Dinsmore v. Kreighbaum

151 N.E. 436, 85 Ind. App. 168, 1926 Ind. App. LEXIS 113

Opinion

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.