them, in the execution of some enterprise of a private nature, and afterwards actually executing the same in a violent and turbulent nanner, to the terror of the people, whether the act intended were of itself lawful or unlawful. Hawk. P. C. c. 65, § 1. And see State v. Stalcup, 23 N. C. 30, 35 Am. Dec. 732; Dixon v. State, 105 Ga. 787, 31 S. E. 7350; State v. Brazil, Rice (S. C.) 260; Marshall v. Buffalo, 50 App. Div. 149, 64 N. Y. Supp. 411; Aron vy. Wausau, 98 Wis. 592, 74 N. W. 354, 40 L. R. A. 733; Lycoming F. Ins. Co. v. Schwenk, 95 Pa. 96, 40 Am. Rep. 629. When three or more persons together, and in a violent or tumultuous manner, assemble together to do an unlawful act, or together do a lawful act in an unlawful, violent, or tumultuous manner, to the disturbance of others, they are guilty of a riot. Rev. Code Iowa 1880, § 4067. Any use of force or violence, disturbing the public peace, or any threat to use such force or violence, if accompanied by immediate power of execution, by two or more persons acting together, and without authority of law, is a riot. Pen. Code Cal. § 404. —Riot act. <A celebrated English statute, which provides that, if any twelve persons or more -are unlawfully assembled and disturbing the peace, any sheriff, under-sheriff, justice of the peace, or mayor may, by proclamation, command them to disperse, (which is familiarly called “reading the riot act,”) and that if they refuse to obey, and remain together for the space of one hour after such proclamation, they are all guilty of felony. The act is 1 Geo. I. St. 2, Cc, ov. Belonging or relating to the bank of a river; of or on the bank. Land lying beyond the natural watershed of a strernm is not “riparian.” Bathgate v. Irvine, 126 Cal. 135, 58 Pac. 442, T7 Am. St. Rep. 158. The term is sometimes used as re- lating to the shore of the sea or other tidal water, or of a lake or other considerable body of water not having the character of a water-course. But this is not accurate. The proper word to be employed in such connections is “littoral.” See Com. v. Roxbury, 9 Gray (Mass.) 521, note. —Riparian nations. In international law. Those who possess opposite banks or different arts of banks of one and the same river.— iparian owner. A riparian proprietor; one who owns land on the bank of a river.—Riparian Reoperet er: An owner of land, bounded generally upon a stream of water, and as such paying a que property in the soil to the thread of the stream with the privileges annexed thereto by law. Bardwell v. Ames, 22 Pick. nat 355: Potomac Steamboat Co. v. Upper otomac Steamboat Co., 109 U. S. 672, 3 Sup. Ct. 445, 27 L. Ed. 1070; Gough v. Bell, ; N. J. Law, 464—Riparian rights. The rights of the owners of lands on the banks of watercourses, relating to the water, its use, ownership of soil under the stream, accretions, etc. See Yates v. Milwaukee, 10 Wall. 497, 19 L. Ed. 984; Mobile ea Co. v. Mobile, 128 Ala. 335, 80 South. 645 IL. R. A. ; 86 Am. St. Rep. 143; McCarthy vy. Murphy, 119 Wis. 159, N. W. 531. ; Riparum usus publicus est jure gentium, sicut ipsius fluminis. The use of river-banks is by the law of nations public, like that of the stream itself. Dig. 1, 8, 5, pr.; Fleta, lL 3, ¢ 1, § 5.