I must read to you:--

(1 Hawkins, ch. 65, section 3): "If a number of persons being met together
at a fair or market, or on any other lawful or innocent occasion,
happen, on a sudden quarrel, to fall together by the ears, they are
not guilty of a riot, but of a sudden affray only, of which none are
guilty but those who actually began it," etc.

It would be endless, as well as superfluous, to examine whether
every particular person engaged in a riot were in truth one of the
first assembly or actually had a previous knowledge of the design
thereof. I have endeavored to produce the best authorities, and to
give you the rules of law in their words, for I desire not to
advance anything of my own. I choose to lay down the rules of law
from authorities which cannot be disputed. Another point is this,
whether and how far a private person may aid another in distress?
Suppose a press-gang should come on shore in this town and assault
any sailor or householder in King Street, in order to carry him on
board one of his Majesty's ships, and impress him without any
warrant as a seaman in his Majesty's service; how far do you suppose
the inhabitants would think themselves warranted by law to interpose
against that lawless press-gang? I agree that such a press-gang
would be as unlawful an assembly as that was in King Street. If they
were to press an inhabitant and carry him off for a sailor, would not
the inhabitants think themselves warranted by law to interpose in
behalf of their fellow-citizen? Now, gentlemen, if the soldiers had
no right to interpose in the relief of the sentry, the inhabitants
would have no right to interpose with regard to the citizen, for
whatever is law for a soldier is law for a sailor and for a
citizen. They all stand upon an equal footing in this respect. I