Search results

WE write on the eve of an Annual Meeting of the Library Association. We expect many interesting things from it, for although it is not the first meeting under the new constitution, it is the first in which all the sections will be actively engaged. From a membership of eight hundred in 1927 we are, in 1930, within measurable distance of a membership of three thousand; and, although we have not reached that figure by a few hundreds—and those few will be the most difficult to obtain quickly—this is a really memorable achievement. There are certain necessary results of the Association's expansion. In the former days it was possible for every member, if he desired, to attend all the meetings; today parallel meetings are necessary in order to represent all interests, and members must make a selection amongst the good things offered. Large meetings are not entirely desirable; discussion of any effective sort is impossible in them; and the speakers are usually those who always speak, and who possess more nerve than the rest of us. This does not mean that they are not worth a hearing. Nevertheless, seeing that at least 1,000 will be at Cambridge, small sectional meetings in which no one who has anything to say need be afraid of saying it, are an ideal to which we are forced by the growth of our numbers.

Food and Drug cases are notorious for their capacity for providing Courts of Justice with knotty points. An interesting specimen of such a point is disclosed in Query No. 8341 in the issue of “The Sanitary Record” of January 23rd. Section 17 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts, 1875, provides that if an Inspector applies to purchase an article of food exposed for sale, “and shall tender the price for the quantity which he shall require for the purpose of analysis,” and the person exposing the article for sale refuses to sell to the Inspector, such person is liable to a penalty. According to the full and first‐rate report of the case in question in the “Middleton Guardian” of December 18th last, the following appears to have happened:—The defendant was delivering milk at customers' houses from a horse‐drawn cart. The Inspector went up to him and told him that he was an Inspector under the Act, and that he wanted two pints of milk as samples, one from the can in the cart and the other from the can in the defendant's hand. The defendant said, “I refuse to supply you.” The Inspector then offered him a shilling, and said, “I want two pints of milk.” The defendant again refused to supply the samples, giving no reason for his refusal, and at once drove away. On proceedings being taken for the penalty imposed by the above section, the defendant's solicitor took the point that there had been no “legal tender” under the section, the price of the milk being 9d. and the tender being that of a coin of greater value, thus necessitating the giving of change. The Justices dismissed the summons on this ground. Apparently the only answers which occurred to the Clerk to the prosecuting Local Authority were that the Inspector “might not have known what the milk would cost,” and that the case cited by the defendant's solicitor was decided as long ago as 1815. As the Clerk to the Justices observed, people have only too good a reason for bearing in mind the present price of milk, and it is absurd to suggest that an Inspector of Food dues not know the current price of two pints of this commodity. The mere age of a case is also a feeble retort. We are therefore not surprised at the result of the proceedings. The querist also raises an equally untenable argument in support of his prosecution. He says that it is “the custom of ordinary purchasers to tender larger amounts than cover the value of the article purchased,” and that Inspectors “as far as possible act as ordinary purchasers.” The obvious reply to this is that such a custom cannot override the law, and here the law requires “legal tender.” Now a tender, to be legally valid, must be either “for the specific amount,” or “for more than the precise amount without a demand for change,” or “if the creditor; can select his portion without giving change” (Lord Halsbury's “Laws of England,” Vol. 6, at page 462). One of the authorities cited for this proposition is Wade's Case (5 Co. Rep. 114 a). This decision was given in 1601, and is therefore more than 200 years older than the authority to the antiquity of which the Clerk objected. This authority was no doubt that of Robinson v. Cook (1815, 6 Taunt. 336), where the Court held that tender of a larger amount with a demand for change was bad. It appears to us that the Clerk's answer to this technical defence should, in ordinary times, have been that, though there was a tender of more than the 9d., there was no “demand for change,” for the Inspector did not ask for his 3d. Moreover, the defendant drove away without giving the Inspector any opportunity of saying that he might keep the 3d. It does not appear to be necessary, however, for the purchaser to state expressly that he does not demand any change, and if he has no reasonable opportunity for considering whether such a demand shall be made or not, we are of opinion that the tender of more than the sum due is valid. It certainly is not usual for Inspectors to give money away when making their purchases, but if an Inspector does not happen to have upon him the exact sum required, and he has reason to suspect the quality of milk that is in course of delivery, we regard it as his duty to sacrifice any small sum like 3d. in order that he may perform his duty to consumers. But for D.O.R.A., the querist would, in our opinion, have been perfectly justified, in the circumstances of the case to which he has called our attention, in foregoing his change, and there was nothing to show that this may not have been his intention if the defendant had not been in such a hurry to escape from his clutches. The meaning of our reference to “ordinary times” and to D.O.R.A. is this: At the time in question it was illegal for the milkman to sell, and for the Inspector to purchase, milk at a price higher than the maximum fixed by the Regulations. Courts will not presume that persons intend to commit a breach of the law. In this case, therefore, if our point had been taken in, the Justices would have been justified, as there was no direct evidence of any such intention, in refusing to presume that the Inspector intended to pay more than 9d. for the two samples. Furthermore, if in fact the Inspector had said definitely “I do not want any change,” we think that the tender would still not have been legal, because the milkman would have been entitled to reply “D.O.R.A. won't let me sell you two pints for more than 9d., and therefore change is necessary.” We, like the Justices, regret the result of their ruling, and hope that this article may serve as a hint to officers who may find themselves placed in a similar situation when D.O.R.A. has disappeared.— The Sanitary Record.

