Cricket 1882

254 CRICKET; A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. a u g u s t si, i m . A C R IC K E T E R ’S FEE . A case of some interest to the cricketing ■world came before the Chichester County Court yesterday week. Charles Howard, of the Sussex County Eleven, sued Mr. W . R. Gilbert, the well-known Gloucestershire player, to recover £10 for services rendered as a professional cricketer. The defendant paid £5 into court as a fair and reasonable payment for the services rendered by the plaintiff. From the statements made in court it appeared that early in the present year the defendant engaged with some Chichester gentlemen to bring a United Eleven to Chichester to oppose the Australian team. For this he was to be paid £120. This match was played in June last, but instead of bringing eleven players the defendant brought only eight, and even­ tually the match was played with only ten men on the English side. The plaintiff was asked on the ground by the defendant and Mr. W . G. Grace to fill “ one of the vasancies.” He agreed to do so, nothing being said about payment. At the conclu­ sion of the match the defendant was paid £ 120 , and tendered the plaintiff £5 for his services, but this was refused. The plaintiff based his claim on the assertion that professionals playing against the Australians were always paid a higher fee than in ordinary matches. He produced a letter from the defendant, written to the local promoters of the match, in which it was explained that £ 120 was required to bring an eleven down, because the men would not play for the same money as in an ordinary match. Plaintiff admitted in cross-examination that he had received only £6 when playing for Sussex against the Australian Eleven of 1880. A sugges­ tion was made by the plaintiff’s solicitor that the case should be referred to the Marylebone Club, defendant paying costs. This was declined, and no evidence was called for the defence. The learned judge, whilst regretting the absence of satisfactory evidence as to the ordinary fee to be paid to profes­ sional cricketers, gave a verdict for the plaintiff for £ 6 , being the same amount as he received when playing for his own county against the Australians. The following is the copy of an old cricket bill of the year 1816 :— CRICKET. A G R A N D M A T C H WILL BE PLAYED ON W K O T H A M N A P S , On M O N D A Y N E X T , the 2d o f S E P T . And following day, S u s s e x a n d t h e I I a w k h u r s t C l u b , With Lord F. Beauclerk and J. I Yilles, E sij . AGAINST KENT, With G. Osbaldcdon , Esq. Lambert and Howard , FOR TWO HUNDRED GUINEAS ASIDE. Kent. G. OSBALDESTON, ESQ. LAMBERT, HOWARD, NORDISH, RAZEL, PAGGITT, LONGLEY, KNOWLES, PALMER, COOMBS. KNOWLES, MASTERS. ► S C 0 I ^ E g P 0 P E p E ^ We are not responsible for fclie opinions expressed by our cor­ respondents. No oommnnioations can be inserted unless they bear the name and address of the writer, as a proof of good faith, not necessarilyfor publication. Hawkhurst. LORD F. BEAUCLERK, J. WII/LES, ESQ. I.EANEY, SLATER, BRAY, BAKER, WYBOURN, HICKMO'TT, WIGHTWICK, COOPER, HUNT, CRUMP, HUGHES. A good Ordinary on the Ground, by W. Richardson, from the Royal Oak .—Augutt 26,1816. T he C anadian C kicket F ield . — A weekly Record and Review of Canadian Cricket. Published every Wednesday during season except May and September, when there will be only two issues. Advertisements and Subscriptions will be received at the office of “ C kicket ,” the London Agency,— Advt. “ AUSTRALIA INFELIX.” TO THE EDITOR OF “ CRICKET.” S ik , —Whilst hardly expecting that my re­ marks on the late match, Australians v. Players, would pass without some comment, I was quite unprepared for such an editorial excommunication as you have favoured me with, in a style which I cannot but regard as uncalled for. Since English justice allows even more hardened criminals than myself an opportunity for defence, I may crave space for a reply, after which ‘ ‘ the anonymous scribbler ” who has stirred up such a hornet’s nest may be stung as he deserves. May I first venture to point out several errors into which your haste to condemn has led you. Inever called my account “ the Australian version,” but “ an Australian version”—a little accuracy here might have prevented several unfair inuendoes, and at least one sneer. Nor did I adopt “ the Old Bailey line of argument.” I dwelt at some length upon the series of misfortunes, greatly owing to