1. The movant for new trial or his counsel having failed to appear at the time and place fixed by the court's order for the hearing of the motion, or to present a brief of the evidence, and having shown no reason or excuse for the failure, the judge had jurisdiction to dismiss the motion for want of prosecution.
2. No abuse of discretion appears in the refusal to vacate the judgment of dismissal.
1. Where the motion for new trial was not heard on March 30, 1940, as duly provided by order, and no order was taken at that time fixing a later date for the hearing, the provisions of the original term order as quoted above would have had the effect of making the motion for new trial returnable at the next term of court, in the absence of further action within the purview of such original order; but under the specific provisions of paragraph (a) thereof the hearing could be accelerated by an agreement of counsel in writing, made after March 30, fixing a new time and place for hearing in vacation, before the beginning of the ensuing term; and it appearing from the record that on written agreement of counsel the judge entered an order dated as of April 1, 1940, providing for hearing at Athens on April 20, 1910, the judge had jurisdiction to pass upon the motion at such time and place. Eady v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co.,
2. The movant having failed to appear at the time and place last fixed for the hearing, to wit, April 20, 1940, at Athens, or to present a brief of evidence, and having shown at that time no reason or excuse for his failure to appear and prosecute the motion, the judge had jurisdiction at that time to dismiss the motion for a new trial as for want of prosecution.
3. It does not appear from the pleadings and the evidence that there was any abuse of discretion in refusing the prayers of the petition to set aside the judgment dismissing the motion for a new trial and to reinstate the case.
Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur. *Page 661
