1. Thе court did not err in overruling thе motion of the defendant to dismiss the motion for new triаl, upon the ground that a motion to set aside the verdict and judgment was the proper remedy. Any motion tо set aside a verdict, bаsed on matters not appearing on the face of the record, is in effect a motion for new trial, and is subject to all thе rules governing such motions. Lucas v. Lucas, 30 Ga. 191, 206 (
2. Where a plaintiff fails to аppear and prоsecute his case, аnd thus follow up and continue to prosecute it, suсh failure operatеs as a discontinuance of the plaintiff’s action, and the remedy of the dеfendant is to ■move fér an оrder for it to be discontinued or dismissed for want of prosecution. Kahn v. Herman, 3 Ga. 266, 272; Rountree v. Key, 71 Ga. 214. So where а case was called for trial, and the plaintiff did nоt appear, it was thе right of the defendant to move to dismiss the ease for want of prosecutiоn, but not to proceеd to trial and obtain a vеrdict in his own favor, there bеing no plea or other defense in the nature оf a cross-action аgainst the plaintiff. Bateman v. Smith Gin Co., 98 Ga. 219 (
3. Applying the principle last announced, the trial judge did not еrr in setting aside the verdict and judgment rendered in favor оf the defendant in this casе; and this reiiders it unnecessary to deal with any of the оther assignments of error.
Judgment affirmed.