Post by HeatherC on May 27, 2009 13:40:27 GMT -5
Hello All 
This may be of interest to QUICK researchers
Best regards
HeatherC
From - West Briton and Cornwall Advertiser Friday 30th June 1848
WILLIAM QUICK, 33, was charged with having stolen, on the 1st of June, cow and a heifer, the property of JOHN QUICK. Mr. Darke conducted the prosecution; Mr. Stokes the defence.
The prosecutor occupies an estate called Treveales, in the parish of Zennor, renting it of landlords also named Quick; but the prisoner was no relation to those parties.
The case [...fered?] from ordinary felonies, inasmuch as the
prisoner drove off the cow and heifer, under some pretence of right to the property and left a notice of distraint, after driving off the
cattle in the prosecutor's absence at Penzance market. The notice
alleged that there was an arrear of rent due to prisoner, amounting to £72, and gave particulars of property distrained, stating that the cow and heifer were removed to the Fountain Inn, Penzance; and at that place they were subsequently found by the prosecutor. The cow and heifer were removed from the prosecutor's field in the middle of the day, by the prisoner, a strange man, and a boy, and were driven on to Penzance on the high road; but there was evidence given by the farmer of the adjoining estate, who witnessed the removal, that the prisoner
changed his dress previous to the removal. The prisoner stated that he put on a frock, because of a shower of rain. The prisoner had constantly asserted a right to the property at Treveales; but it was shown that he had been twice convicted of malicious trespass, for entering the premises, and had been on each occasion told by the magistrates that he had no right whatever in that place. In November, 1846, he gold the St. Ives policeman that the Quicks had better give him £100 to be quiet and leave the place alone, for he had power to do them an injury whilst they were in their beds sleeping; he also said if he could not get the place himself, they should never enjoy it.
The prosecutor admitted on cross-examination that immediately before he rented of his present landlords, WILLIAM and PETER BARAGWANATH QUICK, the present prisoner was his landlord. Mr. Stokes, in defence, contended that the evidence showed there was no intent on the part of the prisoner, but to assert his claim; and commented strongly on the absence of the prosecutor's two landlords. The case was one of purely of trespass, and ought to be tried at Nisi Prius. Mr. Stokes strongly protested against the adducing in evidence, previous convictions of trespass contending that the same principle ought to apply with regard to such convictions, as was adopted with reference to previous
convictions of felony. - Not Guilty.
This may be of interest to QUICK researchers
Best regards
HeatherC
From - West Briton and Cornwall Advertiser Friday 30th June 1848
WILLIAM QUICK, 33, was charged with having stolen, on the 1st of June, cow and a heifer, the property of JOHN QUICK. Mr. Darke conducted the prosecution; Mr. Stokes the defence.
The prosecutor occupies an estate called Treveales, in the parish of Zennor, renting it of landlords also named Quick; but the prisoner was no relation to those parties.
The case [...fered?] from ordinary felonies, inasmuch as the
prisoner drove off the cow and heifer, under some pretence of right to the property and left a notice of distraint, after driving off the
cattle in the prosecutor's absence at Penzance market. The notice
alleged that there was an arrear of rent due to prisoner, amounting to £72, and gave particulars of property distrained, stating that the cow and heifer were removed to the Fountain Inn, Penzance; and at that place they were subsequently found by the prosecutor. The cow and heifer were removed from the prosecutor's field in the middle of the day, by the prisoner, a strange man, and a boy, and were driven on to Penzance on the high road; but there was evidence given by the farmer of the adjoining estate, who witnessed the removal, that the prisoner
changed his dress previous to the removal. The prisoner stated that he put on a frock, because of a shower of rain. The prisoner had constantly asserted a right to the property at Treveales; but it was shown that he had been twice convicted of malicious trespass, for entering the premises, and had been on each occasion told by the magistrates that he had no right whatever in that place. In November, 1846, he gold the St. Ives policeman that the Quicks had better give him £100 to be quiet and leave the place alone, for he had power to do them an injury whilst they were in their beds sleeping; he also said if he could not get the place himself, they should never enjoy it.
The prosecutor admitted on cross-examination that immediately before he rented of his present landlords, WILLIAM and PETER BARAGWANATH QUICK, the present prisoner was his landlord. Mr. Stokes, in defence, contended that the evidence showed there was no intent on the part of the prisoner, but to assert his claim; and commented strongly on the absence of the prosecutor's two landlords. The case was one of purely of trespass, and ought to be tried at Nisi Prius. Mr. Stokes strongly protested against the adducing in evidence, previous convictions of trespass contending that the same principle ought to apply with regard to such convictions, as was adopted with reference to previous
convictions of felony. - Not Guilty.
