riot

In criminal law. A tumultuous disturbance of the peace by three persons or more, assembling together of their own authority with an intent mutually to assist each other 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 intended were of itself lawful or unlawful. Hawk. P. C. c. 65, § 1. See 3 Blackf. (Ind.) 209; 4 Blackf. (Ind.) 72; 3 Rich. (S. C.) 337; 5 Pa. St. 88. "Riot" includes both "unlawful assembly" and "rout" (q.v.), and the further element that there shall be not only a step towards carrying out the unlawful intent of the assembly, but that they shall proceed therein in a violent and tumultuous manner.

A tumultuous disturbance of the peace by three persons or more, assembling together of their own authority with an intent mutually to assist each other 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 intended were of itself lawful or unlawful. Hawk. PI. Cr. c. 65, § 1. See Shouse v. Com., 5 Pa. 83; Fisher v. State, 78 Ga. 258. “An unlawful assembly which has actually begun to execute the purpose for which it is assembled, by a breach of the peace, and to the terror of the public or a lawful assembly, may become a riot if the persons assembled form and proceed to execute an unlawful purpose to the terror of the people, although they had not that purpose when they assembled.” Steph. Dig. Cr. Law, art. 77. An unlawful assembly is an assembly of three or more persons who meet together for a common purpose in such a manner that a breach of the peace may be apprehended from their conduct. Police authorities may disperse an unlawful assembly, but may only use slight force, unless there is reason to apprehend immediate violence on the part Of the mob; Odgers, C. L. 156. As soon as an unlawful assembly starts from its place of meeting to carry out its purpose, it becomes a rout; as soon as it begins to carry out that purpose in violence and in obvious defiance of the authorities, it becomes a riot There are five necessary elements of a riot; three persons at least; a common purpose; execution or inception of that purpose; an attempt to help one another by force if necessary; force or violence displayed in such a manner as to alarm one person having reasonable courage; L1907] 2 K. B. 860. In England it is an indictable misdemeanor • for a person to refuse to take part in suppressing a riot when called upon to do so by a justice of the peace or constable. A justice of the peace must read the statutory proclamation, if necessary, and take whatever subsequent steps are necessary to disperse the rioters. After the lapse of an hour from the reading of the riot act, or, because of violence by the mob, within the hour, it is the duty of the civil authorities to stop the riot at whatever cost; and deadly weapons may then be used. Rioting, after the lapse of an hour, was a felony; Odgers, C. L. 161. There must be proved — first, an unlawful assembling; State v. Renton, 15 N. II. 169; for if a number of persons lawfully met together, as, for example, at a fire, or In a not a riot, because there was no unlawful assembling; but if three or more being so assembled, on a dispute occurring, form into parties with promises of mutual assistance, which promises may be express, or implied from the circumstances, then the offense will no longer be an affray, but a riot; the unlawful combination will amount to an assembling within the meaning of the law. In this manner any lawful assembly may be converted into a riot: State v. Snow, IS Me. 340; 1 Camp. 32S; Solomon v. Kingston, 24 Hun (N. Y.) 502. Any one who joins the rioters after they have actually commenced is equally guilty as if he had joined them while assembling. Secondly, proof must be made of actual violence and force on the part of the rioters, or of such circumstances as have an apparent tendency to force and violence, and calculated to strike terror into the public mind; 2 Camp. 300. See Sanders v. State, 00 Ga. 126; State v. Kempf, 26 Mo. 420. The definition requires that the offenders should assemble of their own authority, in order to create a riot; if, therefore, the parties act under the authority of the law, they may use any necessary force to enforce their mandate, without committing this offense. See, State v. Brooks, 1 Hill (S. C.) 362; State v. Hughes, 72 N. C. 25. Thirdly, evidence must be given that the defendants acted in the riot and were participants in the disturbance; Scott v. U. S., Morr. (Ia.) 142. It is sufficient if they be present encouraging or giving countenance, support, or acquiescence to the act; Williams v. State, 0 Mo. 270. See Co. 3d Inst. 176; 4 Bla. Com. 146; Com. Dig. Women and infants above, but not those under, the age of discretion are punishable as rioters; 1 Russ. Cr. *387. In a case growing out of the riots in Pittsburg in 1877, under a statute making a county liable for the property “situated” therein, when destroyed by a mob, the liability was held to attach to property owned by a nonresident of the state, in transit in possession of a common carrier; County of Allegheny v. Gibson’s Son & Co., 90 Pa. 397, 35 Am. Rep. 670. In the absence of a statute giving a remedy, municipal corporations are not liable for damages resulting in loss of life from the acts of a mob or riotous assemblage, no matter what the negligence of the city officials may have been; City of New Orleans v. Abbagnato, 62 Fed. 240, 10 C. C. A. 361, 20

In criminal law. A tumultuous disturbance of the peace by three persons or more, assembling together of their own authority, with an intent mutuuily to assist each other 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 pcople, whether the act intended were of itself lawful or unlawful. Hawk. P. C. c. 65, § 1. And see State v. Stalcup, 23 N. C. 30, 35 Am. Dec. 732; Dixon v. State, 105 Ga. 787, 31 S. E. 750; State v. Brazil, Rice (S. C.) 260; Marshall v. Buffalo, 50 App. Div. 149, 64 N. Y. Supp. 411; Aron v. Wausau, 98 Wis. 592, 74 N. W. 354, 40 In R. A. 733; Lycoming F. Ins. Co., v. Schwenk, 95 Pa. 96, 40 Am. Rep. 629. When three or more persons together, and In a violent or tumultuous manner, assemble together to do an unlawful act, or together do a lawful act in an unlawful, violent, or tumultuous manner, to the disturbance of others, they are guilty of a riot. Rev. Code Iowa 1880, § 4067. Any use of force or violence, disturbing the public peace, or any threat to use such torce or violence, lf accompanied by immediate power of execution, by two or more persons acting together, and without authority of law, is a riot. Pen. Co.de Cal. § 404.

— Riot act. A celebrated English statute, which provides that, if any twelve persons or more are unlawfully assembled and disfurbing the peace, any sheriff, under-sheriff, justice of the peace, or mayor may, by proclamation, command them to disperse, (which is familiarly called "reading the riot act,") and that if they refuse to obey and remnin together for the space of one hour after such proclamation, they are all guilty oi felony. The act is 1 Geo. I. St. 2. c. 5.

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.

A breach of the three more v. Affray,

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.