¶1 It was clearly within the discretion of the court, for cause shown, to place the case at the end of the trial docket. But it is provided by C. S., 401 that a party may appear “either in person or by attorney in actions or proceedings in which he is interested.” Thus, the provision requiring plaintiff to employ counsel would seem to be at variance with the statute.
¶2 It is the general holding that a party has the right to appear in propria persona or by counsel. This right is alternative. A party has no right to appear both by himself and by counsel. Nor should he be *371 permitted ex gratia to do so. Talbot v. Talbot's Reps., 25 Marshall’s Reports (Ky.), 3; Comrs. v. Younger, 29 Cal., 147, 87 Am. Dec., 164, and note; 4 C. J., 1322; 2 R. C. L., 937.
¶3 In the instant case, the plaintiff prefers “to go it alone.” This is bis right. He may not get to first base, but he is entitled to come to the bat.
¶4 The order will be modified as indicated, and, as thus modified, it will be affirmed.
¶5 Modified and affirmed.