234 CAMPBELL'S CASE.

fact was virtually denied by the act of a succeeding general as-
sembly, which allowed the further time of ten years to accomplish
the object, (c)

In private acts of assembly have been common, from
the of the proprietary government, (d) down to the
present it has been laid down as a general rule that all
petitions for such enactments must be couched in decent
and respectful terms, (e) It appears, that under the provincial
government; and even since the revolution, certain fees were, here
as in England, paid by the applicants for such acts to the officers
of the general assembly by whom they were passed, (f) But the
allowance of fees for the passage of any such laws has, long since,
been discontinued. It also appears, that although it has been
deemed necessary to adhere closely to the express provisions of all
such special enactments, in so far as they confer any new power or
jurisdiction; yet that, here as in England, they have, in many
respects, been construed, and executed as mere conveyances, bind-
ing only upon those who are parties or privy to their passage, (g)
It is certain, that in so far as the provisions of any private act are
confined within the constitutional competency of the general as-
sembly, they must be considered as binding and effectual as those
of any constitutional public law. And it may be admitted, that
the general assembly has the power, in many cases, to lend its
aid to an agreement between individuals, so as to render it effectual,
when any merely public reason or positive rule of law stands in the
way; as to enable a body politic, or particular persons to levy con-
tributions, to a certain extent, for some special purpose connected
with the public good;(h) or it may sanction an encroachment
which had been made upon a public right, through misapprehen-
sion; as by allowing an individual to continue to hold as his own
a part of a street upon which, by mistake, he had erected his

(c) 1809, eh. 192.—(d) 1650, ch. IS and 19; 1663, ch. 35; X666, ch. 7 and 8;
1669, ch. 4.—(e) Votes and Proc. Ho. Del. 7 and 16 January, 1803; and 5 and 7
January, 1804.—(/) 1704, ch. T4. It appears from the report of a committee appointed
at November session, 1789, to tax the costs and expenses which had accrued on the
petition of Benjamin Mackall, and others against the petition, exhibited on behalf of
the Reverend Francis Lauder, that those costs and expenses were made up of the per
diems, itinerant charges, and ferriages of the parties and witnesses; and amounted to
£ 1ST 0s. 04. current money of that time, as it is presumed. The report of the com-
mittee was not agreed to. Votes and Proc. Ho. Del. 29 December, 1379.—(g) 1794,
eh. 45: Beall v. Harwood, 2 H. &. J. 163; Partridge v. Dorsey, 3 H. & J. 307, note,
and m—(A) The King v. Toms. 1 Doug. 406; Perchard v. Heywood, 8 T. R. 472.