Anson Hammond Bartlett
- continued -
Continued from page 1

Move to Melbourne: Anson, Hannah and their children moved to Melbourne around
1874. After moving to Melbourne, Anson continued to run Hotels including the Railway
Hotel, Elizabeth Street, Melbourne and Rigby's Council Club Hotel in Melbourne.

1874 NSW Police Gazette reports a warrant was issued for the arrest of Frederick
Spinks charged with forgery [uttering a forged cheque] committed on A.H. Bartlett of
Railway Hotel, Elizabeth Street,  Melbourne. The same report was carried in the Qld
Police gazette of 1875.

The Sands Directory of 1875 and 1880 show Anson at the Railway Hotel at corner of
Elizabeth Street and Little Flinders Street, Melbourne.

Anson's assault on his son Frank Bartlett: The Leader [Melbourne] dated 24th
February 1883 reported:
Two actions for assault wore hoard by Judge Cope and a jury on Feb. 21st at the County
In both, a storeman, named John Anderson, was plaintiff, A. H. Bartlett, landlord of the
Railway Hotel, Elizabeth-street south, being defendant in one case, and Frank Bartlett,
his son, in the other. It appeared from the evidence for the plaintiff that while going along
Flinders lane with a friend, he saw, near the defendant's hotel, an elderly man kicking
a younger one in the stomach. The assailant was Bartlett, sen., and the other person was
his son. Plaintiff and his friend stopped, and Bartlett, sen., asked him what his business
was. He replied that the place was a public one, and that he had a perfect right to stand
where he was. The younger man then attacked him, the elder first taking hold of
plaintiff and inciting his son to proceed. Plaintiff was very roughly handled and in the
struggle lost his watch and a portion of his watch chain, which he, however, afterwards
He now sued, laying damages at £200 in each' case. For the defence it was alleged that
A. H. Bartlett was disputing with his son about some work ho had neglected to perform,
but had not kicked him when plaintiff and his friend improperly interfered. Plaintiff on
being spoken to threatening to knockout the elder Bartlett's brains. The defendant in the
first place denied that he had laid hands on plaintiff, and alleged that the action of his
son was in his defence. The jury found for the plaintiff in the first case, damages £5,
and gave the defendant the benefit of the doubt in the second. Mr. Hodges appeared for
the plaintiff; and Mr, Hood for the defence.

Sale of Railway Hotel: An advertisement in The Age dated 26th May 1890 advises
Anson is selling the railway Hotel after 15 years due to ill health. [see advertisement

Bankruptcy: The Victorian Govt Gazette lists Anson Hammond Bartlett, licensed
victualler of the Railway Hotel, Melbourne, on its list on Insolvencies for 12th
September 1890. He applied for a certificate of discharge on 17th April 1891. The case
was reported in The Melbourne Argus:

(Before Judge Worthington.)
FRIDAY, ApriL 24. ,
Judgement was given in the case of Anson Hammond Bartlett, licensed victualler, late of
the Railway Hotel, Elizabeth street, on whose behalf an application had been made for
a dispensation with the dividend of 7s in the £, and for a certificate.
His HONOUR said the affidavit showed that in June, 1888, insolvent had an offer made
to him to purchase the hotel for £10,000 That offer was refused. His debts then
amounted to £6600 His lease expired in June 1889 and he stated that he had not then
got further into debt. He obtained a renewal of his lease, but on the terms of paying a
rental of £100 a month, and of making certain alterations and additions which were to
cost, with furnishings, about £.1,200 His principal creditor, Anthoness to whom he at the
time owed £6,000, agreed to advance then necessary funds on the security of the new
lease and the goods and chattels in the hotel. The alterations were carried out between
the months of May and November, l889 The new lease was mortgaged to Anthoness and
at that time Anthoness had advanced £1,400 towards the cost of the alterations and
additions But Anthoness then refused to advance any more money,and pressed insolvent
to pay him off. On the 11th July, 1800 insolvent owed Anthoness £7 650, and considered
the hotel, etc. good security for the money although trade was bad The estate was
sequestrated m September, 1891) and the greater part of the debts other than Anthoness's
were principally for carrying on the hotel business The insolvent attributed the immediate
cause of the insolvency to the serious depreciation of hotel property soon after he
accepted the new lease, and also to the falling off in his business. On behalf of the
insolvent it was alleged that he was solvent at the time of him accepting the new lease,
and was therefore justified in what he did.  His honour could not accede to that view of
the case After the agreement for the new lease the insolvent according to his own
showing, had £200 over his debts and liabilities, but that balance was unavailable, as it
could only be touched if the lease was sold. His Honour thought that insolvent undertook
an obligation that his position did not justified, and that the cause of his insolvency was
the incurring of fresh liabilities and carrying on his trade when his capital had become
insufficient for the purpose - exactly I what the 130th section of the Insolvent Act was
there to prevent. The insolvent did not satisfy his Honour that his insolvency arose from a
cause for which he could not justifiably be held responsible The application for a
dispensation was refused, without prejudice to any further application for a dispensation
and certificate.

1892 shows Anson residing at the Royal Hotel, 144 Queen St Melbourne.

Continued Page 3

Above: The Age 26th May 1890

A post card from one of A.H. Bartlett's hotels.