotel proprietors in the town. Before

entering this business he joined the mounted police and formed one of the escort

on the occasion of Governor Sir George Ferguson Bowen’s first visit to Ipswich.

Resigning police work, he entered into business as an hotel proprietor, first

occupying the Glen Cottage Inn.”

On the 21s t December 1909 the Queensland Times reports on a historic event 50

years earlier:

VISIT TO IPSWICH OF THE FIRST GOVERNOR OF QUEENLAND.

History records the fact that the 20th, 21st, and 22nd of December,1859, will be ever

memorable in the annals of Ipswich (writes "Red Gum") inasmuch as those were the dates

of the reception here of their Excellences Sir George Ferguson and Lady Bowen, whose

arrival in this city will ever be remembered with interest to those who participated in the

excitement of the occasion. How few of those old residents of 50 years ago are among us!

And, I regret to note it, those of the second generation-those of my own time are getting

thinner. Fifty years ago the pioneers of Ipswich were a lively lot, and the fact of Governor

Bowen and his lady making his first visit to "Limestone" was sufficient for everyone at the

head of navigation-placed, as it was, at the threshold of the vast pastoral districts of the

interior-to mark the occasion in no uncertain manner. On the morning of the arrival of Sir

George in Ipswich the town might have been taken for the River Mersey at the distance,

from its innumerable flags flying. Conspicuous among them were the Greek flags, in

honour of Lady Bowen. who was born in Athens. It is said men were hurrying to the

various paddocks outside the town to bring in horses to go and meet his Excellency, who

came by road from Brisbane. Accompanying his Excellency in the vice-regal carriage were

Lady Bowen, Mr. R. G. W. Herbert, and Mr. James Laidley. The vice-regal party arrived at

about 2 o'clock p.m. at Booval House, then the residence of the late Mr. Geo. Faircloth

manager of the Bank of Australasia, but now the residence of Cr. H. Ferrett. After an

hour's rest at Booval House, Chief Constable E. Quinn and his mounted troopers had

marshalled a very large procession of horsemen. In interesting feature in of the scene was

the large the large number of Ladies on horseback. When his Excellency arrived at the

Limestone Ridge (the entrance into Ipswich then being through a little lane near Boys'

Central State School. there was another concourse of town people there to greet him. It

was here, for the first time, that Queensland's first royal representative, obtained a sight

of our fair town with its forest of flags, banners, and devices. The procession from thence

passed down Brisbane Street into East Street and it turned to the left along Bremmer

Street until opposite the store of Messrs Walter Gray and Co. (now the site of the Girls'

Central State School. At this point, Seal's Brass Band (of Brisbane) joined the

procession, which then turned into Nicholas Street and thence into Brisbane Street again,

then it turned by what is termed “Mr. George Thorn’s new house." at the corner of East

Street (now the Palais Royal Hotel). The balcony verandah of which was lined with crowds

of people. The cortege then passed on to the residence, of the late Colonel C. G. Gray,

then the residence of the Police Magistrate (now the residence of Mrs. H. Thorn), where

Lady Bowen alighted. The Governor's carriage then turned and came back to Brisbane

street, and thence, via Gordon Street, to the North Australian Clubhouse, in South Street

(now the Lyndhurst boarding house), where his Excellency remained the guest of the

members of the North Australian Club. Sir George Bowen remained in Ipswich three days,

and returned to Brisbane, by the steamer Breadalbane, thus coming by road and returning

by water. That was 50 years ago; and it is said that the first proclamation issued over the

signature of Sir George Ferguson Bowen, under the date of the 2nd of March. 1860, was

the creating of Ipswich into a municipality.”

Just one week after Governor Bowen came to Ipswich William Devine was

married. William Devine was married on 27th December 1859 at Ipswich to Annie

Charlotte White.

As recorded in her obituary in 1911 under the heading “DEATH OF AN OLD

COLONIST”:

“Mrs W. Devine, an old colonist died on 13th inst at her late residence, Petrie Terrace. Her

late husband (Mr. William Devine) who was well known in Ipswich and Brisbane,

predeceased her some five years. The deceased lady, who was 73 years of age, will be

remembered by many of the old residents of Ipswich as an exceedingly handsome woman

in her young days, and up to the last her features retained traces of her former beauty.

Mrs. Devine came to Australia about 65 years ago, landing in Sydney with her father and

mother, the late Mr and Mrs Henry F. White and a brother. After a few years residence in

Sydney and Melbourne the family came to Brisbane, and later on to Ipswich where

Mrs Devine met and was eventually married to the late Mr William Devine, who was then

in the Mounted Police Force.”

Shortly after William Devine was married he decided to leave the police force and go into

business as a publican. This was noted by a newspaper article referring to the first “pubs”

and “publicans” of Ipswich:

“Another old licensee was Mr. William Devine, one of the oldest hotel proprietors in the

town. Before entering this business he joined the mounted police and formed one of the

escort on the occasion of Governor Sir George Ferguson Bowen’s first visit to Ipswich.

Resigning police work, he entered into business as a hotel proprietor, first occupying the

Glen Cottage Inn. Leaving this he took the Royal, and then in turn the Melbourne and the

Clarendon b which name the Queen's Arms was known about the early 1860's.”

William had his first publicans licence granted on 7th April 1860.

William was not slow to thank the public and the many folks who knew him in Ipswich

when he commenced in the Glen Cottage Inn. His boasted that “his house is now replete

with every convenience”.

Just after his commencement in business he found that the long arm of the law is never

too far away:

Some 15 months after his marriage, William and Annie welcomed into the world their

first baby. The birth of their daughter, Catherine Emma Devine, occurred on 10 March 1862 at their home at Ipswich, Queensland, Australia.

By 1863, things were going good for William, so he moved to a larger hotel, the Royal

Hotel and as part of the transition William again fell into transgression when he left his

old Hotel as noted below:

“Saturday, June 20 1863. Before the Police-Magistrate.

William Devine of the Glen Cottage Inn, was charged with neglecting to keeping a light burning on the premises on the night of the 17th inst.-Defendant wanted a postponement, saying that he had

closed the house in accordance with the instructions of Mr. Thompson. He had surrendered his license on the 12th June. Police Magistrate said he could not recollect the defendant having done

so, but remembered having refused to receive surrender. He would not postpone the case on

these grounds.-The defendant then said if the Bench would not give a postponement, he would plead guilty. He was then fined 20s., to be recovered by distress.

A second charge was preferred against the defendant for abandoning, on the 15th June, the

occupation of his licensed house, contrary to the conditions of the recognizance, whereby he was rendered liable to a forfeiture of such license. The defendant pleaded guilty, and the Benched

ordered the license to be cancelled.”

With the move to the Royal Hotel came a superior offering to the public , and William was only too willing to tell the world in his advertisement of July 1863:

“ROYAL HOTEL, BRISBANE STREET, IPSWICH

WILLIAM DEVINE begs to inform his friends and the public, that he has removed to those

commodious and spacious premise), opposite to his old hostelrie and he takes the

opportunity afforded in giving this notice to return thanks to his patrons for the liberal

patronage granted him whilst in his former house the "Glen Cottage".

He would specially invite the attention of those gentlemen, who with their families, visit

IPSWICH, to the superior private accommodation he is now in a position to afford as

attached to the ROYAL HOTEL, are TWO PRIVATE Dwelling Homes, which W. DEVINE

intends to keep quite distinct from his other HOTEL ACCOMMODATION, thus securing to

gentlemen visiting Ipswich with their families, the comfort and situation of a PRIVATE DWELLING House.

WM. DEVINE having expended much money in meeting this, which he knows to be in

Ipswich, a great want, trusts he will receive a commensurate support, the more so as he

is resolved that his Hotel shall be, for cleanliness, comfort, and convenience, second to none in this colony.

The Bedrooms are large and airy; the tables all that could be desired, and the Wines and

Liquors of the first quality. The Stables are roomy and convenient, supplied with the best

fodder for bush horses. W. Devine has some of the best grassed and watered Paddocks which be takes care never to overstock in any season.”

From this advertisement we can glean a number of things relating to William Devine and his attitude to his profession:

- William identified the need for accommodation for families and the need for this

to be separate from the noise and seedy aspects of a hotel.

- William was willing to invest in his own success, and expended “much money” to

create a hotel “second to none in the Colony”.

