The GUILT OF MOBBING. he should have been personally present at all. rule that the instigator is as guilty as the perpetrator, applies with special force to the case of mobbing (1). In the ordinary case the instigation is merely to commit a single act, whereas the instigator of an act of mobbing can form no estimate of the consequences which may result from it. And a person who has one leaving not been actively engaged in a mob, is not necessarily free of what done from the guilt of acts done in pursuance of the common purpose after he has left it (2). If a rioter Persons arrested has been apprehended and the mob take up the new to rescue. purpose of rescuing him, the prisoner may be guilty, art and part, of the attempt to rescue him, if he, by his conduct, lead to or encourage it (3). necessarily free afterwards. encouraging mob COMMON LAW. The punishment at common law is either penal PUNISHMENT AT servitude or imprisonment. Strictly speaking a capital sentence does not follow on a charge of mobbing at common law. Members of a mob may be charged with murders committed by the mob, but the murder is set forth as a substantive offence, the fact that it was committed as part of an act of mobbing, being one which only affects the mode of proof of accession to the murder. destruction of By the Riot Act (4), as amended (5), it is an RIOT ACT. offence punishable by penal servitude for life or not less than fifteen years, or by imprisonment for not more than three years, for an unlawful and tumultuous assem- Tumultuous blage to destroy, or begin to destroy, any recognised place buildings. of worship, or any dwelling-house, barn, stable, or other outhouse (6). There must be manifest intent to destroy, independent of such injury as is committed only for the purpose of getting inside the building. Breaking 1 Hume i. 421.-Alison 1. 518. 2 James Nicolson and John Shearer, Inverness, April 15th 1847; Ark. 264. 3 Case of Nicolson and Shearer, supra. 4 Act i. Geo. I. c. 5. 5 Act 7 Will. IV. and 1 Vict. c. 91, as further amended by the penal servitude Act 20 and 21 Vict. c. 3. 6 The Act 52 Geo. III. c. 130 extends the penalties to the demolition of manufactories and warehouses and colliery machinery and works. RIOT ACT. within or de sufficient. doors or windows from without, in order to effect an Destroying from entrance, or destroying external ornaments, does not molishing roof fall within the sanction of the statute. But destruction of any part of the building from within, or tearing down slates or lead from the roof, falls within the statute (1). Demolition by tearing down is the only mode of destruction mentioned by the Act, and accordingly to burn a building, or blow it up, does not constitute a contravention (2). Persons not dispersing within mation. The Riot Act provides that if twelve or more perhour of procla- sons who are unlawfully, tumultuously and riotously assembled, to the disturbance of the peace, remain together for an hour after proclamation made by a justice of peace, sheriff or under sheriff in a county, or by a justice of peace, or mayor, bailiff or other head officer, ordering them to disperse, they shall be liable to penal servitude for life, or not less than fifteen years, or to imprisonment not exceeding three years (3). The proclamation cannot be made by an ordinary constable or Forcible preven peace-officer (4). Further, if any persons by force and arms, prevent the proclamation from being made, they are liable to a similar punishment. And those who know that the proclamation has been so prevented, and remain riotously assembled for an hour after the time when it was prevented, are punishable in the tion of proclamation. Not necessary mob commit same manner. It is not necessary that the mob have proceeded to actual violence. any overt act of violence, either to justify the reading of the proclamation, or to bring the rioters within the These acts, as well as that part of 1 Hume i. 434 and case of Darrachs there.-Alison i. 530. 2 Hume i. 434.-Alison i. 530. 3 The punishment was death until the Act was amended by 7 Will. IV. and 1 Vict. c. 91, which Act was amended by the penal servitude Act 20 and 21 Vict. c. 3. 4 Hume i. 435 and case of Fairney and others there. sumed to hear. sanction of the Act after the lapse of an hour (1). The RIOT ACT. riotous assemblage is sufficient. And all present are all present prepresumed to hear the proclamation. But if a person person joining join the mob after the proclamation, he does not incur clamation. the high penalty of the Act, unless it be shown that he knew that proclamation had been made (2). RIOT AND BREACH OF PEACE. mob after pro OF PEACE. without con " course or com peace viduals. Breach of peace. All riotous conduct similar to the proceedings which RIOT AND BREACH constitute mobbing, but in which concourse, and a common purpose, or either of them, are wanting, fall under Disturbance the denomination of "Rioting and Breach of the Peace," mon purpose. or " Breach of the Peace" (3). Riotous and disorderly Riot by indiconduct by one or more individuals is matter of daily prosecution in police courts (4). Breach of the may be committed without any violence. violence. Challenging Challenge. a person to fight (5), or persistently behaving in a disorderly manner in a church or at a public meeting, are Disorderly conbreaches of the peace (6). Where a person repeatedly or in church, and wilfully left a church in a noisy manner, annoying the minister and congregation, a verdict finding him guilty of breach of the peace, but negativing malice, was sustained (7). Breach of the peace may be committed in a private house or in private premises (8). 