Home Index Site Map Up: Hayward Navigation
Up: Hayward

First: Years of Reflection 1783-1953 - Dust Jacket Last: Years of Reflection 1783-1953 - Page 108 Prev: Years of Reflection 1783-1953 - Page 50 Next: Years of Reflection 1783-1953 - Page 52 Navigation
YOR: 52 of 109
·DJ ·28 ·56 ·84
·FC ·29 ·57 ·85
·1 ·30 ·58 ·86
·3 ·31 ·59 ·87
§4 ·32 ·60 ·88
§5 ·33 ·61 ·89
§6 ·34 ·62 ·90
·7 ·35 ·63 ·91
·8 ·36 ·64 ·92
§9 ·37 ·65 ·93
·10 §38 ·66 ·94
·11 ·39 ·67 §95
·12 ·40 §68 ·96
·13 ·41 ·69 ·97
·14 ·42 ·70 ·98
·15 ·43 ·71 ·99
·16 ·44 ·72 ·100
·17 ·45 ·73 ·101
·18 ·46 ·74 ·102
·19 ·47 ·75 ·103
·20 ·48 ·76 ·104
·21 ·49 ·77 ·105
·22 ·50 ·78 ·106
·23 ·51 ·79 ·107
·24 ·52 ·80 §108
·25 ·53 §81
·26 §54 ·82
§27 ·55 ·83
 
for reasons of health inevitably threw he lion's share of the work on the younger man, who seized the opportunity to prove his worth and develop his ideas. Under the guiding hand of William Hayward, a good organiser and administrator, the business forged ahead. As a result of Eckstein's energy and perseverance, within ten years it was to double both in size and influence.
    Meanwhile, a wrangle between lawyers as to the Hamiltons' infringement of the patent had failed to reach a satisfactory conclusion. What H. T. Walker many years after described as "an impudent imposition" could only be proved by an action at law which, however reluctantly, Hayward Brothers were finally compelled to take against their former employee and his father in 1879. The case came up for hearing in the High Court before Mr. Justice Hawkins in November of that year. Answers to two questions put to the jury resolved the issue:
    Question: Whether, having regard to the prisms described in the plaintiff's specification and shown in his drawings, and especially to the operative parts thereof, used in the transmission of light, the defendants use any glass light having the same operative parts for the transmission of light?
    Answer: Yes.
    Question: Have the defendants infringed the plaintiff's patent?
    Answer: Yes.
    The Jury also found, in answer to the judge, that it was a new thing so to glaze pavement lights. Judgment with costs was entered for Hayward Brothers but the Hamiltons were tenacious adversaries and had somehow convinced themselves that justice was on their side. A second action on a technical point had to be endured in a divisional court before Mr. Baron Pollock, who supported Mr. Justice Hawkins' judgment. An appeal was lodged against both these judgments and the action then came before Lords Justices Bramwell, Brett and Cotton in the Court of Appeal.
    Lord Justice Brett, in the tradition of judges, actually asked "What is a pavement light?", but it was he of the three, for all his professed ignorance of the subject, who most nearly expressed