279 Victoria Street

279 Victoria Street
West Melbourne VIC 3003

Also known as
Previous Address
Constructed
Style
Architect
Builder

Timelapse Building Images

No Entries Found

Land Details

Building Details

No Entries Found

Subsequent Building Alterations

No Entries Found

Architectural Features



    No Entries Found


Heritage Significance and Listings

Heritage Listings and Explanatory Notes

Owners

No Entries Found

Residents

From To Resident More Info Data Source
to date Private (shop 279) Hatcher Index
1965 1974 Batrouneys Pharmacies chemists and B. Cingolani (shop 279) Sands & McDougall directory, transcribed by Stephen Hatcher 2024
1950 1960 Batrouneys Pharmacies chemists, Batrouney, Leslie J. (shop 279) Sands & McDougall directory, transcribed by Stephen Hatcher 2024
1930 1944/5 Ware, W. H. chemist (shop 279) Sands & McDougall directory, transcribed by Stephen Hatcher 2024
1925 Bailey Pharmacy (Ware, W. H. chemist) (shop 279) Sands & McDougall directory, transcribed by Stephen Hatcher 2025
1920 Wallace, William H. chemist (shop 279) Sands & McDougall directory, transcribed by Stephen Hatcher 2025
1915 Prout & Son, chemist, G. S. Prout & P. E. Ward Dentist (shop 279) Sands & McDougall directory, transcribed by Stephen Hatcher 2025
1889 1910 Prout George H. druggist (shop 279) Sands & McDougall directory, transcribed by Stephen Hatcher 2025

Social History

County Court Action, 1911.
On Tuesday, Patrick Ryan, broom maker, brought an action in the County Court, before Judge Box, in which he claimed £99 damages against George H. Prout and George S. Prout, for alleged negligence in extracting one of plaintiff’s teeth, so violently, that the plaintiff’s jaw was fractured by the operation. The plaintiff’s case was that on 17th October last, he was suffering from toothache, and went to a chemist’s shop in Spencer-st. He had no money, but promised to pay for the operation with one of the brooms he was hawking.
The offer was accepted, and the tooth extracted. On Oct. 22nd, plaintiff went back to the defendants, as he obtained no relief, and another tooth was drawn.
Plaintiff went to the hospital, and was treated for a painful jaw and subsequently a piece of his jaw came away. The defence was that there had been no violence and no negligence in the extraction, and also that plaintiff was suffering from a disease of the jaw before he went near the defendants.
That would account for the coming away of a piece of the jawbone. Mr. Geo. S. Prout said he saw the man was in great pain, and took pity on him, and noticed when he was drawing the tooth that plaintiff’s mouth was diseased. His Honor said there were no proof of
negligence on the defendant’s part, and any pain or loss of part of his jaw sustained by plaintiff was the result of a disease he was suffering from. There would therefore be a verdict for the defendants with costs.

http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article106320607



Context and Streetscape

Precinct

Zoning

Streetscape

Other Information

No Entries Found