History of the Fox and Dogs on Lionel Street in Birmingham in the county of Warwickshire.

www.midlandspubs.co.uk

Click here for the Home Page  Click here to visit the website's Facebook page  Click here to follow on Twitter  Contact via E-Mail  Click here for the Menu 


Click here for more details

Some history of the Fox and Dogs

More information on the Fox and Dogs on Lionel Street to follow. I probably created the page as I had a link to the Fox and Dogs 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 Fox and Dogs. There is information on Birmingham dotted around the website - click here for a suitable starting place.

Birmingham : Notice of an auction for the Fox and Dogs on Lionel Street [1859]


Click here for more details

Map

Birmingham : Map showing locations of Public-Houses in Lionel Street [1888]


Click here for more details

Licensees of this pub

1801 - Edward Wilding
1817 - Joseph Aston
1819 - John Bartlett
1821 - William Everton
1823 - Thomas Aston
1827 - Thomas Wilson
Note : this is not a complete list of licensees for this pub.

Genealogy Connections

If you have a genealogy story or query regarding the Fox and Dogs on Lionel Street you can contact me and I will post it here in addition to including your message within the website pages for Birmingham Genealogy.

Have Your Say

If you would like to share any further information on this pub - perhaps your ancestors drank here in the past? Or maybe they knew a previous publican? Whatever the reason it would be great to hear of your stories or gossip. Simply send a message and I will post it here.