- He saw the need to provide stables, paddocks, feed, everything necessary for the

traveller.

- William remembered to thank his existing patrons and invite them to continue to support him in his endeavour to provide a superior experience.

Later in 1864 to support he application for a license renewal we see the advertisement that describes the Royal Hotel and its publican:

“I WILLIAM DEVINE, Publican, now residing in Brisbane Street, in the town of Ipswich, do

hereby give notice that it is my intention to apply, at the next Annual Licensing Meeting, to be

holden for this district on the nineteenth day of April next ensuing, for a PUBLICAN'S LICENSE, for the sale of Fermented and Spirituous Liquors, in the house and appurtenances thereto belonging,

situated in Brisbane and Mortimer streets, in Ipswich aforesaid, containing four sitting-rooms

and nine bedrooms, exclusive of those required by my family.

I rent the house of Mr. P O'Sullivan, and it is at present licensed under the sign of the Royal

Hotel, and which I intend to keep as heretofore as an Inn or Public House. I am married, having

a wife and two children. I have held a license for four years. Given under my hand this twenty-third day of March, one thousand eight hundred and sixty-four.

(Signed) WILLIAM DEVINE.”

In 1864 the Devine’s were blessed with birth of a second daughter who was named

Anne. Unfortunately, 12 months later in 1865 on 18th June Anne died. Perhaps, a victim of a cold winter?

In February 1866 William Devine put his name forward to be an alderman in the Ipswich Council. There were five vacancies and ten candidates:

Friday, October 12. 1866.

(Before the Police Magistrate.)

ASSAULTING A BAILIFF.

William Devine was summoned by Thomas Westrop, for assaulting him while engaged in the capacity of a bailiff, distraining for rent under a warrant of distress issued by Martin Byrne, landlord of the Melbourne Hotel.

Mr. Bathe for the plaintiff, who deposed that he entered the Melbourne Hotel on the 9th instant with a warrant of distress for the recovery of £26 0s. 10d.,due to Martin Byrne for rent; gave defendant a copy of the warrant, which he read, and after plaintiff had remained in the place about a quarter of an hour defendant took hold of him by the collar and the seat of his trousers and bundled him out; was violently ejected, but received no injury.

Martin Byrne deposed to authorising the bailiff to distrain for the rent before mentioned, and to the ejectment by defendant.

The defendant stated, in defence, that the plaintiff entered his premises by the back door in a state of intoxication, and threw himself on the boards without explaining what he came for, or producing the warrant, or in any way stating his

business; he had also abused his (defendant's) wife, and he (defendant) put him out of the place; when he was put out he stated what his business was.

A witness deposed that the plaintiff had been drinking, but he was not drunk; he threw himself on the floor on entering the house, and on defendant demanding what his bushiness was, he handed him a paper, which defendant read, and said it was illegal; plaintiff refused to leave the premises, and defendant put him out.

The Bench found the defendant guilty of interfering with the plaintiff in the execution of his duty, and sentenced him to be imprisoned in Brisbane Gaol for 14 days.

The defendant prayed for a fine to be inflicted, which the Bench refused. The defendant then offered to give up immediate possession of the premises if the penalty was not pressed, but Mr. Byrne said that as the Sheriff was about to give him possession he would not interfere in the matter. Defendant was removed by the police.

“To the Editor of the Queensland Times.

23rd October 1866

Sir,

Inefficiency on the Bench is a common complaint in Queensland, but a more striking case of it has

not come before me than that reported in a late issue of your paper, wherein Mr. William Devine was sentenced to fourteen days imprisonment on the charge of assaulting a bailiff in the execution

of his duty. The charge was a trumpery one, and it was deposed that the man was drunk, used

foul language, and did not declare his errand before he was quietly turned out of the hotel by Mr. Devine. Yet for this offence Mr. Police Magistrate Gray sentenced the defendant to fourteen days

imprisonment in Brisbane Gaol, without the option of a fine! Why, sir, he could not have dealt much more severely with him had he (Mr. D.) been a notorious rowdy, continually appearing in the

dock of the Police-Court. So far from his being such a one, he has been ten or twelve years in the colony, has held various situations, and in all has been remarkable for good conduct and peaceable

behaviour. The conducted his hotel in a most respectable manner, as all in Ipswich and many in

Brisbane and the colony generally can testify, yet he is sent to gaol on a trumpery charge which any sensible magistrate would have dismissed with a slight fine at most.

About seven or eight months ago a similar but more serious charge was brought against one of

our hotel keepers here in Brisbane, The bailiffs in this case had been in possession some time,

when, according to their statement, a very serious attempt was made to smoke them out, and they were nearly stifled. Mr. Massey, a gentleman quite as learned in the law as your Police Court

potentate in Ipswich, discharged the defendants in this case upon payment of a trifling fine.

Brisbane justice and Ipswich justice differ, it appears What was there in Mr. Devine's case to

warrant this very harsh sentence? Absolutely nothing. He is an old householder in Ipswich, and no such charge was ever brought against him before. He is a man much respected wherever he is

known; yet Mr. Gray, Police Magistrate, thinks that such a man is a fit subject for prison, and he orders him to be taken away from his family and business, which must necessarily cause him a

considerable pecuniary loss, as well as that of time. Truly, Sir, when such judgments are made in

courts, the public will attribute and suspect other motives than a desire to vindicate the law and to uphold public order. I do not suppose the Ipswich Police Magistrate would allow himself to be

influenced by private motives, but he ought to remember that he is not presiding over a drum-head court-martial, and that a respectable citizen is not a private soldier, whom he can punish as

he likes without incurring any responsibility.

I should have written before, but I did not think Mr. Devine could have been sent to prison, until

upon making inquiries I found he was really incarcerated.

Brisbane, October 20, 1866. JUSTICE.

(We hardly think the writer of the above can be a friend of Mr. William Devine's. Evidently, he is

misinformed in some particulars.-ED. Q.T.)”

POLICE COURT, IPSWICH. Tuesday, September 18. 1866 (Before the Police

Magistrate and Mr. Faircloth.) BREACHES OF THE PUBLICANS' ACT. William

Devine , proprietor of the Melbourne Hotel, was summoned on the information

of Sergeant Carson, for neglecting to keep open his licensed house for the sale

of fermented and spirituous liquors on tile night of the 8th instant. Defendant

pleaded guilty to the charge.

In April 1868 William Devine made an application to the Acting Police Magistrate

to transfer his hotel keepers’ license from the Prince of Wales Hotel to the

Criterion Hotel:

Wednesday, January 18 1871.

(Before the Police Magistrate and Mr. Ogg.)

DRUNKENNESS AND OBSCENE LANGUAGE.

William Devine was charged as above, to the first of which be pleaded guilty. Constable

William Gunn proved the second offence: he deposed that he was on duty in Brisbane

Street, and heard the prisoner make use of obscene language, which he repeated

several times; prisoner was in the street opposite his own door. By prisoner: You were

addressing a man whom you had by the throat, the Mayor, and Mr. Williams, whom you

addressed by their names; you were not addressing me at the time. For the offence of

drunkenness prisoner was fined 10s., or 48 hours in the cells; and for using

obscene language a fine of £3 was inflicted--in default, one month's imprisonment

IPSWICH POLICE COURT. Friday, August 11. 1871

(Before the Police Magistrate and Mr. Sparrow.)

OBSCENE LANGUAGE. William Devise wan summoned, charged by John Pettigrew with

making use of obscene language in the public streets. Mr. Cribb for plaintiff, and Mr.

William Macalister for the defendant. The defendant did not appear, and the service

of the summons having been proved, the case proceeded ex parte. John Pettigrew

deposed that he was a storekeeper residing in Brisbane Street, Ipswich; the

defendant, William Devine, was on horseback in Brisbane Street on the 22nd July last;

he was near to witness, and speaking to a person who had just left him; he

said, pointing so witness, "That's the b--r who said you were drunk, the b--y wretch".

The witness had not spoken to him or given him any provocation whatever; witness

could not go anywhere about town but he was insulted, if met, by the defendant. Mr.

