 The opinion , written by Hardwicke , found that a true abridgement of a published book may be considered an entirely separate , new work , as the abridgement showed the labour , originality , education , and judgement of the editor . This new book did not run the risk of infringing the rights of the author or bookseller who owned the publishing rights . However , Lord Hardwicke drew a distinction between works " fairly made " and those " colourably shortened " . Hardwicke refused to compare the books himself to determine whether Modern Crown Law was indeed a fair abridgement , or to force a judge and jury to sit and hear both books read , instead opting to have two legal experts and a literary master read the books and report the findings to the court . The parties were allowed to choose these examiners , in a way leaving the case to arbitration . After a week in which the parties were given a chance to make amends outside of court , the book in question was ruled a colourable shortening , created only to circumvent the law , and thus was an infringement of Gyles ' printing rights . 