Click here for more details

Related Newspaper Articles

"Roderick v. Lee. In this matter the plaintiff, the well-known auctioneer, of New Street, sued the defendant, a coal merchant, in Bath Row, for a suit of £8. 2s. 6d. for advertisements and professional services in trying to dispose of the licenses and goodwill of the Fox and Dogs public-house, in Lionel Street. Mr. Hawkes was retained for Mr. Roderick, and Mr. East for Mr. Lee. The enquiry occupied his Honour for upwards of two hours, and as will be seen, involved most serious points as to contradictory testimony, with a charge as against plaintiff's brother, Mr. J. Roderick, who is connected with the business, of a serious kind. Mr. Roderick, sen., the plaintiff, stated that in May, 1857, Mr. Lee called at the office, and instructed him to advertise, etc., in the usual way, the licenses and goodwill of the Fox and Dogs public-house in Lionel Street, which had been kept by a person named Wasdell. Mr. Lee added that he was interested for cash advanced to Mr. Wasdell on a bill of sale, which this person had given him upon the furniture and fixtures at the inn. Accordingly, Mr. Roderick advertised in the usual way as to such licenses and goodwill, and in June, in accordance with such public notices, tried to effect such sale, but no bidder offered. It may be noted here that subsequently Mr. Bowdidge, auctioneer, was instructed to sell, and did sell both the goodwill and the licenses, and also the fixtures and furniture. Mr. Roderick had heard of this transaction, and having sent in his bill to the defendant, for advertisements, etc., for the offer to sell the goodwill, etc., £8. 2s. 6d., had no answer from Mr. Lee. This being so, and having waited some time, Mr. Roderick wrote to the defendant, reminding him that it was time the account was settled, and this brought Mr. Lee to Mr. Roderick's office, and a personal interview took place between defendant and Mr. J. Roderick, plaintiff's brother. According to the sworn statement of this gentleman, the bill for the £8. 2s. 6d., which also contained the request for an early settlement, was brought by Mr. Lee at this interview. This bill and letter were written upon what had been a half-sheet of writing paper, having on one corner a stamp with "Roderick and Son" thereon. The paper was folded note-fashion, and of course the bill and letter took up at least, and we believe, three sides, Mr. Lee said, referring to this account, that Mr. Howes, Villa School, Handsworth, was jointly with him interested [as co-trustees, he termed it,] in the bill of sale referred to, and therefore ought to pay one-half of the bill. Mr. Lee further requested Mr. Roderick, jun., to make out the bill jointly to himself and Mr. Howes. To this Mr. Roderick assented, but under condition that Mr. Lee should sign a memorandum relative to the matter, of which the following is a copy: "Mr. Howes, of Villa School, Lozells, is co-trustee with me in this matter, and I shall feel obliged by you sending your bill made out in our joint names, and it shall not prejudice any claim you have against me. [Signed] H. LEE." Mr. Roderick, jun., swore that he wrote this memorandum upon the fourth page of the note paper referred to; that Mr. Lee, the defendant, signed it in his presence; and that at that time the bill and letter referred to were upon the other sides of the paper. There was no question but that in October, 1846, the person then keeping the Fox and Dogs had himself directly entrusted the plaintiff to try and dispose of the licenses and goodwill in the usual way, and for these services a sum of £9. had been charged to Mr. Wasdell. [Something was added as to this being subsequently a debt scheduled in Wasdell's petition.] These were the main points in the plaintiff's case, who proved the charges as fair and reasonable. For the defence, the great point was that the defendant, Mr. Lee, swore that when he signed at Mr. Roderick's office, not a single written other word was on the paper; that it was a sheet of note paper, and that the charge to which he had alluded was a charge for valuation of the furniture and fixtures only of the Fox and Dogs. It must be again called to notice that this memorandum so signed by defendant was upon the fourth page of the paper, as folded note size. With reference to the valuation, Mr. Roderick explained to his Honour that the case stood thus. Selling the goodwill and licenses of a public-house was the first step, and the purchaser of these then took to, as a matter of course, the furniture and fixtures, and the auctioneer employed had the valuation of these as a matter of course. As we have formerly shown, exactly such course was followed at the subsequent sale at the Fox and Dogs, by Mr. Bowdidge. Plaintiff distinctly said in the course of his evidence that he did not value the fixtures and furniture, and the most that Mr. Lee admitted in the course of his direct evidence as to this was that Mr. Roderick asked, "If I sell the licenses, etc., shall I value the furniture, etc." Mr. Wasdell was examined also for the defence, and he swore that in April, 1857, he instructed plaintiff to advertise and try to sell the goodwill and licenses of the Fox and Dogs. [That such a course had been pursued in October, 1856, was not disputed.] Mr. Wasdell admitted, however, that when told that the produce of the sales of the licenses, furniture, etc., must be paid over to Mr. Robinson, solicitor, on account of the defendant Lee and Mr. Howes, 'he was very indignant, and thought that he had not been used well." Wasdell however denied Mr. Roderick's statement in the box, that he told him Mr. Lee had instructed him to sell. Mr. Robinson, the solicitor for Messrs. Lee and Howes, with reference to the bill of sale, was called. He said that Mr. Roderick, waiting upon him about the time of the offer in June to sell the goodwill and licenses, did not disclose that he had been instructed by the defendant Lee. He [Mr. Robinson] called Mr. Roderick's attention to the bill of sale, as he understood he was going to sell furniture and fixtures, as well as the licenses, and said the proceeds must be paid over to him. Mr. Bowdidge, auctioneer, happening to be in Court, was examined as to the sale referred to of the inn, but nothing came of this. After hearing the respective advocates, his Honour said this was a most important, and at the same time a most difficult case. The defendant Lee had broadly intimated a charge of perjury and forgery as against plaintiff's brother, Mr. John Roderick. Upon well weighing over the evidence, he [Mr. Trafford] thought that the balance of testimony was in favour of the plaintiff. Still there was a point or two it was very difficult to see through clearly. However, he thought that his duty would lead him to decide in favour of Mr. Roderick. The verdict therefore would be for the plaintiff, for the amount claimed, and on Mr. Hawkes's application costs were also allowed."
"Singular Action"
Birmingham Daily Post : July 15th 1858 Page 1

Brummagem Boozers

Click here to visit the W3C Markup Validation Service