 As Hardwicke had decided to interpret the Statute of Anne as for the public good , the main question of the case became which " any such book or books " the act referred to and protected . The defendants argued that his abridgement must be considered separate from the original work published by Gyles . The defendant 's lawyers furthered pushed the court to try the case as if the abridgement had been recorded in the Stationers ' Register , an action that would have given Wilcox and Nutt the right to publish their book , and the lawsuit brought against a second , unique book . Therefore , the only question before the court was whether the second book differentiated sufficiently from the first . Further , the attorneys for the defendants argued that the book was not a direct transcription , but that several chapters had been omitted , while other , original sections had been added to the Wilcox and Nutt publication . They further pointed to the fact that the Gyles ' publication consisted of 275 sheets , whereas the abridgement contained only 35 sheets . 
