CASES ARGUED AND DETERMINED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Defendant in Error, vs. JOHN CONNERS, Plaintiff in Error. Opinion filed June 29, 1910-Rehearing denied October 6, 1910. I. CRIMINAL LAW-verdict should stand unless palpably against. the weight of evidence. Whether the evidence in a criminal case is sufficient to warrant a verdict of guilty is in the first instance a question for the jury, and the verdict will not be set aside as unauthorized by the facts unless it is so palpably against the weight of evidence as to indicate it was based on passion or prejudice. 2. SAME--what evidence warrants a conviction for mayhem. Where four witnesses for the People testify to the presence and participation of the defendants in the assault upon the complaining witness, which resulted in the loss of his ear, and three witnesses for the defendants testify that the defendants were not present at the time of the assault but that the assault was committed by an unknown stranger, the jury are not unwarranted in finding a verdict of guilty. 3. SAME question of irregularity in drawing jury can only be raised by challenge to array. A challenge to the array is the only manner in which the question of irregularity in drawing the jury can be presented to the Supreme Court for decision, as a defendant cannot sit by and accept the jury without objection and after an adverse verdict seek to have the verdict set aside for some irregularity which existed at the time the jurors were accepted. 4. SAME when newly discovered evidence is not ground for a new trial. Alleged newly discovered evidence having some tendency to impeach certain statements of witnesses for the People, but which is not of any such conclusive character as would prob ably have changed the result of the trial, is not ground for setting aside the verdict and granting a new trial. 5. SAME-what is not such an improper remark as justifies reversal. A statement by the prosecuting attorney to the jury in a mayhem case, to the effect that they do not send a man to the penitentiary but merely indicate what the punishment shall be, and that if they thought it should be a penitentiary sentence they might so indicate but that the time was fixed by law, and that if a man is sent to the penitentiary he is subject to parole after he has been there a year, is not ground for reversal, as having a tendency to lead the jury to think the maximum punishment for mayhem was one year. (Farrell v. People, 133 Ill. 244, distinguished.) 6. SAME—when instruction as to evidence of alibi is not harmful. An instruction stating that when the jury have considered all the evidence, as well "that touching the question of alibi as the incriminating evidence," then, if they have any reasonable doubt of guilt, they should acquit, is not harmful, as tending to restrict the consideration of the defendant's evidence to that of an alibi, only, where the defendant's evidence does not tend to prove any other defense than that the accused was not present at the commission of the crime, which both parties treated as presenting the defense of an alibi. 7. APPEALS AND ERRORS-a party should copy in his brief the whole of the instruction complained of. A party who complains of an instruction should, in copying it in his brief, copy the whole instruction, and not merely the portion of which he complains. WRIT OF ERROR to the Criminal Court of Cook county; the Hon. WILLARD M. MCEWEN, Judge, presiding. DANIEL L. CRUICE, A. S. LANGILLE, and O. J. C. WRAY, for plaintiff in error. W. H. STEAD, Attorney General, JOHN E. W. WAYMAN, State's Attorney, and ROY WRIGHT, (JEREMIAH SULLIVAN, of counsel,) for the People. Mr. CHIEF JUSTICE VICKERS delivered the opinion of the court: Edward Donovan, William O'Connor, John Conners, Joseph Malloy and Thomas McDonald were jointly indicted by the grand jury of Cook county for the offense |