
    Fisher vs. The State of Georgia.
    Where the defendant, with a number of others, came together in a violent and tumultuous manner, and by menaces and threats, endeavored to release from the hands of an officer a party he had arrested and held in custody to answer for an offence’ against the laws of the State, this constituted the offence of riot and warranted a conviction therefor.
    
      (a) There is nothing in the case of Barron et al. vs. State, 74 Ga. 833, in conflict with this ruling.
    December 21, 1886.
    Criminal Law. Riot. Before Judge Harris. Coweta Superior Court. March Term, 1886.
    Clark Fisher and several others were indicted for riot. Fisher pleaded not guilty. The evidence for the State showed, in brief, the following facts: A policeman arrested one Beadles; whereupon a large crowd of negroes gathered about the officer and the prisoner, declaring that the latter should not be imprisoned. Other police arrived, and the prisoner was safely conducted to jail. Fisher was prominent in the crowd, using violent, threatening and profane language. One of the mob took hold of the prisoner and sought to release him, but the effort was unsuccessful. One witness testified that he thought Fisher also took hold of the prisoner; but on this point the evidence was conflicting. The prisoner was released on bond and renewed the altercation with the town marshal, accompanied by the defendant, who continued his violent and abusive language.
    The evidence for the defendant tended to show that he did not take hold of the prisoner, and that his character was good. The jury found him guilty. He moved for a new trial, which was refused, and he excepted.
    Wm. Wells ; P. F. Smith, by brief, for plaintiff in error.
    H. M. Reid, solicitor-general; B. F. Thompson, solicitor county court, for the State.
   Hall, Justice.

The defendant, with a number of others, came together in a violent and tumultuous manner, and by menaces and threats, endeavored to rescue from the hands of an officer a party he had arrested and held in custody to answer for an offence against the laws of the State. Upon being convicted of riot and sentenced, he sought a new trial, which was refused him, and he alleges that the judgment refusing it was erroneous, because he was not amenable to the law for simply making a noise or behaving tumultuously, violence being an essential ingredient in the offence of riot, and as he did not strike the officer, or any of his posse, or any other person in the crowd, he was guilty of no unlawful act of violence, or of any other act done in a violent and tumultuous manner; but if an assault upon an officer of the law by a mob, of which defendant was one, who tumultuously endeavored to rescue a prisoner from his custody, be not an unlawful act of violence, then we are at a loss to know what would constitute such an act. Code, §4514, and citations. Stokes et al. vs. State, 73 Ga. 816. There is nothing in the case of Barron et al. decided at February term, 1885, 74 Ga. 833, in conflict with this ruling.

Judgment affirmed.  