
    Dinsmore v. Kreighbaum.
    [No. 12,481.
    Filed April 22, 1926.
    Rehearing denied July 3, 1926.]
    Appeal. — Appellate tribunal may, in its discretion, treat the failure of the appellee to file a brief in support of the action and rulings of the trial court as a confession of error, and reverse the judgment on a prima facie showing of reversible error.
    From Fulton Circuit Court; Reuben R. Carr, Judge.
    Action by Esther Dinsmore against Jacob W. Kreighbaum. From a judgment for defendant, the plaintiff appeals.
    
      Reversed.
    
    By the court in banc.
    
      Harley A. Logan, for appellant.
   Nichols, C. J.

Action for seduction by appellant against appellee. There was a trial by jury and a verdict against appellant, on which judgment was rendered, from which this appeal. The error assigned is the action of the court in overruling appellant’s motion for a new trial, under which appellant presents that there was error in giving instruction No. 9 tendered by appellee. This instruction calls special attention to appellant as a witness, and to parts of her evidence.in such a way as that she may have been discredited and prejudiced thereby. Appellant has fully briefed the question and makes, in the opinion of this court, a prima facie showing that reversible error was committed. Appellee has failed to file any brief and the court, in its discretion, will treat such failure to file a brief, thereby attempting to aid the court in learning whether or not reversible error in fact was committed, as a confession of error. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Linder (1925), 195 Ind. 569, 145 N. E. 885; Goldberg v. Hauer (1924), 81 Ind. App. 23, 142 N. E. 125.

Judgment reversed.  