4 Ind. 114 | Ind. | 1853
Indictment for a riot. Jury trial, conviction, motion for a new trial overruled, and judgment against the defendants.
The bill of exceptions in the case states the substance of the evidence given as follows: “Jesse Bankus, Lewis Simpson, William Woods, and William McShirely, four of the defendants, were on trial, and three witnesses were examined on the part of the state, (one of whom was engaged in the alleged riot with the defendants), whose tes
The question is, whether, upon the foregoing evidence, the jury were authorized to find the defendants 'guilty of a riot.
The R. S. of 1843, enact, p. 973, that “if three or more persons shall actually do an unlawful act of violence >
A great noise in the night-time, -made by the human voice or by blowing a trumpet, is a nuisance to those near whom it is made. The making of such a noise, therefore, in the vicinity of inhabitants, is an unlawful act; and, if made by three or more persons in concert, is, by the statute of 1843, a riot. All these facts exist in the present case. Plere was a great noise, heard a mile, in the night-time, made with human voices and a trumpet, in the vicinity of inhabitants. The requirements of the statute for the making out of the offence are filled. The noise was also made tumultuously. The act itself involves tumultuousness of manner in its performance. But it is said, here was no alarm or fear. The statute defining the offence says nothing about alarm or fear. In this case, however, it was only the witnesses who were not alarmed. Others within the distance of the mile in which the noise was heard, and who were not present to observe the actual condition of things, may have been, and doubtless were, alarmed; and the pedler was afraid his horses would be stolen.
It is said the rioters were in good humor. Very likely, as they were permitted to carry on their operations without interruption. But with what motive were they performing these good-humored acts ? Not, certainly, for the gratification of Wise and his family. They were giving them what is called a charivari, which Webster defines and explains as follows : “ A mock serenade of discordant music, kettles, tin-pans, &c., designed to annoy and insult. It was at first directed against widows who married a second time, at an advanced age, but is now extended to other occasions of nocturnal annoyance and insult.”
Again, it is urged that these defendants were but acting in accordance with the custom of the country. -But a cus
The case before us we regard as a plain, but not an aggravated one, of riot, and the judgment below must be affirmed. The defendants were fined but 3 dollars each.
The judgment is affirmed with costs.