Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1900-03-24
COURT DECISIONS.
DlGESTED BY W. B. MARTIN.
EXCLUSIVELY FOR
vIRcINlAM- PILOT.
Notes Of Cases Recently Decided,
Which are Of Interest to
Our People.
TRIP V. STATE.
Supreme Court of Georgia.
January "a, 1900.

SouPtciilc COURT Oh Georgia.
January 24./ 1900.
s a PERSON CANNOT BE CONVICT
ED OF THE OFFENSE OF RIOT,
WHEN HE, ALONE, COMMITTED
y AN UNLAWFUL ACT OF VIo-
81 LENCE AND NO ONE ELSE PAR
f TICIPATED IN 1T.
q Henry and Albert Trip were con-
Z victed of riot, and appealed
The opinion states the facts.
The Court says:
The evidence tended to show: That
the defendants were in a buggy travel
mig the public road in front OF the
! house of Osborne. That Mrs Osborne
was stnndng i'll the porch of her res
idence, when the two defendants drove
rapidly by. That two children were in
Sfne road, and Mrs. Osborne found it
necessary to coll them to get out Of
the way of the rapidly passing vehicle.
After the defendants had driven 100
or more yards beyond the house, the
one who was not driving fled a pistol
in the air, and little further on fired
n pistol at a tenant house on the place.
The horse was being driven as fast as
die could trot. The one who was seat
cd on the left side of the buggy did
the firing. They did not seem to be
drunk nor were they boisterous. other
than in driving and shooting. The de-
PENDANTS were convicted, and the ques-
,tion presented by their petition for
ccrtiorari is, was the conviction law
full. under the evidence submitted We
think not The conduct of the defend
ant who did the shooting was most re-
prehenSible, and we ave no doubt that
the good lady who witnessed these oc-
rcurrences was not only shocked, but
frightened. and there ought to be
found a way to put q stop to such con-
n
the defendants were guilty Of the Of
Tense of riot, which by section 354 of
the Penal Code is thus defined: "If
two or more persons do an unlawful
act of violence. or any other act in a
violent and tumulouS manner they
shall be guilty of q riot, and be pun
ished as for misdemeanor." There
can be no question but that the firing
OF a pistol toward n tenement house
Is an unlawful act of violence, but in
the commission OF the offense of riot
there must be a joint action of two or
more persons. The act charged in this
case is the rapid driving on the public
read, and the firing of the pistol. The
evidence shows that the horse which
was being driven went as fast as he
could trot. This is not itself unlawful,
nor any act of violence, nor nesSarily
an act done in tumultuous manner.
IF it be said that coupled with such
driving was the firing of the pistol,
the reply is that the evidence in no
way connects the driver with the dis
charges of the pistol, and there Is
nothing in the evidence which tends
TO show that the firing was done In
pursuance OF a common intent. While
we are prepared 40 condemn such con-
duct in the most emphatic terms, we
cannot, as a matter of law, rule that
the defendants committed a riot. If
the evidence connected both parties
with the firing of the pistol, it might
be otherwise; but as IT was not shown
that the driver OF the horse had any
connection with the act of firing, and
as the joint action of at least two per-
sons is required to constitute the of
Tense. 1t is manifest that the convc-
ton cannot stand, and on the hearing
the certiorari should have been sus-
tanned.