Blackwell and Harper December S c atk see Newton v Cowie bing Moo c p in  Elizabeth the wife of Blackwell find out a invention of make print of certain  medicinal plant in those print there be see at one view the seed flower and  fruit of the plant and at the bottom of each print there be a short  description of the nature and effect of they refer to by letter these print be  in chiaro darken at the foot of these print there be these word delineavi  sculpsit pinxit Elizabeth Blackwell but in these print the time be not mention  when she publish her invention soon after she have publish these print Bickham  who be a engraver of print publish a set that be in a manner direct copy of  these they be make as copy by direct invert the place where each part of the  plant that be describe stand and the Copy no otherwise Barnardiston er p  differ from the original than that in the Copy the word describe the nature of  the plant be insert in the body of the print adjoin to the body of the plant  that be describe whereas in the original the word of description be at the  bottom of the paper and the part of the plant describe be refer to by letter  Harper and other who be printseller do each of they sell three or four of  these that be send to they by Bickham Barnardiston the present bill be bring  by Elizabeth the wife of Blackwell and by her husband against Harper and the  other printseller and likewise against Bickham pray to have a account of the  profit that they make of these print and to have a in unction in order to  restrain they from publish any more of they Bickham be in contempt of the  process of the court so that he be not bring to hear however the process be  not pursue so far against he as that the bill can be take pro acknowledged  admitted fact Lord chancellor say that there be two objection that have be  make in the present case one that the print in question be not of such a kind  as to entitle Elizabeth Blackwell to the benefit of the statute of Geo on  account of the nature of the invention itself the other suppose the invention  to be sufficient to entitle her to the benefit of the Act that she have not  comply with the circumstance which the Act direct in order to claim any  benefit under it with regard to the first of these matter his lordship opinion  be that it be no objection in the present case the ground upon which it be  find be that the Act intend only to secure the property of print which be make  from a mere invention of the mind and which be not take from any thing else  but that be not the meaning of the Act the Title of it be 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 during the  time therein mention the Act recite whereas diverse person have by their own  genius industry pain and expense invent and engrave or work in metzotinto or  chiaro darken set of historical and other print in hope to have reap the sole  benefit of their labour and whereas printseller and other person have of late  without the consent of the inventor designer and proprietor of such print  frequent take the liberty of copy engrave and publish or cause to be copy  engrave and publish Barnardiston base copy of such work design and print to  the very great prejudice and detriment of the inventor designer and proprietor  thereof and then the Act provide that from and after the that day of June  every person who shall invent and design engrave etch and work in metzotinto  or chiaro darken or from his own work and invention shall cause to be design  and engrave etch or work in metzotinto or chiaro darken 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 so that the Act require that the party shall invent and  design engrave etch or work in metzotinto or chiaro darken to entitle the  party to have the property in the print but notwithstanding this it be not  necessary that it shall be a allegorical or historical design in order to make  it be a invention within this Act and a new print though take from nature will  be within the Act provide it be not copy from any other print or print the  word of the Act be very general namely any historical or other print or print  for which reason if the print be make of a building garden or of the city of  London c it will be within the provision of the Act it be indeed true that  there be a clause in the statute make a provision for a undertake of Mr pine  to make a print of the tapestry in the house of lord and without that  provision he will not have have the benefit of the Act but the reason of that  be that that print can be call a invention it be only a mere Copy from the  tapestry all tapestry be make from draw the draw be the invention the tapestry  be a Copy from the draw and consequent Mr pine print be only copy from copy  the present print be quite of another nature and clear invention within the  meaning of the Act if this be so there can be no sort of doubt but that  Bickham and the printseller be guilty of a breach of the Act Bickhams print be  manifest copy of the other the next Barnardiston question proper to be  consider be whether Elizabeth Blackwell have so far comply with the  circumstance of the Act as to be entitle to any relief which she seek by her  bill and his lordship be of opinion that she have at the foot of the draught  Barnardiston er p of these print there be these word delineavi sculpsit pinxit  Elizabeth Blackwell but it be indeed true that she have not put down the day  when she publish her invention the word of the Act relate to this part of the  case be that from and after the that day of June which shall be in the year of  our Lord every person who shall invent and design engrave etch or work in  metzotinto or chiaro darken or from his own work and invention shall cause to  be design and engrave etch or work in metzotinto or chiaro darken 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 it have be  say that these word which shall be true engrave with the name of the  proprietor on each plate and print on every such print or print be part of the  description of the day from which the party be to be entitle to the benefit of  these print and that as the day be not insert in the present print there be no  terminus a quo from which such interest be to commence but his lordship  opinion be that this clause in the Act be directory only and not descriptive  and therefore that the day be only necessary to be insert in print where the  penalty of the Act be intend to be take advantage of this be like the case  upon the statute of Ann where there be a provision that the Title of the copy  of book shall be enter in the RegisterBook of the company of stationer before  the publication of such book but that be only a provision that be necessary to  be comply with when the penalty of that Act be take advantage of but as the  circumstance of insert the Barnardiston day when the print be publish be not  comply with in the present case the consequence be that the court can only  make a decree for a perpetual injunction to restrain the defendant from  publish these print for the future and can direct a account to be take of the  profit of those print that have already be publish as this be so no cost can  be give for the plaintiff and there be the less reason for direct a account of  profit in the present case because the profit have be so extreme small in the  case of Ballard and Waller determine by this court the that of December last  it be indeed true that the court do decree a account to be take of the profit  that be make by the print of a certain book but in that bill it be express  state that the Title to the copy be enter in the book of the company of  stationer and as to cost his lordship observe that there be two other reason  why they shall not be give in the present case first because and second  because it be in it self a matter of doubt whether the clause beforementioned  ought to be construe directory or descriptive his lordship say his opinion  indeed be that this clause in the Act be only directory and mere necessary to  be observe where the penalty of the Act be intend to be take advantage of but  other judge may be of a contrary opinion and so his lordship be please to  decree accord