William Macalister said that the defendant did not appear personally in either this case or

the one which is to follow; that Devine did not attempt to excess his conduct or deny the

language made use of but he pleaded in extenuation that the affair occurred during the

exciting times of the election, and on the pavement to front of Mr Pettigrew's own store,

without any concourse of people being present; and he dared any that if Devine's and

Mr. Pettigrew's antecedents had not been what they were the affair would never have

occurred. The Bench found the defendant guilty, and ordered him to pay a fine of 50s.

with £1 4s. 6d. costs, in de fault of immediate payment, one month's imprisonment in

Brisbane gaol.

OBSCENE LANGUAGE. William Devine was again charged as above by John Pettigrew,

the offence taking place on the 8th instant. Mr. Chubb for plaintiff; Mr. William

Macalister appeared on behalf of defendant. A plea of "guilty" was refused from

defendant's advocate, as the defendant did not appear in answer to the summons of the

Court. John Pettigrew deposed that he had been a witness at the Court on the 8th

August; on leaving the Court the defendant used the words "I’ll make the b--r dance an

Irish or Scotch reel before the morning; he's not game to come over;" defendant was in

East Street, when he used the words; witness was security for defendant running a

mail. The Bench found the defendant guilty, and ordered him to pay a fine of 50s, and

£1 4s. 6d. costs; in default of immediate payment, one month's imprisonment in

Brisbane gaol.

Friday, August 25 1871. (Before the Police Magistrate.) HORSE STRAYING. William Devine, charged by the police with having allowed three horses, his property, to stray in the public streets, he did not appear. The case having been satisfactorily proved. The Bench ordered defendant to pay a fine of 5s, with 3s. 6d. costs. A second case of a similar kind against the same defendant was withdrawn on the application of Senior Sergeant Francis. IPSWICH POLICE COURT. Tuesday, September 26 1871. (Before the Police Magistrate and Mr. Hendren.) BALANCE OF WAGES. William Devine was sued by Ann Lannan for £2 9s., balance of wages as a hired servant. The defendant did not appear; and the plaintiff having proved the claim to the satisfaction of the Bench, a verdict was recorded for the full amount, with 8s. 6d. costs.

18th April 1872. PUBLICAN'S LICENSES. The following publican's licenses were

granted: William Devine , Hibernian Hotel, Brisbane Street, Little Ipswich, new

license.

28th May 1872. IPSWICH MUNICIPAL COUNCIL. The usual fortnightly meeting of the Municipal Council was held yesterday afternoon. Present: The Mayor, and Alderman Pryde, Vowles, Gerry, Watkins, Wright, and Hargreaves. CORESPONDENCE. A letter was read from William Devine requesting the grant of seven or eight loads of gravel, to be laid down on the

footpath at the Hibernian Hotel, Little Ipswich. Two or three loads were granted on the motion of Alderman Pryde, seconded by Alderman Wright.

15th July 1873 at IPSWICH POLICE COURT.

(Before the Police Magistrate and Mr. W. Hendren.)

INSULTING LANGUAGE.: Denis Thomas Keogh was charged by John Pettigrew with using insulting language. The defendant pleaded "Not Guilty". Mr. Chubb for complainant, and Mr. Havard for defendant.

John Pettigrew deposed that on Wednesday morning last, as he was proceeding to his place of business, he saw defendant come out of his place of residence; William Devine was at the time standing on the verandah of the Clarendon Hotel; defendant was crossing East Street when Devine asked him when he came up and how he got on; defendant replied, "I was swindled, and there is the man that swindled me", at the same time pointing with his finger toward complainant; defendant was standing at the time at the corner of Brisbane and East streets; had given evidence the day before in Brisbane in the insolvent ease of Catherine Keogh in reference to matters in which they were jointly interested; gave defendant no provocation for using this language.

By Mr. Havard: Devine and myself were about the same distance from defendant when he used the language complained of; the defendant was answering a question put by Devine; I saw no one else in the streets at the time.

William Devine deposed that he was a publican in Ipswich, and knew the parties in this case; on the morning of the 9th instant saw defendant coming out of his shop; asked him when he got home; defendant replied "Last night" asked him how he got on; he answered, he had been "swindled," or "very well swindled by a curr." did not see him point to any person, neither did he mention any name; he did not say “that is the men that swindled me" he could not have pointed to anyone without witness seeing it; defendant was crossing the street; did not see complainant until Keogh passed out of witness's sight, when witness saw him coming up East Street.

By Mr. Chubb: Did not see complainant at the time I spoke to defendant; I may have been fined twice for making use of insulting language to complainant. This completed the evidence. The Bench, being unable to agree in their decision, appointed Monday, the 14th instant, for a rehearing of the case.

William reported in 1874 on 2nd December 1874 reported to Police that an “Old bay horse stolen from Burns' paddock, Ipswich road, property of William Devine, Ipswich”

22nd January 1875.

Respecting the recent conflagration in Ipswich, we cull the following additional particulars from the Queensland Times: "The origin of the fire is unknown. It is said to have commenced in the kitchen of the Clarendon Hotel.

Senior Constable Luttrell and Constables Butler and Blannelly were on night duty. The former gave the alarm to Devine about half past 3.00 o clock but the fire must have been eating its way in the building fully two hours previous to the it time as it burst out at once in the most uncontrollable manner. There was not a breath of air, and the flames and sparks rose in an almost perpendicular column to a tremendous height. So great was the explosive power of the fire that, notwithstanding the stillness of the night, we learn that sparks from it fell so far off as close to the railway station and Commercial Hotel. The premises of the Observer office and Mr Hendren's office were insured in the Sydney Assurance Company for £225; the Observer plant was partially insured, to the extent of £400, in the Sydney Insurance Company; and the Clarendon Hotel - which belongs to the estate of the late William Horton - was insured in the Queensland Insurance Company for £350. Mr William Devine's effects were not insured, and his clothing and personal property have been all destroyed. The agents of the several insurance companies were present at the fire, and took possession of the salvage. This was mainly the material of the Observer Office which was very considerably knocked about in the bustle of removal, and much deteriorated in value. The press was injured with one leg of it being broken, and several of the founts of type were rendered almost useless through destruction and loss of sorts. The machine is entirely ruined. The agents have telegraphed to the insurance company in Sydney enquiring how to act regarding the salvage, and should an arrangement be come by today, it is possible with what type which has been saved that the Observer, with the assistance of this office may be published on Saturday.

Brisbane 19th Jan 1875

Between three and four o'clock this morning a fire broke out at Ipswich, in the kitchen of the Clarendon Hotel. The fire spread with rapidity, destroying the hotel, the premises of Mr. W. Hendren, commission agent, and the office of the Ipswich Observer. Fortunately there was no wind, or further ravages by the fire could not have been prevented. Mr. Devine, of the Clarendon, was un insured. Messrs. Marcus and Mellefont, of the Observer, were partially covered-to the extent of £400. Some of the printing plant was saved, and through the kindness of the proprietors of the Queensland Times it is expected that the Observer will he brought out at that office tomorrow and on Saturday. The other sufferers were partially insured. From the Courier Mail of 25th Jan 1875. From our Ipswich correspondent we learn that about 4 o'clock on Tuesday morning, the 12th instant, a fire broke out in the Clarendon Hotel, in Brisbane-street, Ipswich, which spread so rapidly that in about an hour and a-half the entire building, together with the Observer Office, and the office of Mr. William Hendren, Registrar of Births, Deaths, and Marriages, were reduced to charcoal, the old brick walls of the Clarendon Hotel only standing. The fire-bells were set in motion at an early stage of the fire, and the townspeople turned out by the hundred, and did excellent service in saving the plant of the Observer Office and

the "books, safe, etc., in Mr. Hendren's office. Before the flames caught the Observer office all the type, a press, and nearly all the materials of the office were carried out to the street, and the printing machine was all that was left in the building. The materials were very much knocked about during removal. The Railway Fire Brigade soon arrived at the scene of the conflagration, and succeeded in putting the engine in working order, but unfortunately the hose burst in several places, and caused great delay. Had it not been for the effort made by them, however, assisted by several hard-working men with buckets of water, which were passed from hand to hand, after having been carried a good distance, Mr. John Pettigrew's stores must have been burnt down. The pine wall-plate of the building-a brick one with slate roof-caught fire, and it required the most strenuous efforts to extinguish it. Had there been a breeze, widespread ruin must have resulted. The Observer was insured for £400 only, and the Clarendon Hotel building was also fully insured, as were also the buildings of the Observer and Mr. Hendren's office. Mr. William. Devine saved very little of the furniture of the hotel, which was not insured.

