case gyles versus Wilcox barrow and nut march that SC post vol Barnard Chanc  Rep S c a bill be bring by Fletcher gyles bookseller for a injunction to stay  the print of a book in octavo entitle modern crown law it be suggest by the  bill to be colourable only and in fact borrow verbatim from sir Matthew hale  plea of the crown only some old statute have be leave out which be now repeal  and in this new work all the Latin and French quotation in the historian to  please Coron be translate into English and for this reason it be insist the  defendant be within the letter of a act of parliament make in the eight year  of queen Ann c entitle a act atkins for encouragement of learning by vest the  copy of print book in the author or purchaser of such copy during the term of  fourteen year with respect to this act see the case of millar v tailor very  full report in burr and the case cite therein see also pope v curl post carnan  v bowl bro Charles Rep sect from and after the ten day of April the author of  any book or book already print who have not transfer to any other the copy or  copy of such book or book share or share thereof or the bookseller or  bookseller printer or printer or other person or person who shall or have  purchase or acquire the copy or copy of any book or book in order to print or  reprint the same shall have the sole right or liberty of print such book and  book for the term of year to commence from the say ten day of April and no  long and that the author of any book or book already compose and not print and  publish or that here atkins er p after shall be compose and his assignee or  assign shall have the sole liberty of print and reprint such book and book for  the term of year to commence from the day of first publish the same and no  long and that if any other bookseller printer or other person whatsoever from  and after the ten day of April within the time limit by this act as aforesaid  shall print reprint or import or cause to be print reprint or import any such  book or book without the consent of the proprietor or proprietor thereof first  have and obtain in write sign in the presence of two or more credible witness  or know the same to be so print or reprint without the consent of the  proprietor shall sell publish or expose to sale or cause to be sell publish or  expose to sale any such book or book without such consent first have and  obtain as aforesaid then such offender or offender shall forfeit such book and  all and every sheet and sheet be part of such book and book to the proprietor  or proprietor of the copy thereof who shall forthwith damask and make waste  paper of they and further that every such offender or offender shall forfeit  one penny for every such sheet which shall be find in his or their custody  either print or print publish or expose to sale contrary to the true intent  and meaning of this act the one moiety thereof to the queen her heir and  successor and the other moiety thereof to any person or person that shall sue  for the same to be recover by a action of debt bill plaint or information Mr  Browning counsel for the plaintiff cite the case of read versus Hodges before  Lord Hardwicke as a case in point that be a attempt to prejudice the author of  the life of czar atkins Peter the great by publish it in one volume which be  word for word the same with motley be only several pagesleft out together  which have appear in the volume Lord chancellor the case of read versus Hodges  be upon a motion only and at that time I give my think without much  consideration and therefore shall not lie any great weight upon it as to what  have be say by Mr attorney general of the act be a monopoly and therefore  ought to receive strict construction I be quite of a different opinion and  that it ought to receive a liberal construction for it be very far from be a  monopoly as it be intend to secure the property of book in the author  themselves or the purchaser of the copy as some recompense for their pain and  labour in such work as may be of use to the learned world the question be  whether this book of the new crown law which the defendant have publish be the  same with sir Matthew hale histor placit Coron the copy of which be now the  property of the plaintiff where book be colourable shorten only they be  undoubted within the meaning of the act of parliament and be a mere evasion of  the statute and can be call a abridgment but this must not be carry S far as  to restrain person from make a real and fair abridgment for abridgement may  with great propriety be call a new book because notonly the paper and print  but the invention learning and judgement of the author be show in they and in  many case be extreme useful though in some instance prejudicial by mistake and  curtail the sense of a author bell v walker and Debrett bro Charles Rep if I  shall extend the rule so far as to restrain all abridgement it will be of  mischievous consequence for the book of the learned less Journels of scavans  and several other that may be mention will be bring within the meaning of this  act of parliament in the present case it be mere colourable some word out of  the historian to please Coron be leave out only and translation give instead  of the Latin and French quotation that be disperse through sir Matthew hale  work yet not so flagrant as the case of read versus Hodges for there they  leave out whole page at a time but I shall not be able to determine this  atkins proper unless both book be read over and the case fair state between  the party Mr attorney general have say I may send it to law to be determine by  a jury but how can this possible be do it will be absurd for the chief justice  to sItand hear both book read over which be absolute necessary to judge  between they whether the one be only a copy from the other the court be not  under a indispensable obligation to send all fact to a jury but atkins er p  may refer they to a master to state they where it be a question of nicety and  difficulty and more fit for man of learning to inquire into than a common jury  this I think be one of those case where it will be much better for the party  to fix upon two person of learning and ability in the profession of the law  who will accurate and careful compare they and report their opinion to the  court the house of lord very often in mattersof account which are extreme  perplex and intricate refer it to two merchant name by the party to consider  the case and report their opinion upon it rather than leave it to a jury and I  shall think a reference of the same kind in some measure will be the proper  method in the present case the case be accord refer to a award Reg lib a fol