Case ID: me_34/html/0235-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Shepley, C. J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

State versus Boies.
    An allegation that tie defendant and others, being assembled, did in a violent, tumultuous and riotous manner, perform a described unlawful act, to tie terror and disturbance of tie people, is a sufficient charge of a riot.
    To obstruct and break up a “justice’s Court” in a violent and tumultuous manner, to the disturbance and terror of the people, is an unlawful act, whether the person, acting as a justice, was or was not duly commissioned, and whether be was proceeding lawfully or unlawfully in the business before him.
    On Exceptions from the District Court, Rice, J.
    Indictment for a riot.
    The second count charged that “ the defendant, together with divers others, to the number of ten, on, at, &c., with force and arms, did unlawfully, riotously, routously and in a violent and tumultuous manner assemble to disturb the peace of the State, and being so then and there assembled, did unlawfully, riotously, routously and in a violent and tumultuous manner then and there disturb, obstruct, hinder and break up a justice’s court, then and there held before Joseph Barrett, one of the justices of the peace within and for the county of Somerset aforesaid, to the terror and disturbance of others of the good people of the said State, against the peace of the said State and contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided.”
    On this count, the defendant was found guilty, and after verdict moved in arrest of judgment for the following alleged causes : — The count is too general, indefinite and uncertain in its description of the offence attempted to be charged. It is not alleged, that said Barrett was then, and there hearing or trying any action, civil or criminal, or that he was then and there engaged in the trying of any action, plea or complaint of which he, as magistrate, could or did have jurisdiction.
    It is not alleged that Barrett was then and there a justice of the peace duly commissioned.
    It is not alleged what act or breach of the peace said Boies and divers others assembled to commit.
    It is not alleged who assembled at the time and place named with the defendant.
    It is not alleged what act was done by said Boies and others, when so assembled, and in what manner they proceeded to break up, disturb, obstruct and hinder said justice’s court.
    It is not alleged to the terror and disturbance of whom said act was done.
    It is not alleged that these acts were done and committed with the intent to disturb and put in terror any individual or individuals of the people of this State.
    The Judge refused to arrest the judgment, and the defendant excepted.
    Hutchinson, for the defendants.
    
      Tallman, Att’y Gen., for the State.
   The opinion of the Court, Shepley, C. J., Tenney, Howard and Appleton, J. J., was delivered by

Shepley, C. J.,

orally.;— The indictment charges, that the defendant and others, being assembled, did, in a violent and tumultuous manner, obstruct and break up a justice’s court, held by one Barrett, to the terror of the people. To break up a court in such a manner was an unlawful act whether Barrett was or was not commissioned, and whether he was or was not proceeding lawfully in the business before him.

The allegations of the indictment sufficiently charge the offence of a riot. Exceptions overruled.