ALARMING FIRE IN IPSWICH. On Tuesday morning, Jan.19, a little before 4 o'clock, the peaceful repose of the inhabitants of this town was disturbed by the startling sounds of several bells violently announcing the existence of a fire in town. In a few seconds the inhabitants were out of their beds or the major part of them-and a glance showed that a fire was raging in Brisbane Street, and further observation proved it to be the roof of the Clarendon Hotel, at the corner of Brisbane and East Streets, from which the flames were emanating. The sight when we reached the spot was an awful one. The flames bad run along the roof from the centre of the Brisbane Street end of the hotel, and were making furious strides to accomplish the work of entire destruction. Mr. William Devine and his family succeeded in getting clear of the building, and by the assistance of those first on the scene had a few articles of furniture and a small portion of the stock removed to the street. These, however, were but trifling; and the roof being so low it was hazardous to attempt to save any of the furniture. In a very few

minutes the hotel was in one blaze, the roof and the entire framework going to ashes and the old walls crumbling away, and becoming very shaky. Meantime the crowd was busy removing the printing plant, office papers, books, etc, from the Observer office, a wooden building immediately adjoining the hotel. Everyone worked with a will, and before the flames from the hotel caught the office, the whole of the plant with the exception of the printing machine had been removed to the street, and the office had been gutted of all fixtures, doors, etc. Everyone was in expectancy of the appearance of the Fire Brigade of the Southern and Western Railway. At last they arrived at the terrible scene; but unfortunately it was a considerable time ere they were enabled to get water. The pump was taken into the yard behind Thorn's buildings, in which there was a large tank, and a fair supply of water considering the season. When everything had been got in working order a still more unfortunate circumstance occurred. Several of the lengths of hose burst on the pressure being put on, end these had to be disconnected and others added. The members of the brigade worked energetically, but were much discouraged by the repeated bursting of the hose. While this delay was going on a number of ropes were obtained, and some axes having been brought into use the front of Mr. William Hendren's office was pulled down, and dragged into the street. Previous to this the safes, books, papers, etc., from Mr. Hendren's office had been all removed to the street, but not a moment too soon, as the building in a few minutes was in such a state as to be beyond any possibility of redemption. There was not a breath of air, and the flames and sparks rose in an almost perpendicular column to a tremendous height. So greet was the explosive power of the fire, notwithstanding the stillness of the night, we learn that sparks from it fell so far off as close to the railway station and Commercial Hotel. Seeing that there was no possibility of saving anything further, attention was directed to the rear of the burning building, and a number of energetic men worked with a will hewing down stabling and dragging away the material, so as to out all connection as far as possible with the burning mass. The flames in front shot up to such a height, and were so furious in their unrelentless career-as if determined to make sport of the desperate efforts of the crowd who attempted to arrest their course-that they speedily attached themselves to the pine wall-plate of Mr. Pettigrew's large store. Fortunately for Ipswich this store is a brick building, with a slated roof; had it not been so no human effort could have saved it from the fury of the flames, and then there is no knowing where the terrific conflagration would have terminated. With an alacrity and courage the most commendable, a number of men were speedily up upon the roof, and a cry for buckets was raised. These were soon forthcoming from the stores of Messrs. Pettigrew and Hargreaves, as well as from the private residences adjoining. There were plenty of volunteers to carry the water, and several water trucks also arrived, and from these two sources the buckets were passed up and down in rapid succession to persons on a ladder, who passed them on to those nearest the burning end, and they emptied it along the roof. The Fire Brigade by this time also had succeeded in getting up a small stream of water, and although the power was not great, they succeeded in making the jet reach the burning wall-plate, and after much anxiety and hard work, the crowd had the satisfaction of observing the flames in this quarter extinguished. This accomplished, strong hopes were entertained that the flames would be stayed from further progress, and every effort was put forth to prevent their extending towards the rear of Bell or East Street. After some very hard work on the part of the assembled people, the connection was severed, and it was apparent that all danger was over. Great fears were

entertained for the safety of Mr. W. Taylor's back premises, and those of the Caledonian Hotel. The cellar of the latter had been cleared of all stock, and wet blankets were spread on the shingled roofs of the back premises, but happily these precautions turned out to be unnecessary.

The fire lasted for about two hours in all, and raged with the most intense malignity during the whole time. The glare and heat arising from it were intolerable, and those who were merely onlookers had to remove to a considerable distance off. The whole town was illuminated, the residents in North Ipswich and other distant parts of the town being able to discern all that took place with the utmost distances. The origin of the fire is unknown. It is said to have commenced in the kitchen of the Clarendon Hotel. Senior-constable Luttrell and Constables Butler and Brannelly were on night duty. The former gave the alarm to Devine about half-past 3 o'clock ; but the fire must have been eating its way in the building fully two hours previous to that time, as it burst out at once in the most uncontrollable manner. We observed Captain Townley (Police Magistrate), Sub-inspector Kilfeder, Senior-sergeant King, and all the members of the police force present assisting in every way in their power to reduce the conflagration. Of the inhabitants of the town we cannot speak too highly for the manly, courageous, and disinterested way in which they rendered their assistance at the fire. We refrain from mentioning names, for, although a great many distinguished themselves in leading the way and directing their neighbours, all without exception turned to with a will, and worked with an energy that was surprising. In fact, so but for the exertions of the public Mr. Pettigrew's store could not have been spared. The premises of the Observer office and Mr. Hendren's office were insured in the Sydney Assurance Company for £225; the Observer plant was partially insured to the extent of £400 in the Sydney Insurance Company; and the Clarendon Hotel which belongs to tile estate of the late William Horton was insured in the Queensland Insurance Company for £350. We understand that Mr. Pettigrew's premises and goods were fully insured in the Liverpool and London and Globe and the Sydney Insurance Companies. Mr. William Devine's effects were not insured, and his clothing and personal property have been all destroyed. The agents of the several insurance companies were present at the fire, and took possession of the salvage. This was mainly the material of the Observer office, which was very considerably knocked about in the bustle of removal, and much deteriorated in value. The press was injured, one leg of it being broken, and several of the fonts of type were rendered almost useless through destruction and loss of sorts. The machine was entirely ruined. The agents have telegraphed to the insurance company in Sydney inquiring how to act regarding the salvage; and, should an arrangement be come to today, it is possible with what type has been saved that the Observer, with the assistance of this office, may be published on Saturday.

The Clarendon Hotel, formerly the Queens Arms Hotel, was established by George Thorn around 1843/44. George Thorn arrived in Ipswich with his wife and son in 1835 as Superintendent of a "cattle establishment" which was a branch convict settlement of Brisbane. At the first land sales for Ipswich by auction in Sydney on 11 October 1843, Thorn purchased Allotments 1 & 2, of

Section 2 Par Ipswich and later Allotments 27 & 28 which covered the corner of the block fronting Brisbane and East Streets. He subsequently established the Palais Royal Hotel on this land soon changing the name to the Queens Arms Hotel.

The Queens Arms was described as a "long one-storeyed brick building with the

main frontage facing East Street". Thorn was said to have provided the "best

accommodation, breakfasts, dinners, suppers and every other refreshment in

five minutes, together with wines, spirits and stabling equal to any in the

Colony". Being one of the earliest public buildings in Ipswich, the Queens Arms

was often used for public purposes such as auctions of land and was used as the

premises for the Court until the Ipswich Court House was constructed in 1853.

By 1859/60 the name had changed again to the Clarendon Hotel and on 19

January 1875 the building was destroyed by a fire which apparently started in

the hotel's kitchen in the early hours of the morning. The fire also destroyed the

offices of the Observer and the offices of William Hendren both of which were

adjacent to the Clarendon.

The two-storey brick shops which front Brisbane Street were constructed in

stages between 1877 and 1893. William George Johnston had purchased two

adjacent pieces of land on Brisbane Street in 1876 and 1877 (Sub A of Allotment

1 of Section 2 and Sub B of Allotment 2 of Section 2 respectively) after the

Clarendon Hotel, which previously stood on the land, was destroyed by fire on

19 January 1875. He then took out a mortgage for £400 from the Ipswich and

West Moreton Permanent Benefit Building and Investment Society on 18 October

1877 at which time he advertised a tender notice for the erection of a two-storey

brick house in Brisbane Street.[1]

It is widely held that the brick cellar which is underneath the 1877 brick building

is the remains of the original Queens Arms Hotel, although there is no proof of

this claim. If, in fact, the cellar was part of the original Queens' Arms hotel, it

would be the oldest surviving structure in Ipswich, linking the city with its

original settler, George Thorn who came to Ipswich in 1835.

