Barnardiston gyles and Wilcox march the stat of a can be say to tend to a  monopoly the stat of a shall be say to be make for the public benefit and  advantage by reason that it tend to the advancement of learning this statute  must not be construe strict but accord to the intention of the legislature  when complaint have be make of a book be be print contrary to the statute the  only question have be whether it be the same book with the former in July the  history of the plea of the crown be publish by gyles and other who be the  proprietor of that Copy in the August follow Wilcox and curl contract with  Barlow to pay he pound for make a abridgment of that book accord Barlow  undertake to do the same but in execute it it be doubtful whether the book  that he compile be a abridgment of the other or whether it be only the same  book shorten and make less several sheet of this last mention book be print  and thereupon gyles and other who be the proprietor of the Copy before mention  bring their present bill against Wilcox and Barlow pray to have a injunction  to restrain they from print the work that be intend as a abridgment of the  other Lord chancellor say that this bill be find upon the statute of the that  of queen whether and though it have be say by the counsel for Wilcox that this  statute tend to the create of a monopoly yet his lordship declare he can not  be of that opinion it be a Act make for the encouragement of learning and be  useful to that end this show that the Act be for the public benefit and  advantage and therefore the Act be not to be construe strict but accord to the  intention of the legislature however that intention must be form from the word  of the StatLite the word in the statute all along be any such book or book and  therefore when complaint of this sort have come before the court the single  question have constant be whether the second book have be the Barnardiston  same book with the former and where the second book have no otherwise differ  from the former than by reduce or shorten the style or by leave out some of  the word of the first book the second book have be construe the same with the  former but where the second book have be a abridgment of the former it have be  understand not to be the same book and therefore to be out of the Act within  the former part of this distinction the case fall which have be cite by the  counsel for the plaintiff determine on a motion the that of may last there a  book have be publish contain the history of the life of the late czar of  Muscovy the second book that be publish no otherwise vary from the first than  by leave out certain part of the former and only by that mean shorten it and  the court be of opinion that a injunction ought to be grant to restrain the  print of that second book to make a abridgment be a work of judgement and the  question in the present case be whether the book that be now before the court  be a abridgment or not it have be right say by the counsel for Wilcox that  this court be now to make the same construction of the Act as if the history  of the plea of the crown be enter in the book of the stationer company and a  action at law bring for the penalty for print the second book whether the  second book be the same book with the former be a matter of fact and a fact of  difficult to be determine it be hard to say in what manner the court ought to  determine this fact and his lordship say he can not see bow it can be  determine but by read both the book over and that will be hardly proper for he  to do it have be hint that as this be a matter of fact the court may send it  to be try before a jury but the court be not confine to send all matter of  fact to be try in that way where the matter indeed consist of a single fact or  of two or Barnardiston three fact the court do take that method to determine  they but where the fact be of a extensive Barnardiston er p nature as matter  of account or the like the court do not take that method to determine they but  direct they to be inquire of before the master HisLordship say that he do not  see what other method lie can take to determine the present question than by  direct a inquiry before the master to see whether the book in question be a  fair abridgment or only a colourable one and in order that the master may  better determine this matter his lordship say that he do not see but he ought  to direct that the master shall be attend by two person skill in the  profession of the law to assist he and direction of this sort have be make in  mathematical and algebraical inquiry but his lordship say he shall choose that  two person shall be agree upon by consent of both party to attend the master  in this matter rather than that the court shall appoint they for which reason  his lordship say he will direct that the matter shall stand over for a week to  see whether the party in the mean time may not come into a consent of this  sort among themselves and if they shall not he will then give a direction  about it himself and so his lordship be please to order accord march this  matter now come on again the party say that they have each of they fix upon  one counsel Lord chancellor say that the best way be to leave all matter in  difference to the arbitration of those two counsel and if they shall not be  able to make a award that then they shall have liberty to choose a umpire  accord the same be agree to