clared its transfer from one to the other class. Section 2740 of the statute, supra, as amended by the act of 1916, is repugnant to its former provisions, and therefore, by implication repeals such of the former provisions as conflict with those of the act in its amended form. The act of 1916 is in no sense violative of section 51, Constitution. The subject expressed in the title has relation to but one thing or matter, viz.: the classification of cities and towns; and as all of its provisions relating to this one subject, expressed in the title, are germane to and naturally connected therewith, it meets every requirement of section 51. Burnsides v. Lincoln County Court, 86 Ky. 423; Mark v. Bloom, 141 Ky. 474; Commonwealth v. Starr, 160 Ky. 260. Moreover, publication in full of the act, as amended, makes it specific enough as to the subject embraced by it, to show for what part of the former act it is substituted, and consequently, what part of the former act it repeals. Commonwealth v. Reinecke Coal Mining Co., 117 Ky. 885. If we are not mistaken in concluding that London is a town of the sixth class, the further conclusion that it was without power to levy the tax complained of by appellees inevitably follows; for section 3704, subsection 3, Ky. Stats., enacted to carry section 157, Constitution, into effect, declares that the tax rate of cities, towns, counties, taxing districts and other municipalities of less than 1,000 population, that is of the sixth class, for other than school purposes, shall not exceed $0.50 on the $100.00. The limitation as to indebtedness, found in section 157, Constitution, provides that, unless necessary to pay the interest on and create a sinking fund for the extinction of indebtedness contracted before the adoption of the present Constitution, "no county, city, town, taxing district, or other municipality shall be authorized or permitted to become indebted in any manner or for any purpose, to an amount exceeding, in any year, the income or revenue provided for such year, without the assent of two-thirds of the voters thereof, voting at an election to be held for that purpose; and any indebtedness contracted in violation of this section shall be void." As in this case the right of the town of London to levy a tax was limited to $0.50 on each $100.00 of property, in imposing a tax of $0.75 on each $100.00 of prop erty it exceeded its powers; hence, the action of the circuit court in enjoining the collection of the tax in excess of $0.50 was not error. Wherefore, the judgment granting the injunction is affirmed. 1. 2. Sallie J. Thompson, et al. v. First National Bank's Receiver. J. M. Thompson v. First National Bank's Receiver. (Decided January 28, 1919.) Appeals from Muhlenberg Circuit Court. Judgment-Setting Aside Default Judgment.-The setting aside HUBERT MERIDETH for appellants. TAYLOR, EAVES & SPARKS for appellee. OPINION OF THE COURT BY JUDGE HURT-Reversing in each case. These appeals, by agreement of the parties, have been ordered to be heard and determined, together. In the first styled action, John A. Best, as the receiver of the First National Bank, of London, Ky., recovered a judgment, by default, against the appellants, Sallie J. Thompson and J. M. Thompson, for the sum of $1,500.00, with interest at 6% per annum, from September 5, 1913, and the further sum of $2,750.00, with interest thereon at 6% per annum, from September 25, 1913, both of which sums, with their accrued interest, amounting, at the time, the judgment was rendered, to about $5,259.00. The lia bility of appellants, it was alleged, in the petition, arose from the execution of two notes for the sums stated, to the First National Bank. In the second styled action, the receiver of the First National Bank, recovered a judgment, by default, against the appellant, J. M. Thompson, upon a promissory note, which, it was alleged, he had executed to one. Fitzgerald, who had transferred it to the bank, in the sum of $750.00, with the accrued interest, at 6% per annum, from the 2nd day of May, 1914, amounting, principal and interest, at the time of the rendition of the judgment, to the sum of about $900.00. Thus, the judgments, by default, in favor of the receiver, against J. M. Thompson, amounted to the sum of $6,159.00, and that, in favor of the receiver, against Sallie J. Thompson, amounted to the sum of $5,259.00. The petitions, in each of the actions, was filed on August 17, 1917, and the process served on August 23, 1917, which including the day of service, made the service of the process just ten days, before the first day of the Muhlenberg circuit court. When actions, at law, which were appearances, at that term, were called on the first day of the term, for the purpose of ascertaining, if there were defenses, J. M. Thompson was in the court room, but, whether under circumstances, that enabled him to hear the call of these cases, does not appear, and he states, in an affidavit, that he did not know of the rendition of the judgments, until several days thereafter, and just before the making of the affidavit. No one answering at the call of these cases, the judgments were rendered, for the amounts sued for. On the 12th day of September, thereafter, which was the ninth day of the term, the appellants entered motions to set aside each of the judgments, and with the motions, tendered their verified answers to the petitions. In the case against them, jointly, the appellants filed an answer, in which, Sallie