After William Johnston had constructed the first of the brick shops in 1877 he

leased it to Dan Kennedy who used the building as premises for the Victoria

Hotel from 1883 to 1891. There is evidence that the cellar was used for storage

purposes at this time, or perhaps earlier, from the grooves cut into the stairs

accessing the cellar for wheeling barrels in and out .

The exact construction date of the two gabled brick shops adjacent to the 1877

building has not been ascertained but they did appear in a photograph of

Brisbane Street during the 1893 flood. Businesses were registered as operating

at the site of the buildings in the Queensland Post Office Directories from the

1880s, including a bakery in the shop closest to East St and a watchmakers in

the middle shop. As the shop closest to East Street was used as a bakery and

then a cafe for most of the 20th century it may be plausible to assume that the

shop was built in the 1880s and originally used as a bakery. The construction of

the shops reflect the establishment of Ipswich as a commercial centre in the

booming late 1870s and 1880s.

The shops changed hands several times after William Johnston sold the property

in 1917. The shops had been used mostly for hospitality businesses in the

twentieth century including Bunces Cake Shop and the Dorothy Belle Cafe

situated in the shop closest to East St and the Metro Cafe in the middle shop.

In 1970 the property was purchased by Garth Llewellyn and the ground floor of

the middle shop and the top level of the two gabled shops were used as offices

for Action Realty.

In the 1980s the original iron posts which supported a convex corrugated iron

awning were knocked out by a bus and the awning and posts were replaced by

the current modern awning across the three shops.

The 1877 building is occupied by a second hand clothing store, the middle shop

by Action Realty and the end shop is a printery.

OLD CITY SITE.

First Hotel in Ipswich. A most interesting bit of Ipswich history is connected

with the site of the Queensland National Bank, at the corner of Brisbane and

East Streets, which is now being renovated. Here about 1843 was erected

the first hotel in Ipswich , then known as the Queen's Arms. It was built for Mr.

George Thorn, the "father of Ipswich," who was granted a publican's licence by

the New South Wales Government. From Mr. Thorn the licence passed to a Mr.

Young, and from him to Mr. J. Burgess, who transferred it to Mr. John McDonald.

Another old licensee was Mr. William Devine, one of the oldest hotel proprietors

in the town. Before entering this business he joined the mounted police and

formed one of the escort on the occasion of Governor Sir George Ferguson

Bowen’s first visit to Ipswich. Resigning police work, he entered into business

as a hotel proprietor, first occupying the Glen Cottage Inn. Leaving this he took

the Royal, and then in turn the Melbourne and the Clarendon which name the

Queen's Arms was known about the early 1860's. In this period Mr. David

Mitchell also held the licence. Mr. Devine, however, was the licensee in 1875,

when the building was totally destroyed by fire. At that time the office and plant

of the "Ipswich Observer" were situated on the same allotment as the

Clarendon, but in what was known as Hendren's Auction Mart, a large building in

Brisbane Street. The "Observer" machinery was completely ruined, but the

proprietors of the "Queensland Times" allowed the "Observer" to be printed on

their machines for some time. In October, 1875, the site of Mr. Hendren's

auction rooms and the "Observer" Office was bought at public auction for £395

by Mr. J. W. F. Grimes. At this sale also a part of the old Clarendon Hotel site,

having 33ft.frontage to Brisbane Street, and 132ft.frontage to East Street, was

bought by Mrs. White, of the Golden Reef Hotel, for £300. Messrs. Cribb and

Foote bought for £160 the old Oddfellows' Hall, which was originally a billiard

room for the Queen's Arms. Subsequently this building did duty as an

entertainment hall, and then as the first telegraph office from 1861 to 1862,and

was afterwards occupied as the municipal council chambers. The present

building was erected about 1875 for Mr. E. Bostock, founder of the well-known

firm of auctioneers.

=============================================

EARLY IPSWICH INNS

Reference to New Year "Publicans Races" and early Ipswich hotels last week

seemingly has stirred up a deal of interest judging from the requests for further

information regarding Ipswich inns of other days. One correspondent asks,

"What was the first hotel in Ipswich, and what were the names of the hotels in

East-street when it was known as a 'street of pubs ?' "

It is over 100 years since a coloured gentleman from Mauritius, named "Black"

Neale engaged Mr. W. Vowles (who arrived here in October, 1842) to erect a

building at the One Mile. It was of round timber sawn pine, and shingles, and

was intended to be a wayside inn. In the meantime a movement had taken

place to centralise Ipswich (or Limestone) nearer the head of navigation.

Consequently no time was lost in removing the building, with the aid of bullock-

wagon, to the site in Bell Street, now occupied by the Caledonian Hotel. It was

known as the "Red Cow." Because it had been suspected that Neale was

"brewing his own stuff," at One Mile, there was some delay in obtaining a

license. Meanwhile Mr. George Thorn had had an "accommodation house"

erected on the corner of Brisbane and East Streets, and obtained the first

licence from the New South Wales authorities to open it as the Queen's Arms

Hotel. The first building erected for the purposes of a hotel (the Red Cow)

therefore was the second to be licensed. The Red Cow later became the Royal

Oak, then the Horse and Jockey, and about 70 years ago was named the

Caledonian. When the original Red Cow building was demolished about 50years

ago the tinware belongings of a still were found safely hidden in the chimney. It

was said that "a ball of Neale's Jamaica was well worth the money paid for it."

so he must have known his job. The Red Cow and the Queen's Arms were the

only licensed Inns in Ipswich for several years.

Other Early Houses

As it is just a century ago that Mr. Thomas Moore opened the first Caledonian

Hotel in East Street, and as those early publicans played such a big part in the

introduction of sport to this district, it might not be inappropriate to follow this

theme further. As the population of Ipswich and the far-off stations increased,

public houses shot up in various directions from about1849 to Separation, and

since then of course. Among the hotels which came into existence nearly 100

years ago were the North Star, built by a Mr. T. Brennan and Mr. John Clune's

Clare Castle Hotel (now the North Australian in Nicholas Street. Mr. Martin Byrne

owned hotel properties, the corner of Nicholas and Brisbane Streets, and on the

corner of East and Bremer Streets. The Nicholas Street property Martin Byrne

originally purchased for£1/12/. During the 1850's it was kept by the famous

"Black" Perry, a noted pugilist from England. It was styled the London Tavern,

and finished up as the Melbourne Hotel. Martin Byrne's "pub" in Bremer Street

was known as the Steam Packet, the Waterview, and closed its doors as the

Governor Cairns Hotel.

East-street Line Up.

And now for East Street, which was noted for the number of hotels it possessed

between Roderick and Bremer streets. First of all there was the Queen's Arms,

kept for a number of years by Mr. and Mrs. John McDonald. Then there were

"Billy" O'Rourke's Cottage of Content, and Sullivan's Family Hotel. Mr. J. J.

Lennon's Tattersall's Hotel was established In 1868, the Criterion Hotel, on the

corner of East and Roderick streets, was opened in 1860 by Mr. and Mrs.

McDonald, who had removed from the Queen's Arms, which afterwards became

known as the Clarendon Hotel. The Victoria Hotel afterwards became the Golden

Reef.' opposite which was the Highland Home, kept at onetime by Mrs. Malcolm

McLean. The Prince of Wales (also in East Street) afterwards became the

residence of Mr. J. Pettigrew, and then Mr. Maurice Bowers. At a later period

there bloomed forth the Palais Royal and Grand Hotels. So much for East Street,

but It might be interesting to recall the quaint names of hotels in other parts of

Ipswich in earlier days. Some of them were: Volunteer Arms (now the Central),

Travellers' Rest, Harp of Erin (later the Metropole), Sawyers' Arms, Sportsmen's

Arms, Labour-in-vain, Bull's Head (later the Coronation), and Glen Cottage. On

the north side there were the Chuwar (later Miss Bedford's Railway Hotel). Fred.

