“In my judgment the English word ‘book’, although it always refers to an object whose necessary minimum characteristics are that it has sufficient leaves, now usually of paper, held together front and back by covers usually of more substantial than the leaves, is a word with a variety of possible meanings. For any particular use of the word, its particular meaning will be derived from the circumstances in which it is used … In the first instance, the only circumstance here is that the words ‘books’ and ‘booklets’ are used in the Schedule to a statute. They are accordingly relevantly devoid of context. Devoid of context, in my judgment the ordinary meaning of the word ‘book’ is limited to objects having the minimum characteristics of a book which are to be read or looked at.”
“9. The essence of the judge’s conclusion was that the individual goods included in Item 1 of Group 3 were essentially those intended to contain reading matter. Items of the same superficial appearance but which were intended to be written on were of a different character, properly to be regarded as stationery. In the case of articles which performed both functions, as a typical diary does, the judge said this “where an article contains some reading material and some space for writing [counsel for the Commissioners] submits that it is necessary to consider whether the main function of the supply is to provide reading material or writing material. He submits that the main function of these articles is that they are supplied to be written in. I have already indicated that I agree with this last point””