Riot

5 Where three or more actually do an unlawful act of violence, either with or without a common cause or quarrel; as, if they beat a man, or do other unlawful act with force and violence, or even do a lawful act, as, removing a nuisance, in a violent and tumultuous manner.6 A tumultuous disturbance of the peace, by three persons or more assembling together of their own authority, with an intent mutually to assist one another, against any one who shall oppose them, in the execution of some enterprise of a private nature, and afterward actually executing the same in a violent and turbulent manner, to the terror of the people, whether the act intended was of itself lawful or unlawful.'' ' Pacific Mail Steamship Co. v. Joli Cfe, 2 Wall. 450, 457 (1864), Field, J. 2 3 BI.

Com. 193.

See Green v. Liter, 8 Cranoh, 242 (1814). ' [Worcester's Diet. •Ward V. Vosburgh, 31 F. E. 13 (1887); Clarke «. Foss, 7 Biss. 548 (1878). » F. riote, a brawling, strife. • 4 Bl. Com. 146. See also Whitley v. State, 66 Ga. 656 (1881). There must be an unlawful assembly; then, whatever act will make a trespass, will constitute a riot.' If persons who have met for a lawful purpose afterward form and execute an unlawful intention, this may be suf Scient; and the unlawful act is evidence of the unlawful intent." Kiot Act. Statute of Geo. I (1714), c. 5, for the suppression of riots. Provides that if any twelve persons a:-e unlawfully assembled to the disturbance of the peace, any justice of the peace, sheriff, or mayor of a town may, if he shall think proper, command them by proclamation to disperse. Then, if they contemn his order and continue together for one hour afterward, such contempt shall be a felony.^ The Eiot Act was passed by reason of the tumult attendant upon theaccession of George I to the throne. The act made it a felony to unlawfully assemble and demolish any church or dwelling-house; and provided that the inhabitants of the district should be liable for all damage done. The laws upon the subject were consolidated in IBS", by 7 and 8 of George IV, c. 31. The principle of the original act has been adopted in the legislation of Pennsylvania.* The right to reimbursement for damages caused by a mob or riotous assemblage is not founded upon contract. It is a statutory right, and can be withdrawn or limited at the pleasure of the legislature of a State. Municipal corporations are invested with authority to establish a police to guard against disturbances: and it is their duty to exercise their authority so as to prevent violence from any cause, particularly from mobs and riotous assemblages. It has therefore been generally considered as a just burden to require them to make good any loss sustained from the acts of such assemblages which they should have repressed. The imposition has been supposed to create, in the holders of property liable to taxation, an interest to discourage and prevent movements tending to such violent proceedings. But, however considered, the imposition is simply a measure of legislative policy, in no respect resting upon contract, and subject, like all other measures of policy, to any change the legislature may see fit to make, either in the extent of the liability or in the means of its enforcement.' See Assembly, Unlawful; Conspiracy; Mob; Eoni; Treason.