Chapman's White Horse, Bob Forsyth's Emigrants' Home (on the Terrace), the

Queensland (now the Strand), W. F. Larter's White Swan (in Lowry-street), later

removed to the Down Street corner, and now known as the Cecil. The Belle Vue,

formerly a boarding house of that name, is said to have been first opened by Mr.

Sam Swift. The building on the corner of the Terrace and Down Street was once

the Royal Engineers' Arms. ------------------------------------

Business matters began to brighten, and a more prosperous period was

experienced. In the meantime, Mr. Bow-ers removed from the north side, and

opened up in the old shop just above the Glen Cottage Hotel. The late Mr.

William Devine held the lease of the Royal Hotel, on the opposite side of the

road, on the corner of Mortimer and Brisbane Streets.

--------------------

By 20th July 1875 William Devine and his family had re-established themselves in Brisbane after leaving Ipswich penniless and with few possessions after that fire in January 1875.

We know this from the reports of the Licensing Meeting wherein J. B. Bradford transferred his licence to William Devine for the Melbourne Hotel, in Ann Street Fortitude Valley was granted. But just months later William quit the Melbourne Hotel as recorded in the 8th February 1876 license transfer: “The following

transfers were granted : 'Melbourne Hotel, in the Valley, from William Devine to

John Phillips.”

In February 1876 William Devine applied for a license for the Ipswich Hotel in

Queen Street, Brisbane: “The monthly licensing meeting was held at the City

Police Court, yesterday, before F. Rawlins Esq., Stipendiary Magistrate,

presiding, and thirteen Justices of the Peace. An application from William Devine

for a license for the Ipswich Hotel, Queen Street, was refused, the lodging

rooms not being sufficiently commodious and their partitions too low. The

applicant wishing to know if a license would be granted if works be completed

the rooms properly, the chairman informed him that it would be useless for him

go to any further expense in the matter.”

A week later the Brisbane Telegraph recoded a further attempt to get a license

for the Ipswich Hotel in Queen Street, Brisbane: “The application of William

Devine, for the Ipswich Hotel, Queen Street, was then called upon. Mr Murphy

appreared in support of the application. Mr. Lewis said the requirements of the

house had been completed, and that he had nothing to say against the

character of the applicant.

Mr. Murphy then read certificates of character from Messrs. J. P. Bell, G. Thorn,

jun., R. Little, and from Messrs. Muir, Warde and Co., Buckland, C. Munroe, and

H. Blakesley in support of the granting of the license.

The Court adjourned until 2 o'clock'. On the Court's resuming at half-past two

o’clock, the Police Magistrate announced that after mature consideration, they

had, by a majority, agreed to refuse all three of the licenses. He would also

state that complaints had been made by some magistrates that persons

pestered them, and asked them to attend the Courts; and he hoped, having

received the hint, this reprehensible practice would not again occur.

On April 19th it was reported that William Devine made a third application to the Licensing Court. He applied for a new license for the Ipswich Hotel, Queen Street. Mr. Murphy appeared in support of the application. He started that if it were granted there would be only the same number of houses in that part of the street as there was before.

Mr. Jost opened the house as a butcher's shop that had hitherto been licenced for the sale of liquor. The good character of the applicant, he said, was beyond question, and he tendered letters from Mr. J. P. Bell, the Hon. G. Thorn, and the Crown Solicitor, recommending his client as a suitable person for keeping a public-house as well as certificates from residents in the vicinity of the proposed public house, to the effect that they had no objection to Devine getting it licensed.

Mr. Rawlins said he had no doubt about the man's good character, but it was simply a matter for the Bench to decide. Upon being put to the vote the application was refused.

By the autumn of 1876 after taking his application for license to the Licensing Court three times and failing, William Devine must have been annoyed, frustrated and financially impacted so he decided to take the matter to the Supreme Court. Having sold the Melbourne Hotel in the Valley, William had intended to open another hotel, or “public house” in early 1876 and he, being an applicant who was already a holder of a publican's license, and as required was of good character who at that time had had “no charge made against his character” applied for a license. On the 18th April 1876 he filed an application for a license for a “public house” in Queen Street, he had rented from a Mr. Warry. The application came up for healing before the Licensing’ magistrates as William had completed the necessary preliminaries. The house in Queen Street contained the requisite accommodation, and no objection was lodged against the granting of the license. The police reported favourably on the premises, the Bench, however, through their chairman, while admitting that they were satisfied with the William Devine’s character—the presiding magistrate stating that he had favourably known him for many years—refused the application, without assigning any reason for so doing.

William, having just spent the sum of £200 in fitting up his premises and getting them fit to be used as a public house was naturally upset and sought redress in the law. He hired a Q.C., Mr Blake who made a case in the Supreme Court on Wednesday, May 31s t 1876 before their Honours Sir James Cockle, C.J., Mr. Justice Lutwyche, and Mr. Justice Lilley for a writ of mandamus. During the proceedings Mr. Blake, Q. C., moved on behalf of William Devine, of Queen Street, Brisbane, for a rule nisi for a mandamus, to order certain magistrates mentioned in his affidavit, to issue a certificate to the applicant, as prescribed by the 14th section of the Licensed Publicans Act, 27 Vic., No. 16. Mr. Blake argued at some length; contending that Devine was entitled as of right to a certificate, because there was no proof of any objection to the person of the applicant or locality. The rule was unanimously refused. Here is a summary of the judgement: Judicial Affairs. Supreme Court. WEDNESDAY, MAY 31 1876. IN BANCO-EASTER TERM. BEFORE their Honours Sir James Cockle, C.J., Mr. Justice Lutwyche, and Mr. Justice Lilley. IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF WILLIAM DEVINE, OF QUEEN-STREET, BRISBANE, For a writ or mandamus. Mr. Blake, Q.C., instructed by Mr. Liddle, moved, on behalf of Devine, for a rule nisi for a writ of mandamus, ordering certain magistrates to issue to him a certificate under the 14th section of the Publicans Act, entitling him to a publican’s license. The affidavit of the applicant set out that he had been the holder of a publican's license and during that time no charge had been made against his character. On the 18th April last an application which he had made for a license for a house in Queen street, hired from Mr. Warry, came on for healing before the magistrates in question, the necessary preliminaries having been previously complied with. The house contained the requisite accommodation, and no objection ware lodged against the granting of the license. The police reported favourably on the premises, The Bench, however, through their chairman, while admitting that they were satisfied with the applicants’ character—the presiding magistrate stating that he had favourably known him for many years—refused the application, without assigning any reason for so doing. The applicant had spent the sum of £200 in fitting up his premises and getting them fit to be used as a public house. It was now submitted that, according to the reading of the Publicans Act of 1868, in connection with that of 1864, the applicant was by right entitled to the certificate entitling him to a license, there being no proved objection to the person or locality. The CHIEF JUSTICE, in giving judgment, said: I do not think that this rule can be granted. To do so would be to give an interpretation to the 14th clause of the Publicans Act directly contradictory to that which the Act Shortening Act tells us to give it; for in telling us to interpret words such as "may" or "shall” or "shall be lawful," or “may be lawful,'' it gives us a rule under which, in the absence of surrounding words, which do not occur here, it is imperative upon - us to follow-

