In some early cases efforts were made to obtain legislative relief from what were con sidered "hard cases" in the courts, and acts granting an appeal in a special case were held to be an encroachment upon the judi cial power ; Bates v. Kimball, 2 D. Chip. (Vt.) 77; Lewis v. Webb, 3 Greenl. (Me.) 326; but in a similar case from Connecticut it was held an act of judicial and not legis lative authority, but was sustained upon the ground that under the then existing consti tution of Connecticut, judicial power was not forbidden to the legislature; Calder v.. Bull, 3 Dail. (U. S.) 398, 1 L. Ed. 648. Though the idea of the effect of the constitu tional separation of powers was not at first easily understood, it was made apparent as cases were passed upon by the courts that their judgments were subject to no control by the other departments of the government except such as might be given to them by constitutional concerning pardons ; Ratcliffe v. Anderson, 31 Gratt. (Va.) 105, 31 Am. Rep. 716; nor is interference by the legislature permissible "to change the deci sion of cases pending before the courts, or to impair or set aside their judgments, or to take cases out of the general courts of ju dicial proceedings ;" Denny v. Mattoon, 2 Allen (Mass.) 361, 79 Am. Dec. 784. It has been held that the legislature cannot regu late the issuing of injunctions; Guy v. Her mance, 5 Cal. 73, 63 Am. Dec. 85; interpret such existing laws as do not apply to its own duties ; Tilford v. Ramsey, 43 Mo. 410; Peo ple v. City of New York, 16 N. Y. 424; grant a new trial, or direct the court to order it; De Chastellux v. Fairchild, 15 Pa. 18, 53
Am. Dec. 570; open a judgment to let in gar nishees to amend and set aside a verdict ob tained against them; Taylor v. Place, 4 R. I. 324; make a judgment of a justice of the peace final and conclusive (under the con stitution of the state); Ex parte Anthony, 5 Ark. 358; practically deprive justices of the peace of their powers when the office is constitutional, subject to legislative regula tion of number, classification and jurisdic tion ; State v. Hinkel, 144 Wis. 444, 129 N. W. 393 ; authorize the sale and conversion into personalty of land devised in perpetuity for a charitable use; Tharp v. Fleming, 1. Houst. (Del.) 580; give construction to a charter; McCulloch v. Stone, 64 Miss. 378, 8 South. 236; legalize defective pleadings without first requiring them to be amended ; People v. Mariposa Co., 31 Cal. 196 ; remit fines and forfeitures ; Haley v. Clark, 26 Ala. 439; provide by resolution that a crimi nal should be discharged by a court; State v. Fleming, 7 Humph. (Tenn.) 152, 46 Am_ Dec. 73 ; validate a transaction which the courts have held void ; Forster v. Forster, 129 Mass. 559; or ascertain indebtedness and direct payment between parties ; Jones' Heirs v. Perry, 10 Yerg. (Tenn.) 59, 30 Am. Dec. 430; Lane v. Dorman, 3 Scam. (Ill.) 238, 36 Am. Dec. 543.
Legislation that proof of one fact shall be prima facie evidence of the main fact is within the general power of government ; Mobile, J. & K. C. R. Co. v. Turnipseed, 219 U. S. 35, 31 Sup. Ct. 136, 55 L. Ed. 78, 32 L.