J. Thompson denied, that she ever executed or delivered, either of the notes sued on, or authorized any one to execute or deliver them for her, and J. M. Thompson plead, that he had, long before the institution of the suit, paid and satisfied the notes to the bank. In the suit, against him, alone, J. M. Thompson, interposed a plea of payment of the note to the bank, before the institution of the suit. In support of the motions to set aside the judgments, the appellants filed their affidavits. The statements in the affidavits of both appellants, was to the effect, that at the time, the summons was served upon them, they fully intended to defend the actions against them, but, that Sallie J. Thompson was then preparing to go to visit and assist her mother, who was a very aged woman, and at the time, very ill, at her home, in Laurel county, Kv.: that the appellants were husband and wife, and the wife relied upon the husband to attend to her business affairs, and that it was agreed, between them, that the husband would at once employ an attorney, at Greenville, where the courts of the county sat, to attend to the defense of the cases, for both, and relying upon this arrangement, the wife went to visit her mother, under the belief, that her defense would be interposed, at the proper time, and that she could return, when it would be necessary for her presence in court, and when she returned to her home on Saturday, the 10th day of September, she learned, for the first time, that a judgment had been rendered against her. The appellants resided, in Muhlenberg county, and J. M. Thompson deposed, that several days before the first day of the term of court, he communicated with the attorney, agreed upon, over the telephone, for the purpose of securing his services, for the defenses of the suits, but, that he was a party to several other suits, which were then being litigated, and in which the attorney represented him, and that he had a conference, of some considerable extent, with the attorney with regard to suits, in which he was engaged, and when it was done, he fully believed, that he had mentioned these actions to him, and had secured his services for their defense, and thereafter, remained under this delusion, until he received information, that the judgments, by default, had been rendered, when he was informed, by the attorney, that he had failed to make any arrangements, with him; that he was at Greenville on the first day of the term, to further consult with the attorney, but, on account of the attorney's engagements, could not get an opportunity to do so, except a hurried interview with him, at the adjournment of the court, at the noon hour, and did not have an opportunity to mention these cases, but, believing, that he had, previously, done so, he relied upon the attorney to take such steps as were necessary to make their defense. The statements made by appellants, in their affidavits, were uncontradicted. The court over ruled the motion to set aside the judgment and refused to permit the tendered answers, in each case to be filed. The defenses presented are, upon the faces of the answers, unquestionably, meritorious, and if true, it is impossible to conceive of how the ends of justice will be furthered, by requiring these appellants to pay the large sums, which they do not owe. Of course, a party can not engage in mere trifling with the courts, and then be heard to complain, that something has been done, in the course of administration of justice, which could not have occurred, but for his unqualified laches. It is difficult, however, to conclude, that a defendant, with a meritorious defense, would, knowingly, and purposely, neglect to interpose his defense, at the price of over six thousand dollars, for his pure neglect. The grounds for setting aside the judgments and permitting defense to be made, would be, unquestionably, insufficient and inadequate, if a party was seeking a new trial, upon the ground of casualty and misfortune, under the provisions of the Civil Code. The motions were, however, made and answers offered, at the same term, at which the judgments were rendered. The grounds presented, are somewhat exceptional, when the defenses offered, are considered. A different rule prevails, when a motion is seasonably made to set aside a default judgment, during the same term, at which it was rendered, from the rule, which prevails, when a new trial is sought after the term, at which it was rendered, on the grounds of casualty or misfortune or a new trial when both litigants have participated. In the instant case, before the motions were made to set aside the judgments, no other rights had arisen to intervene, and if the answers are true, the appellee had recovered judgments, amounting to $6,159.00 to no part of which, was he justly entitled. In Southern Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 140 Ky. 486, this court, discussing the principles, which apply, when a motion is made to set aside a judgment, by default, at the same term, at which it was. rendered, said: "The power of the court to set aside a default judgment at the term, at which it was rendered, is inherent, and not dependent on sections of the Code, regulating the granting of new trials. This power is not to be exercised capriciously or granted as a favor, or withheld as a rebuke for shortcoming in practice. It is exercised as a judicial discretion. It will not depend upon whether the party applying, can show |