
    FATE v. STATE.
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    March 18, 1914.)
    1. Criminal Law (§ 651) — View and Inspection.
    ‘ In a prosecution for rape, the court properly refused to send the jury, at defendant’s request, to inspect the ground where the offense was alleged to have occurred.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 1516-1519; Dec. Dig. § 651.]
    2. Criminal Law (§ 922) — Objections to Instructions — 1Time eok Objection.
    ■ It is too late to complain for the first time of the instructions in the motion for a new trial.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2210-2218; Dec. Dig. § 922.]
    3. Cbiminal Law (§ 884) — Verdict—Extent of Punishment.
    Where a verdict fixes the imprisonment within the period fixed by law as punishment for the offense, it is not excessive.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2107, 2526; Dec. Dig. § 884.]
    4. Criminal Law (§ 991) — Indeterminate Sentence.
    Where, in a prosecution for rape, the jury assessed the punishment at 99 years, the court should have, under the indeterminate sentence law, sentenced defendant for not' less than 5 nor more than 99 years.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2518, 2525, 2528; Dec. Dig/ § 991.]
    Appeal from District Court, Graysou County; W. J. Mathis, Judge.
    Green Fate was convicted of rape, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    
      C. E. Lane, Asst.Atty. Gen., for the State.
    
      
      For other'cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. ¿ Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep’r Indexes
    
   HARPER, J.

Appellant was prosecuted and convicted of rape, and Ms punishment assessed at 99 years’ confinement in the state penitentiary.

The appellant complains that the court erred in not sending the jury, at Ms request, to inspect the ground where the offense is alleged to have occurred. The court correctly refused the request. A jury cannot be permitted to travel around over the country, receiving evidence by sight alone, and which they might discuss without the knowledge of appellant.

The court’s charge fully and fairly presented every issue in the case, and it was not necessary to give any of the special charges. Some of those requested would have been on the weight to be given the testimony, and, of course, these ought to'have been refused, while those that presented the law are fully covered by the court’s charge. There was no objection filed to the court’s charge prior to the time it was read to the jury, and under our law now it is too late to complain of the charge as given for the first time in the motion for a new trial. However, had the objections presented in the motion for new trial been made at the proper time, no error would have been presented.

Oomplaint is made that the verdict is excessive. Whenever the verdict is within the period of time fixed by law as punishment for the offense, it is not excessive. However, in pronouncing sentence, under the indeterminate sentence law (Acts 33d Leg. c. 132, amended by Acts 33d Leg. [1st Called Sess.] c. 5), the court should have sentenced appellant for a term of years not less than 5 nor moré than 99 years, and the sentence is here now reformed and corrected, so that it shall so read.

The judgment is affirmed.  