case the company OF stationer against lee and other injunction against sell  book import SC Mod SC Chan case in chancery it be move for a injunction to  stay the sell of some book import from holland c and it be urge that they have  quiet enjoy the sole shower KB print of these book from the first of king  James until very late and that all particular member of the company have  distinct share and benefit in the print of they accord to the stock they put  in by virtue of a bylaw of the company so the trade or gain be not restrain to  a few by the same bylaw above two hundred pound a year be always apply for the  support of poor widow and orphan of the same company and they be at two or  three hundred pound a year charge in look after the press for the service of  the government beside it will be of dangerous consequence that the Hollander  and other foreigner shall print our primer psalters almanac and sing psalm for  they may and actual do abuse they for be at no charge for correct and print in  a worse character and paper they will undersell the English and destroy our  manufacture then they move against a trial of the validity of their patent for  these reason it appear by the recital of king James set forth in the bill that  the sole print a Michaelmas term car in b r Bulst b see Elizabeth c S and Geo  c saint vol Mr Consts Edit bott poor law a see Orpwood v hold keb Ven v Phipps  salk keen v whistler stram pale yellow Eq Rep Colethurst v hay Carth Rosseter  v Bolling case pract b r park v Davis case prac b r Harper v Jiffer Annallys  Rep pole v finch lev Higgins v Jennings ld ray stram beal v more stram  Kempater v deacon ld ray salk cockerel v Allderson Hultocks law of cost  Redridridge v palmer h Bl Rep and the statute will c S shower KB er p ing of  primer and psalters be in grant before that time by patent to John and William  may for their life then by queen Elizabeth to Benjamin alley in reversion for  thirty year which be purchase by the plaintiff then the say patent of the  first of king James be grant to the plaintiff afterward his patent be  surrender and the patent renew in the thirteenth year of James the first the  king have always have and exercise his prerogative in the print of these and  some other book in the first year of queen mary there be grant to Cowood the  print of statute and proclamation wherein be recite a former grant we have  here a copy thoreof in the first year of queen Elizabeth the like patent to  jug and Cowood for sole print of they and likewise bible the sole print of law  book be grant by Henry the eight to tottel and enjoy all these patent have be  renew and continue down ever since and multitude of man have purchase under  they the king be head of the church and have a particular prerogative in  ecclesiastical affair and therefore in print of primer c he have a particular  prerogative in restrain and bold prognostication shower KB of all sort and be  it otherwise it will be of dangerous consequence to the government in the  statute James c against illegal and mischievous monopoly it be particular  declare that this statute shall not extend to patent for sole print in the  case of darcy v Allen about monopoly a the patent for print which be the same  as now be admit good by the car c it be enact that no person shall imprint or  import any book or book which any other person by force or virtue of any  letter patent or entry in the stationer book have right and privilege sole to  print although this statute be expire yet it seem to amount to a judgement  that some person by letter patent have a right and privilege sole to imprint  some book since this statute there be a contest between Mr titon and diverse  other bookseller and colonel streater patentee of the law book b about the  print of croak report and in a action bring there be a sudden judgement  against colonel streater in the court of king bench but upon a writ of error  in parliament and hear of counsel this judgement be reverse and the patent  adjudge good in Hilary term in the twentythird and four year of Charles the  second in the case of Mayo v hill a action tam how be bring for the penalty of  the Act of car c set forth that the now plaintiff by virtue of the new letter  patent be proprietor of the copyright of the English bible and psalm and that  the defendant have c and upon trial before the Lord hale it be find for the  plaintiff by the direction of the Lord hale who thereupon declare the patent  have be always hold legal in Michaelmas term in the twentyseventh year of  Charles the second the company of stationer bring a information in the court  of common plea against one Seymour d for the penalty of the Act of car c for  print and vend of almanac set forth that by virtue of the letter patent in the  thirteenth year of James the first they be entitle to the sole print of  almanac and a special verdict find thereupon and judgement for the plaintiff e  shower KB now by all these judgement so affirm it appear that the respective  letter patent give a right to the patentee else no judgement can have be give  for they so upon the statute car c which give the penalty to those who have a  right by force and virtue of letter patent in easter term in the thirtysecond  year of Charles the second the company bring a action on the case against  Marlow set forth their patent of the thirteenth year of James the first and  that a in Elizabeth more Nov b skin cite Mod d Mod e but see stationer company  v carnan Bl Rep where on a case state out of chancery the judge of the common  plea certify that the patent make to the stationer company in the thirteenth  year of James the first be restrain to the print of such almanac and  prognostication as shall be licence and allow by the archbishop of Canterbury  the bishop of London or either of they for the time be second that the crown  have not the prerogative or power to make such grant to the company exclusive  of any other or other see also the stationer company v partridge Mod and burr  shower KB er p Marlow have print and sell almanac which action be try before  the Lord keeper then chief justice of the common plea and a verdict for the  plaintiff there be object the statute Henry c recite that by a Act of Richard  the three all stranger may import and sell book and that by the say Act of Hon  c it be enact that none shall buy to sell again any import book ready bind  otherwise than in gross and not by retail whence they infer that it be lawful  to import any book in sheet the answer be that that statute of Richard the  second be not in print quaere if it be perpetual but however it extend only to  stranger and it will not take away the king prerogative the king be not name  in the Act and as for that of Henry c it can be of great force for that very  reason beside the statute be only prohibitory and do not enlarge but restrain  the liberty of the subject the judgement in the house of lord and other court  where these statute be object prove that they do not take away the king  prerogative if the word of the statute import a general liberty for all sort  of book the defendant may insist to import any seditious or heretical book  which by law they can do so that the liberty of import book must be restrain  to such as be not contrary to the king prerogative and the weal public and a  injunction be grant