This paper is a consequence of several years of research and management learning activity with small and medium‐sized enterprises (SMEs), which focused on the development of the organisations and the concomitant development of managers within those organisations. The empirical study sample revealed a preference by owner managers and directors for action learning as a medium for the development the organisation and its people. In situations in which action learning was operational, the owner managers and directors in the sample were positive about the effect on organisational effectiveness. The authors conclude with the proposition that the development of a learning organization is a journey, which might never be completed, however, the decision to embark on the journey and the process leading to embarkation provide the organisation and its people with an increasingly effective compass through which the company is able to navigate itself through the hostile uncertainty of the business environment.

WE publish this issue on the eve of the Brighton Conference and our hope is that this number of The Library World will assist the objects of that meeting. Everything connected with the Conference appears to have been well thought out. It is an excellent thing that an attempt has been made to get readers of papers to write them early in order that they might be printed beforehand. Their authors will speak to the subject of these papers and not read them. Only a highly‐trained speaker can “get over” a written paper—witness some of the fiascos we hear from the microphone, for which all papers that are broadcast have to be written. But an indifferent reader, when he is really master of his subject, can make likeable and intelligible remarks extemporarily about it. As we write somewhat before the Conference papers are out we do not know if the plan to preprint the papers has succeeded. We are sure that it ought to have done so. It is the only way in which adequate time for discussion can be secured.

The purpose of this paper is to provide a selected bibliography of recent resources on library instruction and information literacy.

The paper introduces and annotates periodical articles, monographs, and audiovisual material examining library instruction and information literacy.

Information about each source is provided. The paper discusses the characteristics of current scholarship, and describes sources that contain unique scholarly contributions and quality reproductions.

The information in the paper may be used by librarians and interested parties as a quick reference to literature on library instruction and information literacy.

Examines the use of celebrity endorsement in advertising. Reviews the results of a recent study looking at the effect of a celebrity′s attractiveness, trustworthiness and expertise on product purchase intentions, and of one examining the relevance of physical attractiveness and other symbolic attributes of the endorser in relation to product meaning. Considers implications for marketing managers and concludes that further research is necessary.

With reference to the report of the Annual General Meeting of the Pure Food and Health Society of Great Britain, which was published in the February issue of THE BRITISH FOOD JOURNAL, and to the speech delivered by MR. GOSLIN upon the proper handling and purveying of meat, an article which has subsequently appeared in The Standard is of considerable interest. It is pointed out that no one who gives the matter serious consideration can approve of the present methods. “Many years ago Oxford made its protest against carcasses or joints being exposed in open‐fronted shops. It is just possible that when the powers that were objected to and forbade this proceeding they thought more of the æsthetics than the science of it, but they most certainly did a good thing when they took flesh foods away from the contamination of street dust and the variations of temperature that are dependent on every gust of wind or every moment of sunlight or shadow.”

FROM everywhere there are reports of increased issues of books from libraries. The famine in copies no doubt accounts in part for it and, probably, there is also what is almost a resurgence of effort after knowledge amongst young men and women who are endeavouring in many fields of work to recover some of the losses of the war years. We cannot recall at any time when so much hard grinding study was being done as now. Pessimists about youth and juvenile delinquency (which however is incidental to a much younger age than that we are contemplating) would do well to reflect upon this fact. Whatever the cause, the immediate prospects for libraries in universities, works, and social institutions of every sort were never brighter. We know that certain types of “economist” of the faded “retrenchment and reform” type say the situation is temporary and artificial but, even if it is, and we are by no means acquiescent in this opinion, much ground may be won and held from any temporary good period. We think librarianship, under the present leadership of the Library Association, may be able to consolidate the position both for public and for other kinds of libraries. The Association was never better led than since the war; it has had remarkably statesmenlike presidents, an active council and an Honorary Secretary who for constructive capacity, vision, literary skill and fearlessness, combined with an energy and industry that leaves most of his contemporaries breathless, has not been surpassed; and he is backed by a Staff that rises to the ever‐increasing demands of the service. We are glad to write this last sentence, for Secretary Welsford has to cover many duties and serve many causes: receive and entertain the Association's guests from overseas; look after meetings; the educational services which now are very great; attend to the troubles of librarians everywhere and advise in them about matters ranging from salaries to ethics; our publications, accounts, catering, interviewing, negotiating with public departments and other bodies. As for the meetings of the Council and its committees, we are told, not by Mr. Welsford who knows nothing of this note, that its reports and papers ran in March alone to 200 foolscap typed pages! Of course Mr. Welsford has an excellent staff which assists him with real live interest. The time has come, however, as our readers now know, when special senior officers to deal with Membership and Education respectively are to be appointed to work side by side with the Librarian, the excellent Mr. Henrik Jones (who never fails the searcher, even the youngest, and seems to know what we are all doing) to carry “at a high level” some of the burdens. Annual Reports are not always read but we were drawn to these reflections by the recently issued Report of the Library Association for the year. We commend it to those who are inclined to leave it unread.

The Annual General Meeting of the Pure Food and Health Society of Great Britain was held at 20, Hanover Square, W., on February 27, the President, Sir PHILIP SASSOON, Bart, M.P., in the chair. The Secretary, Mr. A. E. MOORE, read the following report of the Executive Committee:—