the cases indicated by the Legislature, which, I may say, in the very phraseology of this section shows itself well acquainted with the previous legislation in the Acts Shortening Act. We find every shade of meaning running through the section. At the commencement there is "may" and then "may and shall” and that is followed again by "may" and "no such certificate shall be granted". Under the circumstances, I think we have no power whatever to issue a rule commanding the justices to do that which, according to law, it was entirely discretionary with them to do. There will therefore be no rule. Mr. Justice LUTWYCHE: I am of the same opinion. I do not feel at liberty to fly in the face of the Legislature by holding that the words "shall" and ”may" may be used interchangeably.- I observe that this application, which certainly was heard and determined before the justices was heard and determined before a very full Bench, consisting of thirty-nine justices of the peace. We are not at liberty to enquire into that which was within the discretionary power they possessed. But if they came to the opinion that it was desirable to limit for the future the number of public-houses to be opened, I must say, I think it was a very wise discretion, and so am of opinion that there should be no rule. Salus populi est suprema lex. ["The good of the individual ought to yield to that of the community....] Mr. Justice LILLEY: I am of the same opinion. I think the Legislature has shown that they well understood the existing law, and the difference between the meaning of the words "shall" and "may" when used in a statute; and following down the words of the 14th section, it becomes strongly apparent, to my mind at all events, that they had the Act Shortening Act in view. In the beginning it says :—"Every such original or adjourned annual licensing meeting shall be held in open Court, and the consideration of every application, and of every objection thereto shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding." The very safety of the public, and the propriety of their proceedings, it seems to me, point to these proceedings being held openly, or considered in open Court; and therefore the Legislature intended that this should be imperative, and used the word "shall" Then we find that "any person may oppose such application;" that was not imperative. Then the Legislature threw a duty upon the justices, and, intended to be imperative, they used the words "may and shall hear, enquire into, and determine all such objections" and “may examine on oath any witnesses” So while the Legislature seems to give a discretionary power to the justices as to the final disposal of the matter, it renders it imperative upon them to hear all .objections raised, and in this latter case throws a duty upon them which they are bound to exercise. Although it is imperative that they should hear the application and objections thereto in open Court, the materials upon which they may found their judgment seems to be left to their discretion. Then we come to a very important part, which con firms me in my opinion that the granting or refusing of the license is a matter of discretion. ”And may grant to every such person as shall be approved of by such justices, or the majority of them, a certificate in the form of the schedule hereto marked C authorising a license to issue" Then we come to the imperative portion of the section, in which the word changes from "may" to "shall"—"Provided that no such certificate shall be granted until the person so approved of shall have satisfied the justices that the requisite notice has been given." This was very important — the use of the word "shall" here—because it was necessary, for the benefit of intending objectors, that it should be made imperative for the applicant to give

notice. Then came the last proviso, in which the Legislature has again used the imperative form— “No such certificate shall be granted to any person who has been convicted of selling liquor without a license, until after a period of one year from the date of such conviction. Then, if we look to the certificate upon which the Treasurer' is to give the license, the language is again such as to confirm me in my opinion that the power given under section 14 is discretionary, because the magistrates in this certificate, say that they, "in virtue of the power vested in us, hereby authorise the Treasurer" to issue the license. So that again the discretionary form of expression is used. Mr. Blake rested his argument upon the 8th section of the later Publicans' Act (28 Vic, No. 18), and argued that the applicant had a right, on satisfying the Bench that there was no objection to himself personally or the locality of his house, to a license. Looking at that 8th section, it appears to me that it places the limit on the discretion given in the previous Act—it compels the justices, on being satisfied that there is no objection to the locality, to withhold the license. So that it is a limitation, at all events to my mind, compelling the justices to yield to any reasonable objection as to locality, whereas in the previous Act there was a discretion as to locality; the justices might or might not refuse a license, even if no objection to the locality were made. For these reasons I think we have no power to interfere with the discretion of the justices. Then, if we look to the reason of the matter, I can wall see that the Legislature might intend—deliberately intend—to place this discretion in the Bench. We know that magistrates, although compelled to decide on certain cases judicially, our old English notions still invest them with a kind of domestic interference, or authority in the districts in which they exercise their functions. They were the conservators of the peace; and, as a matter of great public policy and for the safety of the community, it might well be that the Legislature intended to leave to them, as a question of judgment, whether any locality has sufficiently supplied or overstocked with houses of entertainment, or places where travellers can be received. Whilst they might regard a limited number of pubic -houses is an advantage to the community, they might very well dread an undue spread or increase of establishments of the kind. I think, therefore, both upon the language of the statute and the reason of the thing, it is a discretion placed by the Legislature in the Bench. Rule refused accordingly.

On June 17th 1876 we read “On the application of William Devine for the Ipswich

Hotel, Queen Street, the Bench declined to again consider it as it had been

refused twice previously by a full Bench of magistrates.”

Another court case for poor old William Devine: 10th February 1877

Injuring Property. R.S. Warry V. William Devine. Mr. Hely, instructed by Mr

Murphy, appeared for the plaintiff and Mr. Thynne for the defendant. The

plaintiff is the lessee of certain buildings in Queen Street owned by Mr. James

Gibbon, and one of the conditions of the lease was that the Lessee should have

the power of sub-letting the premises, but that he should not make any

alterations or suffer them to be made, under pain of expulsion. One of the

buildings was sub-let to Mr Devine as a hotel, and he has recently taken out part

of the front window in order to make a private entrance to the hotel. The

defendant had asked permission of the plaintiff, to make the alteration, but the

plaintiff refused to allow the alteration to be made, as his lease expressly

provided that he was not to alter the premises, or allow them to be altered and

the defendant had thereupon got the alterations made on his own responsibility

and the plaintiff now sued him for wilfully injuring the property.

After hearing the evidence of Mr. Thomas Symes Warry, son of the plaintiff, the

Bench were of opinion that that the house being leased as a hotel, the alteration

was an improvement to the house as such instead of being an injury, and that

although some injury might have been done to the plaintiff, none had been done

to the house.-The case was therefore dismissed. No costs allowed.

By February 1877, William Devine was now involved with the Palmer Hotel in

Queen Street. In March 1877 before the licensing court William Devine applied

for a transfer of the license to the Palmer Hotel, Queen Street, from the present

holder to the applicant. The application -was refused.

On the 5th February 1878, at Island Point, Port Douglas, of yellow jaundice,

Charles Devine, youngest brother of Mr. William Devine, of this city [Brisbane],

aged 25 years. R.I.P.

By the 25th July 1878 William Devine must have been near rock bottom. He was

fighting his impending bankruptcy.

SUPREME COURT. In Chambers. Friday, July 26. 1878. (Before His Honour, the Acting Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Lutwyche.)

RE WILLIAM DEVINE, AN INSOLVENT.

In this case Mr. Blakeney, on Wednesday last, applied for and obtained an order on the Sheriff, calling upon him to withdraw from possession, and to stay proceedings. The Attorney-General appeared to show cause on behalf of the A. J. S. Bank, the execution creditors, and Mr. Cooper for W. Devine, and a creditor, H. P. White. After hearing arguments, His Honour discharged the order without costs.

On Sunday 28th July Annie Devine gave birth to her ninth and final child. Annie was 40 years old at the time and the family had at the Palmer Hotel some two years. Sadly, the child, a girl called Nelly, died after living just four hours:

Supreme Court. 27th July 1878. Before his Honuor Mr. Justice Lutwyche, Acting Chief Justice. In Insolvency. THE ESTATE OF WILLIAM DEVINE, OF BRISBANE. In this estate, an order nisi was granted on Wednesday last, at the instance of a creditor, Henry Frederick White, calling upon the Sheriff and the execution creditor (the Australian Joint Stock Bank), for whom he was in possession of insolvent's goods, to show cause why the said Sheriff should not be ordered to withdraw, and the goods of the insolvent given up to the Official Trustee for the benefit of his creditors. Mr, Pope Cooper, instructed by Mr. Blakeney, now moved the rule absolute; and the Attorney-General, instructed by Messrs. Little and Browne, to show cause on behalf of the execution creditor. It appeared that, on the 5th June last, the Australian Joint Stock Bank commenced an action under the Bills of Exchange Act to recover from Devine the sum of £75 3s., the amount of a dishonoured promissory note. The defendant did not appear, and the plaintiff signed judgment, and issued execution, the amount endorsed on the writ of fi. fa., however, being £19 1s. 7d. The Sheriff took possession on the 22nd July, and on the following day Devine was adjudged insolvent. In support of the rule, it was contended that the sum in respect of which the levy was made was in reality more than £50 (the costs of possession increasing the amount to more than that sum) ; and that

consequently advantage could not be taken of the 102nd section of the Insolvency Act. During the argument the last proviso to the 105th section was also quoted, as well as the case of Slater v. Pinder (L.R., 6 Ex., 22S), which turned on portions of the English Act corresponding to those now in question in the Queensland statute. His Honour, in giving judgment, said he was of opinion that the costs of possession were not necessarily involved in the amount to be levied for. They might. But as the sum directed to be levied was only £19-being under £50- his Honour thought the case did not come within the 102nd section of the Act ; and although he had at first been impressed with the difficulty of the proviso of the 105th section, he thought, upon looking into the section, and after hearing the Attorney-General, that proviso might be so construed as to be consistent with the terms of the 102nd section. Then the effect of the Act would be this-that, where the property taken under an execution was not less than £50, the Sheriff was required to hold the proceeds of the sale for fourteen days, and if, after that time, no notice has been served upon him of the presentation of a petition in insolvency, against the debtor, he is to pay over the amount to the execution creditor. Then came in the proviso attached to the105th section, which was to the effect that, if the proceeds have been paid over, that payment shall hold good unless at the time of payment the creditor had notice of the presentation of a petition for adjudication. Reading these two portions of the Act together, he thought that seemed to be the only effect which the proviso had. Consequently it would not apply to cases where the sum levied amounted to less than £50. He thought himself that the proviso was out of place, and that it should have followed the 102nd Section. He accordingly discharged the order, but without costs.

