ambler case Dodsley against Kinnersley a fair abridgment be not piracy a  abstract publish in annual register or magazine hold not piracy especial as  the author himself have publish extract in a perjodical paper No entry in l r  S c hill ms at the roll that June the plaintiff as assignee of Samuel Johnson  the author publish a book entitle the prince of Abyssinia a Tale consist of  two volume the defendant print part of the narrative in the grand magazine of  magazine but leave out all the reflection bill for a injunction to restrain  the defendant from print c and for a account of the profit make by have print  upon fill the bill a motion be make for a injunction but Lord keeper Henley  refuse it doubt whether it be such a book as the stat Q whether intend to  protect and now the cause come on to be hear the plaintiff give up the account  and only pray a injunction it do not appear exact bow much be print in the  magazine but Mr Tonson and two other bookseller examine for the plaintiff who  speak in general that be the sale of the book be prejudice by its be print in  the magazine and Mr Tonson conjecture that about twothirds of the book be  print in the magazine but it appear clear that he deposed relate to the whole  work the second as well as the first volume whereas only part of the first  volume be print in the magazine when the bill be file though great part of the  second volume be print afterward and accord to the passage mark not above  onetenth part of it be print on the part of the defendant evidence be read  that it be usual to print extract of newbooks in magazine c without ask leave  of the author they it be often do the request of the author as be a mean to  help the sale of the book that the plaintiff publish a large extract of this  very book in the annual register also that the plaintiff publish a extract of  it in the newspaper call the chronicle in April before the extract be ambler  publish by the defendant in the magazine ambler er p of which paper the  plaintiff with other be proprietor also that the plaintiff publish in the same  paper Mr miller method of cultivate mad which be before publish by he in a  quarto pamphlet after argument at bar sir Thomas clarke master of the roll if  this be a recent matter it will be of great importance to the public in  general to learning in general and to trade and commerce but the subject  matter of this suit have be so often before the court upon other occasion that  when a case of this kind come to be litigate little more be necessary than to  see whether it be adapt to the rule and principle before lie down three  question have be make saint whether the plaintiff have acquire such a property  as can be infringe d whether it have be infringe d whether the application be  proper to this court as to the first question it be not necessary to determine  whether author have a property in their work before the statute of queen  whether see in macklin v Richardson post if they have not it be a reproach to  the law nor be it material to determine whether they have a property after the  determination of fourteen year that question be now depend before the court of  king bench and seem to be the same with the former Q whether this be such a  book as the legislature intend to secure the property of this court have  protect book which do not so well deserve it as Hoyle game of whist c but I  will not be understand to give any opinion on this question for I shall  determine this case upon the next question which be whether there have be any  infringement of property this be a very good elegant and useful book the title  may draw in person to look into it which perhaps they will not do if it have a  grave title ambler it be insist for the defendant that what be print in the  magazine be a fair abridgment and as such not a piracy No certain line can be  draw to distinguish a fair abridgment but every case must depend on its own  circumstance it be say to be a piracy and not a fair abridgment saint from the  quantity of it which be print d because it be do in such a way as not to  recommend the book but quite the contrary by print only the narrative and  leave out all the moral and useful reflection as to the first the court upon  these occasion content itself by look into the passage mark in Tonson v walker  Swanst that April merchant have add only twentyeight note to fifteen hundred  and hold evasive in that case the court admit a fair abridgment not to be  piracy for otherwise every body must buy the whole work see whether this be a  elusory abridgment the court must take notice of the spring flow from trade  and though they can regard custom of trade as bind yet will consider the  consequence of they see Hogg v Kirby Ves upon the first objection it do not  appear that onetenth part of the first volume have be abstract d with respect  to the prejudice consider it upon the custom and usage the nature of annual  register magazine c be to give a abstract or analysis of author and though it  be say that the plaintiff S have print a abstract of the work do not entitle  other person to do so and that the prove that the plaintiff have print other  people work be only recrimination and no good defence yet it prove the custom  and usage it be prove that miller book contain thirtyeight folio and that  twentyfour folio be print in the abstract I can enter into goodness or badness  of the abstract it may serve the end of a advertisement in general it tend to  the advantage of the author if the composition be good if it be not it can be  libel what I material rely upon be that it can not tend to prejudice the  plaintiff when they have before publish a abstract of the work ambler in the  London chronicle if I be to determine this to be elusory I must hold every  abridgment to be so and that from its extensive consequence will prejudice the  plaintiff dly I will have it understand that there be no impropriety in the  application to this court the method of proceed in these case have be change  former in the case of a patentee on open the case the party be send to law to  establish his right and then come back for a account but know of no case which  determine ambler er p the property of a author before the statute the old  practice be like the case of agreement before Lord summer time the party be  send to law and if he recover any thing by way of damage this court entertain  the suit I repeat it that I will be understand to give no opinion whether this  book be within the protection of the statute Disniiss plaintiff bill without  cost but in case they shall proceed against the defendant at law then  defendant to be at liberty to apply with respect to the cost of this suit see  bell v walker bro c c gyles v Wilcox atk S c hill ms but the abridgment must  be a fair one and not a colourable shorten of the work see the above case and  Butterworth v Robinson Ves see Ves pinnock v rise bro in note Edward belt  Longman v Winchester Ves Matthewson v Stockdale Ves Whitingham v Wooler Swanst  a action will he for a servile imitation of part of a book though other part  of the book be different Trusler v Murray east n see macklin v Richardson post  Thompson v Stanhope post Jeffreys v Baldwin ante the court will not give a  injunction or account upon a publication of such a nature that a action can  not be maintain for the invasion of the property Walcott v walker Ves see  Southey v Sherwood mere in Thorpe v Macauley mad Ves jun where there have be  any length of exclusive enjoyment under a patent a injunction will be grant  without require the previous establishment of the right at law contra where  the patent be recent hill v Thompson mere Harmer v plane Ves Bolton v bull Ves  and see Prodgers v Phrazier vern Hicks v Raincock dick