Riot

According to Hawkins, whose definition has been often quoted and approved, is a tumultuous disturbance of the peace by three or more persons assembling together of their own authority, with an intent mutually to assist one another, against any who shall oppose them in the execution of some enterprise of a private nature, and afterwards actually executing the same in a violent and turbulent manner, to the terror of the people, whether the act be of itself lawful or unlawful. Pl. C. ch.

65, § 1.

Jacob defines riot as the forcible doing of an unlawful thing by three or more persons assembled for the purpose; but several later authorities say explicitly that the thing done need not be unlawful. Upon the distinction between riot, rout, and unlawful assembly, see Unlawful Assembly. To constitute a riot, it is not essential that an unlawful intention should have existed at the time of meeting. If persons who have met for a lawful purpose afterwards form and execute an unlawful intention, this may be sufficient; and the unlawful act is evidence of the unlawful intent.

United States v. McFarland, 1 Cranch C. Ct. 140.

The term riot does not involve the idea of an unlawful act done. If three or more persons do any act in a violent and tumultuous manner, there is a riot.

Kiphart v. State, 42 Ind. 273.

Persons assembled with intent to whip a man, or to have it done, are guilty of a riot, though some other person inflicts the blow.

Newby v. Territory, 1 Oreg. 163.

To support an indictment for a riot, the defendants must be active in doing or countenancing an unlawful act, or stand ready to support such act.

Pennsylvania v. Craig, Add. 190.

A riot is the execution, with force, of an enterprise of a private nature, by three or more persons, with an understanding mutually to assist each other.

State v. Cole, 2 McCord, 117.

Where three or more armed persons assemble to assist one another in a private enterprise, and execute the same in a threatening manner, it is a riot, whether the act done is lawful or not.

State v. Brooks, 1 Hill (S. C.), 361.

It is not necessary to say that the accused assembled for the unlawful purpose, but there must be an unlawful assembly; and then whatever act will make a trespass, will constitute a riot.

Per Holt, C. J., 11 Mod. 116.

Riot act

A noted English statute (the 1 Geo. I. st. 2, ch. 5) for the suppression of riots. It provides that whenever twelve or more persons unlawfully assemble, to the disturbance of the peace, if any justice of the peace, sheriff, under-sheriff, or mayor of a town, shall command them by proclamation to disperse, then if they contemn his orders, and continue together for one hour afterwards, such contempt shall be felony. The form of the proclamation is in these words: "Our Sovereign Lady the Queen chargeth and commandeth all persons being assembled immediately to disperse themselves, and peaceably to depart for their habitations, or to their lawful business, upon the pains contained in the act made in the first year the Queen." The act also contains a clause indemnifying the officers and their assistants in case any of the mob should be unfortunately killed in the endeavor to disperse them. What is known as reading the riot act, is making proclamation to a mob, according to the above-recited directions, which seems to be deemed necessary in cases of public disturbances, before ordering the military to fire.