plaintiff in error and his co-defendants and were properly admitted as showing intent and guilty knowledge.

It is objected that the statement of the assets and liabilities of the LaSalle Street Trust and Savings Bank admitted in evidence, and which was published in one of the newspapers in Chicago, is wholly different from the statement set out in hæc verba in the sixth count of the indictment, and that in this there was a fatal variance. It is a sufficient answer to say that no objection on the ground of variance was made when this statement was offered.

Complaint is made of various instructions given on behalf of the People. On the question of the credibility of plaintiff in error the court instructed the jury that although the plaintiff in error had a right to testify the jury were not bound to believe his testimony, but in considering the credit to be given to it they might take into consideration his interest in the case and "his desire to evade punishment for the crime with which he is charged." It was error to give this instruction. In People v. Arnold, 248 Ill. 169, an instruction was given which told the jury that they were not required to receive blindly the testimony of the accused, "but you are to consider whether it is true and made in good faith, or false and made only for the purpose of avoiding a conviction." In holding it was error to give this instruction we said: "The instruction had the effect to prejudice the testimony of the defendant by telling the jury they were not required to receive it blindly, with the intimation that it might be merely fabricated for the purpose of avoiding a just conviction." This instruction is even more objectionable than the instruction in the Arnold case. By the use of the word "although" the testimony of plaintiff in error was to some degree discredited, and the same objectionable features are contained in this instruction that were contained in the one given in the Arnold case.

A number of character witnesses were called on behalf of plaintiff in error, and the jury were instructed that such

evidence is permissible and to be considered as a circumstance in the case, "but a good reputation is no defense in a criminal prosecution," the instruction concluding properly that if the jury believed, from the evidence, that plaintiff in error was guilty as charged, it was their duty to so find notwithstanding the fact that theretofore he had borne a good reputation. Without the sentence quoted the instruction was good and stated the law correctly but with that sentence included the instruction was erroneous. Reputation is properly a part of the defense in a criminal prosecution if it is put in issue. It is true it is not a defense to crime, but it is proper to be considered as a defense to a criminal charge.

One of the instructions complained of is as follows: "The court further instructs you that in determining the question of the existence of a conspiracy you will take into consideration the relations of the parties to one another, their personal and business association with each other, and all the facts in evidence, if any, that tend to show what transpired between them at or before the time of the alleged combination as well as the acts performed by each party subsequent to such alleged combination, if any, in respect to the subject matter of the alleged conspiracy, and from these facts and circumstances, and from all the evidence in the case, you will determine whether a combination in fact existed and whether such combination was illegal in its inception or became that way any subsequent time."

Plaintiff in error contends that it was error to tell the jury what they ought to or must take into consideration. Instead of telling the jury they will take certain matters into consideration they should have been told that they may do so. In view of the closing argument of Hayes and Bell, heretofore referred to, it was error to give this instruction, as the jury, after hearing the statements of counsel as to the failure of Lorimer and Huttig to testify and the ruling of the court thereon, might well take this instruction to

280 - 5

mean that they must take into consideration the act of Lorimer and Huttig in not testifying in the case in behalf of plaintiff in error.

By another instruction the jury were told that it was not necessary for the State to prove each and every count in the indictment, but that if it proved any one or more of the counts beyond a reasonable doubt then it was their sworn duty to return a verdict of guilty. It is contended that this was error for the reason that the fourth count of the indictment was insufficient, and was, in effect, made a part of this instruction to the jury. The fourth count alleges that "C. B. Munday & Co. was a firm and co-partnership controlled by the said Charles B. Munday and in the management of which the said Charles B. Munday was actively engaged," and contains like allegations as to other concerns in which plaintiff in error and Lorimer were interested. The objection is that the count is not specific in charging when plaintiff in error and Lorimer were actively engaged in the various enterprises, the words “then and there" not appearing in the various allegations in the count. It is true, as plaintiff in error contends, that each count of the indictment, including the fourth, was virtually incorporated into this instruction, but as a part of an instruction this count would not be tested by the same rules as when tested by a motion to quash. This instruction was given after the evidence was in. The evidence disclosed that at the time the crime was alleged to have been committed plaintiff in error managed and controlled the firm of C. B. Munday & Co. and the other concerns in which it is alleged in the fourth count he was interested, and that Lorimer at that time was actively interested in the concerns which the fourth count alleges he controlled or was interested in. This instruction was not misleading and it was not error to give it.

The giving of other instructions is complained of, but we are of the opinion that they were properly given.

Complaint is made of the action of the court in refusing to give a number of instructions asked on the part of plaintiff in error. Plaintiff in error offered 272 instructions, of which over 200 were refused. The asking of this unusual number of instructions was entirely unnecessary and counsel were not warranted in imposing upon the court the task of passing upon them. The court would have been justified in refusing to consider them and in requiring counsel to present a reasonable number of instructions. On account of the unreasonable number of the instructions offered we will not review the action of the court in passing upon the instructions tendered by plaintiff in error and refused.

It is contended that the attitude of the court was apparently hostile to plaintiff in error, and that the method of conducting the trial and the events occurring during the trial were such as to prejudice his rights. Complaint is made of the action of the court in permitting representatives of various newspapers claimed to be hostile to plaintiff in error to take photographs of the jury, the defendant and the court, and in suspending the progress of the trial at different times to permit these photographs and moving pictures to be taken. It does not appear that any objection was interposed on behalf of plaintiff in error to the taking of the photographs and moving pictures. On the contrary, it does appear from the record that it was expressly consented to. Whether or not the parties consented to the taking of the photographs, and without regard to whether such acts were prejudicial, the court should not have permitted it. It is not in keeping with the dignity a court should maintain, or with the proper and orderly conduct of its business, to permit its sessions to be interrupted and suspended for such a purpose.

In support of the motion for a new trial a number of affidavits were filed to the effect that a large number of women were given seats on the rostrum beside the judge during the trial, and particularly during the arguments to

the jury. These affidavits are to the effect that the attitude. of these women was hostile to plaintiff in error and that at times this hostility was openly demonstrated. Counteraffidavits were filed admitting that a number of women occupied the rostrum during the greater portion of the trial but denying all the other statements contained in the affidavits filed in support of the motion. Nothing appears in the bill of exceptions or the record except these affidavits which has a bearing upon this question. From the affidavits it is a controverted question of fact whether or not any demonstration was made by the women who occupied the rostrum with the court. If plaintiff in error desired to have this question preserved and passed upon he should have excepted to such demonstrations, if any, at the time they were made and should have procured the court to include a statement of the facts in the bill of exceptions. The court should not have permitted spectators to occupy the rostrum. While all trials are conducted publicly and ordinarily anyone has the right to attend the sessions of the courts, spectators should be confined to that part of the court room set apart for their use. They should not be invited, or permitted, to occupy positions that would tend to obstruct the orderly and dignified conduct of the business of the court or would afford them unusual advantage to convey to the jury indications of their approval or disapproval of the events of the trial as they transpired. The trial of a case should consist only of the sober investigation of the matters in issue. It is not to be regarded as an entertainment or in any sense as a festive occasion. The court should not permit the conversion of the court room into a picture gallery or the trial of a case into a show.

For the reasons given the judgments of the circuit and Appellate Courts are reversed and the cause is remanded to the circuit court for a new trial.

Reversed and remanded.