| 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