1 Hume i. 435.-Alison i. 533. 2 Hume i. 436.-Alison i. 534. 3 John M'Cabe and others, Glasgow, Jan. 12th 1838; 2 Swin. 20.See also Michael Currie and others, H.C., Dec. 9th 1864; 4 Irv. 578, (Lord Neaves' opinion.) 4 See the case of Durrin and Stewart v. Mackay, H.C., March 14th 1859; 3 Irv. 341 and 31 S.J. 394. -Alison is scarcely correct in saying that the term "Rioting" is peculiarly applicable to the outrageous behaviour of a single individual.-Alison i. 510. 5 Hume i. 442-Alison i. 579, 580.-Jas. M'Kechnie, June 18th 6 Sleigh and Russell v. Moxey, 7 Dougal v. Dykes, H.C., Nov. 18th 1861; 4 Irv. 101 and 34 S. J. 29. 8 Matthews and Rodden v. Linton, H.C., Feb. 27th 1860; 3 Irv. 570. duct at meeting, or in a private house. OF PEACE. Duelling. violently invadIndeed, many RIOT AND BREACH Such acts are sometimes charged as ing the houses of the lieges" (1). offences which are prosecuted under other names, are breaches of the peace. All acts of assault, including duelling (2), and even acts of mere stealth, such as attempting to pick pockets, may be prosecuted as breaches of the peace (3). Insulting language without any violence, or gesture of attack, or protracted annoyance, is not breach of the peace (4). Attempting to pick pockets. Insulting language. PUNISHMENT The punishment is rarely extended beyond fine or imprisonment. DEFINITION OF Definition of game. POACHING. NIGHT POACHING. The law against night poaching is statutory (5). Night, under the Act, begins with the expiry of the first hour after sunset, and ends at the beginning of the last hour before sunrise. "Game" includes hares, pheasants, patridges, grouse, heath or moor game, black game, and bustards (6). Taking, or being " on land with instruments for taking game. 1st offence. I. Any person who shall "by night unlawfully take or destroy any game or rabbits in any land whether open or enclosed," or enter, or be in any land, "whether open or enclosed, with any gun, net, engine, "or other instrument, for the purpose of taking or destroying game," shall, upon conviction before two Justices or before the Sheriff (7) be committed for a period not exceeding three months, with hard labour, and shall, at the end of the imprisonment, find caution, 1 Alison i. 633, 634, and cases of Watson and others; and Turner and others there. 2 Jas. B. Burn and others, H.C., Jan. 6th 1842; 1 Broun 1 and Bell's Notes 112. 3 Jackson v. Linton, H.C., Feb. 27th 1860 3 Irv. 563. 4 Galbraith v. Muirhead, H.C., Nov. 17th 1856; 2 Irv. 520 and 29 S.J. 15.-See also Buist v. Linton, H.C., Nov. 20th 1865; 38 S.J. 47 and 1 S. L.R. 35. 5 Acts 9 Geo. IV. c. 69.-7 and 8 Vict. c. 29. 6 Act 9 Geo. IV. c. 69, § 12, and § 13, incorporated with 7 and 8 5 Vict. c. 29. 7 Act 9 Geo.. IV., c. 69 § 10. POACHING. himself in £10, and two sureties of £5, for a year, failing which, he shall be kept at hard labour till caution is found, or till the expiry of six months additional. On a second conviction, he shall be com- 24 offence. mitted for a period not exceeding six months, with hard labour, and thereafter find caution, himself in £20, and two sureties of £10, or one of £20, for two years, failing which, he shall be kept at hard labour till caution is found, or till the expiry of one year additional. On conviction of a third offence before 3d offence. the Court of Justiciary (1), he shall be liable to penal servitude for from five to seven years, or to be imprisoned with hard labour for any period not exceeding two years (2). one offence. armed, all guilty. At one time this section was dealt with as if the Section sets forth taking and destroying, and the entering or being upon land for that purpose, were distinct offences (3). But it has been decided that it describes only one offence which may be committed in two different ways (4). The being on land with instruments applies not only to One of several the person who has the instrument, but to those who are with him, and are participant in his purpose (5). The offence of unlawfully taking or destroying game or Taking game or rabbits by night, has been extended to any one doing on any public road, highway, or path, or on the "sides thereof, or at the openings, outlets, or gates "from any such land into any such public road, highway or path" (6). But being on a road with instru 66 1 Act 9 Geo. IV. c. 69, § 11. 2 Penal servitude is substituted for transportation by 20 and 21 Vict. c. 3, § 2, as amended by 27 and 28 Vict. c. 47, § 2. 3 Jones and M'Ewan & Mitchell, H.C., Dec, 23d 1853; 1 Irv. 33 and 26 S.J. 146 (Lord Justice Clerk Hope's opinion). See also Geo. Duncan, H.C., Dec. 21st 1852; 1 Irv. 130. 4 Geo. Duncan, H.C., Feb. 29th 1864; 4 Irv. 474 and 36 S.J. 404. 5 Andrew Granger, Perth, Sept. 17th 1863; 4 Irv. 432 and 36 S.J. 3. This case overrules that of Geo. Binnie and Rob. Orrock, H.C., Mar. 15th 1827; Syme 177, whch was a prosecution under the older statute, 57 Geo. III. c. 90. 6 Act 7 and 8 Vict. c. 29, § 1. rabbits on road. |