1s t April 1879; The insolvents William Devine and John M'Cormack formally

passed their last examinations.

William Devine was able to obtain a license on 2nd August 1879 in Brisbane for a

“Retail Spirit Dealers”.

15th August 1879.

Francis Hicks v. William Devine.

This was an action to recover the value of three dishonoured promissory-notes, amounting to £162 13s., and interest. The Attorney-General, with Mr. Swanwick, instructed by Mr. Norrie, appeared for the plaintiff; and Mr. Real, instructed by Mr. Blakeney, for the defendant John Ross, clerk in the Bank of New South Wales, having given evidence as to the dishonour of two of the promissory-notes.

Robert Cribb was called, and stated that in October or November last he saw the defendant, who said he wanted to take the South-Western Railway Hotel ;witness told him he knew it was to let, and that the proprietor wanted £200 ;he said he had no money, but that his sister expected some money from some land

she had sold to Mr. Thompson, that the money was already paid, that there was some little delay in the Real Property Office regarding the title, and that as soon as the money was received she was to advance sum £100 towards the hotel ; witness referred him to Mr. Hicks, as the agent of Moylan, the person in possession of the hotel; after several negotiations it was agreed between Hicks and Devine that the lease, license, goodwill, stock in trade, and furniture of the hotel should be sold for £150 ; the £100 from the defendant's sister was not forthcoming, and plaintiff took the two promissory-notes of defendant's sister, Bridget Devine, for £50 each, and endorsed by the defendant, instead of the cash ; witness thought Bridget Devine was defendant's sister, and that she was unmarried ; [looks at promissory-note for £62 13s, made by Devine ]; had seen that before ; the defendant did not represent himself as agent for Bridget Devine ; when the first promissory-note became due on February 17, 1879, Mr. Hicks saw witness about it; witness went to Devine and told him his sister's promissory-note had been dishonoured ; he said he knew it, that he had before told witness that it would not be paid, and that his sister had not yet received the money from Mr. Thompson; he said she would get the money in about a month, when the amount of the promissory-note would be paid ; the defendant was then in possession of the hotel as landlord, and was still in possession; [looks at letter ; that was sent to witness by Devine]. In the letter referred to Devine told Mr. Cribb he had no wish to shirk the debt, and asked to be allowed time to pay it. Mr. Real said he had not before seen this letter, which he thought must settle the case.

He had therefore advised his client to consent to a verdict for the plaintiff. A verdict was accordingly entered for, the plaintiff for the amount claimed. The court adjourned at a quarter to 5 o'clock until 10 a.m. the following (this) day.

9th March 1880

At the Supreme Court, in Chambers, on Friday last, his Honour Chief Justice Lilley, in deciding upon an application for a certificate of discharge of William Devine, an insolvent, refused to make the order as prayed for. He said it, appeared to him that at the time the insolvent incurred his liabilities he was already an insolvent within the jurisdiction of the Court, and, as far as his Honour could see, started with a capital, if he had any, which belonged to the

creditors under his previous insolvency. Besides which nearly half the liability incurred had been incurred in making a vexatious--he might almost say a frivolous defence to an action brought against him.

Birth and Death of Daughter: 28 Jul 1878 • Brisbane, Queenland, Australia: Nelly DEVINE (1878–1878)

In 1895 William Devine worked for the Queensland Railways as a Watchman for the Traffic Branch in the Railway Division. In 1898 he was a Porter.

In June 1899 Mr & Mrs William Devine had to deal with the death of their son. He died in Brisbane, Queensland, Australia: Francis George Devine (–1899)

William Devine was to pass away on 4th Jan 1906 at Red Hill, Brisbane,

Queensland, and death note read: “DEVINE. On the 4th January, at his

residence, Mountjoy Street, Petrie Terrace, William Devine, senior, late of

Railway Department. Deeply regretted. (R.I.P)”

His funeral notices add some detail:

FUNERAL NOTICE.-The friends of Mr. WILLIAM DEVINE, senior, deceased, late of Railway Department, are respectfully invited to attend his funeral, to move from his late residence, 13 Mountjoy Street, Petrie Terrace, this afternoon, at 4 o'clock, to the Toowong Cemetery. The undertaker was K. M. Smith.

A second funeral notice read as follows: “The Friends of Mssrs. William II. and Charles B. Devine are respectfully invited to attend the funeral of their deceased father, Mr. William Devine, senior, to leave from his late residence, 13 Mountjoy Street, Petrie Terrace, THIS AFTERNOON, at 4 o'clock, to the Toowong Cemetery.”

And a third notice: “The Friends of Mr. J. E. RAMSBOTHAM are respectfully invited to attend the funeral of the deceased father-in-law, Mr. William Devine, senior, to move from his late residence, 13 Mountjoy Street, Petrie Terrace, this afternoon at 4 o'clock, to the Toowong Cemetery.”

On the anniversary of his death the children of William Devine would put

memorial notices in the Brisbane newspapers: “In loving memory of our dear

father, William Devine, father of the above, late of Ipswich and Railway

Department, Roma street, who departed this life 4th January, 1906. Inserted by

his loving sons and daughters.”

Five years after Williams death his wife joined him in that great journey into the

unknown, and her life warranted a comprehensive obituary in the Queensland

Courier Mail on 23rd September 1911:

DEATH OF AN OLD COLONIST. 1911.

[Annie Charlotte White] Mrs W. Devine, an old colonist died on 13th instant at her late residence, Petrie Terrace. Her late husband (Mr. William Devine) who was well known in Ipswich and Brisbane, predeceased her some five years. The deceased lady, who was 73 years of age, will be remembered by many of the old residents of Ipswich as an exceedingly handsome woman in her young days, and up to the last her features retained traces of her former beauty. Mrs. Devine came to Australia about 65 years ago, landing in Sydney with her father and mother, the late Mr and Mrs Henry F. White and a brother. After a few years residence in Sydney and Melbourne the family came to Brisbane, and later on to Ipswich where Mrs Devine met and was eventually married to the late Mr William Devine, who was then in the Mounted Police Force. A few years later Mr. Devine resigned his appointment and went into business as a hotel keeper in Ipswich, the Glen Cottage, Royal, Melbourne, and Clarendon in turn being owned by him. The Clarendon having been totally destroyed by fire the family came to Brisbane, occupying the Melbourne in the Valley, and conducting it for a few years, then the Palmer, in Queen street, finishing their hotel keeping in the S and W Railway Hotel, George street, at the corner afterwards known as

Dowridge's corner. The deceased lady leaves a family of seven - three sons and four daughters. Of the latter two are employed in the Government Printing Office, one is at home and the other is the wife of Mr. J. E. Ramsbotham of the Telegraph Branch, Railways.

Those who attended the funeral included Hon F. McDonnell, MLC, Messrs A J Cumming (Government Printer), Spence, Ross, Hardy, Barrett, Goodyear, Tanner, Lapraik, Taylor, Strickland, Baker, Bourke, Burton, O’Keefe, Murphy, Harvey, Gooley, and Thompson. Wreaths were sent by the Government Printing Office, Mrs. Geo. Marchant, Mrs. Legge and family, Mrs. Ramsbotham, senior, Mrs. Herdsman, Messrs. Rowlands, Baker, and many others. The funeral arrangements were conducted by K M Smith.

On December 15, 1916, at her late residence, "Ardor," Cairns Street, Red Hill,

Sarah A. Devine, the eldest daughter of the late Mr. and Mrs. William Devine, of

Petrie Terrace passed away. The newspaper notice noted she’d be “sadly

mourned.”