atkins case Blackwell versus Harper December SC barn c r the act of Geo for  the encouragement of the art of design engrave c be not mere confine to work  of invention only but mean the design or engrave any thing that be already in  nature see the statute Geo c Geo c a question arise in this cause upon the act  of parliament make in the that year of Geo chap entitle a act for the  encouragement of the art of design engrave and etching historical and other  print by vest the property thereof in the inventor and engraver for fourteen  year to be compute from the that of June vide jefferys v Baldwin Amb the  plaintiff mrs Blackwell have engrave no less than medicinal plant and have now  bring her bill to establish h r right to the sole property in they and to  restrain the defendant from copy and engrave they upon the penalty within the  act of parliament for the plaintiff be cite the case of baller administrator  of John gay Esq versus walker and other the printer and seller of the second  part of the beggar need a perpetual injunction be grant and a account decree  it be hear before Lord chancellor Talbot Mr attorney general for the defendant  insist first that this be a monopoly and a infringement upon the commonlaw the  plaintiff therefore must make out very clear that she be exact that within the  word of this act of parliament second that this do not come within the meaning  of the act which have the word inventor for engrave be not proper invent and  therefore be not within the act unless it have be something in the mind and  not already in nature as all these plant certain be three that the name of the  proprietor shall have be engrave on each plate and print on every such print  for mrs Blackwell may both delineate and engrave t they and yet not be the  proprietor of they it ought to have be mention at the atkins er p foot of each  print when it be publish the day of the first print and the name of the  proprietor that all mankind may know when it commence and when it expire and  that people may be apprise to sell clear of the penalty in this act the only  charge against the defendant be sell which be not liable to the penalty of the  act unless the person sell know they to be print by one who be not the author  and proprietor of they and know likewise who be the real author at the same  time the forty first plant produce in the cause be as common plant as exist  and be in every herbal extant and it can never be the intention of the act to  include such atkins as invention which have be publish before only in another  form Lord chancellor the principal thinginsisted on for the defendant be the  want of engrave the time and the name at the foot of each plate as the  fourteen year be to commence from the day of the first publication it be  object in the case of baller versus walker that the book ought to have be  register in stationershall or otherwise it be not notice of property within  the that of queen whether c but this objection be overrule by the court this  be the first case under the act of the present king two objection have be take  against the injunction and to the account pray by the bill first against the  right of the plaintiff as not be such print as be within the meaning of the  act second if they be that mrs Blackwell have not comply with the term of the  act of parliament so as to vest the sole property in herself as to the first  objection it be extreme clear that they be print within the meaning of the act  of parliament it have be say that the word of this statute must be confine  strict to invention and not to engrave any thing copy from what be already in  nature but this certain never can be the design of the ad the word of the act  be every person who shall invent and design engrave etch or work in metzotinto  or chiaro oscuro or from his own work or invention shall cause to be design  and engrave etch or work in metzotinto or chiaro oscuro any historical or  other print or print shall have the sole right and liberty of print and  reprint the same for the term of fourteen year to commence from the day of the  first publish thereof which shall be true engrave with the name of the  proprietor on each plate and print on every such print or print but I do not  think the act confine it mere to invention as for instance a allegorical or  fabulous representation nor to historical only as suppose the design of a  battle c but it mean the design or engrave any thing that be already in nature  atkins therefore I be of opinion that if there shall be a print publish of any  building or house and garden or that great design of Mr pine of the city of  London they will all come proper within this act of parliament or else it will  be narrow it great and make it of little use if it have not be for the clause  throw in for Mr pine benefit any body may have copy the print of the hang in  the house of lord for what be tapestry but copy take from draw the defendant  to make out the case he aim at must show I that these print of medicinal plant  be in any other book or herbal whatsoever in the same manner and form as they  be represent here for they be represent in all their several gradation the  flower the flower cup the seed vessel and the seed the second objection be as  to the direction of the act that mrs Blackwell have not comply with the term  of it so as to vest the sole property in herself Elizabeth Blackwell seulpsit  et delineavi be sufficient and be the very word of the act of parliament to  show the person to be the proprietor the more material objection be as to the  day of publication for it be insist here be no terminus a quo from whence the  term be to commence nor the terminus ad who when it shall expire I be of  opinion that the word be only directory and not descriptive of the day and  that they be only necessary to make the penalty incur and that the property in  the print vest absolute in the engraver designer c though the day of the  publication be not annex to the foot of it upon the act of Ann c the clause of  register with the stationer company be relative to the penalty and the  property can vest without such entry for the atkins er p word be that nothing  in this act shall be construe to subject any bookseller c to the forfeiture c  by reason of print any book c unless the title to the copy of such book  hereafter publish shall before such publication be enter in the register book  of the company of stationer here the clause which vest the property be  distinct the clause concern the print and reprint and publication relate to  the penalty and be distinct it be true in the first act the clause be separate  but that will make no difference in my opinion atkins the next consideration  be what will be the consequence the plaintiff will be entitle to a perpetual  injunction but not to a account of profit because it will be hard to make the  defendant account as he be ignorant of the property in the case of baller v  walker it be state b the bill and not deny by the answer that the book be  enter in stationershall and cost be give for that reason there be a material  objection in this case against give cost that the defendant though he know the  plant be publish yet do not know the exact time so that at they may have be  publish before the act my construction that the word require the day to be  annex at the foot of the act be directory and not descriptive of the day I do  not say be so certain but judge may think otherwise see sayer v dicey will  however as it be doubIful I can give cost nor decree any thing more beside a  perpetual injunction