Some history of the Royal Exchange on Bridge Street West at Hockley in Birmingham in Warwickshire

Birmingham | Bridge Street West | Royal Exchange

The Royal Exchange was opened as a beer house and located on the north side of Bridge Street West, between Farm Street and Guest Street

By the end of the Edwardian period the Royal Exchange was operated by Holder's Brewery Ltd.

After being de-licensed the premises were used as coffee rooms. In 1937 these were kept by Dennis F. Hodgkins.

More information on the Royal Exchange on Bridge Street West to follow. I probably created the page as I had a link to the Royal Exchange from another page. When building the site it is easier to place links as they crop up rather than go back later on. I realise this is frustrating if you were specifically looking for information on the Royal Exchange. There is information on Birmingham dotted around the website - click here for a suitable starting place.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

"An action was brought by James McCarthy, of Bridge Street West, scrap-iron dealer, against John Pea, of the Royal Exchange public-house, Bridge Street West, licensed victualler, to recover £50. damages, for breaking down and removing gates from the yard in the occupation of the plaintiff, and "for preventing the plaintiff using the right of way to the said yard, and the stables and sheds thereunto belonging." Mr. Dorsett [instructed by Messrs. East and Smith] appeared for the plaintiff and Mr. Stubbins for the defendant. In 1875 plaintiff, having a fourteen years' lease of the Royal Exchange public-house, with yard and premises adjoining, sold the property to George Bennett, on condition that he should relet to him the yard, and a written agreement with that condition in was made. After eighteen months Bennett sold the house to a man named Udall, who subsequently sold it to the defendant, plaintiff up to January 25 1ast having the use of the yard at a monthly rental, for the purpose of his business. On that day defendant prevented the plaintiff entering the yard, and broke down the gates, and in consequence of this action plaintiff had suffered considerably in his business. The defence set up was that the agreement was invalid, in consequence of an addition having been made to it informally. The Judge held that there was undoubtedly a yearly tenancy, and the defendant had acted illegally in refusing to allow the plaintiff in the yard. He was still a tenant, and had a right to enter the premises. A verdict for the plaintiff, with £35. damages, was given."
"An Illegal Act"
Birmingham Daily Post : July 15th 1884 Page 6