which the better team came off second best, but I purposely very briefly and tenderly touched upon the point of umpiring, as a perusal of my letter must show. What I said upon these points 1 still maintain, and will support, simply from your own columns. In the first few pages of your first number, we read that in Australia, Shaw’s team played four games against combined colonial elevens—won none, drew two, and lost two, one by five, one by six wickets, leaving the impression behind them that the Australians could beat them five times out of six. Since then our men have greatly im­ proved by constant practice together, whilst the Players who took part in the late match were not nearly proportionately so much better than Shaw’s team. I think they were inferior. In C ricket , after the match, too, we see that the writer of “ Pavilion Gossip,” who is presumedly an authority, “ is still of opinion that, under even circumstances, the Australians would have if anything the best of the game.” The best team, then, did not win, according to two good authorities, and by emphasiz­ ing and explaining wherein the unevenness of cir­ cumstances lay in a paper which seemed to me to ignore them, I was not doing such a great wrong.) That I have dared, then, to impugn the decisions of an English umpire, this must be my unpardonable sin. Well, I admit the charge in one instance, whilst suggesting that at least one other decision was open to doubt. Hear my defence. In C kicket , page'228, we find that umpires are often indifferent judges of the game, as far as l b w decisions go. Most of the Australian team, I should think, are not likely to deny it. At page 245 it is added that few umpires are competent to decide between throwing and bowling, and, sad to state, none dare to act according to their convictions in questionable eases. No wonder, indeed, that page 197 informs us that the present system of umpiring is susceptible of great improvement. It would seem so. And this is the system I have dared to impugn in the person of one of its members ! Is he a very illustrious one ? Is it only a strange coincidence that no one in his condemnation of me even mentions his name ? But he sins against two other requirements of a good umpire. He is a ground man, and C ricket says on p. 196, with such umpiring is, at times, a perquisite, not the reward of merit. Was it not so in his case? Again, as a prominent player he was not free from interest direct or indirect in ono side - a disqualifi­ cation that I would make absolute, though C uicket is content to long for it editorially, but not condemn it practically. Surely it is but sanctimonious prudery to charge me with the worst of tasto and Lwhat not, because I dai-ed impugn the decision of an umpire so unsuitable, and whose decision in one instance at least I cannot but regard as per- ectly unjustifiable. One remark more, and that a practical one. Mr. Hornby is a cricketer whom all respect and admire, and an authority second to none. If, after fairly considering the whole circumstance of the choice of the umpire in question, he will let me know, privately or otherwise, that in h i3 opinion such a selection in such amatch was judicious and such as the Australians had a right to expect; if after consulting the Surrey Committee, who saw the a ffa ir, and Mr. Murdoch, who was at the wicket at the time, he will add that in his opinion the decision in Mr. McDonnell’s case was not open to the gravest censure, I will acknowledge that I have written what had better have been left unwritten, and will apologise in my own name in your columns for having cast an unmerited slur upon an unde­ serving man. Till then, fortified as I am by your own dicta as well as my own common sense, I still claim to bewail the hard luck and questionable umpiring which, added to their own bad fielding, lost Australia such an important match, and sign myself as justly as ever, A ustralia I njelix . A N SW E R S TO CO R R E S P O N D EN T S . O. J.—Is a man out under the following circum­ stances ? He is caught, but the fielder’s hands touch the ground while making the catch—the ball does not touch the ground.—(The striker is out.) W. A. H.—If inamatchbetween two clubs, one aide brings forward a man who is known to be a mem­ ber of another club, and not of the one that brings him forward, would the other side be jus­ tified in objecting to his playing, or in regarding him as a substitute, and treating him as such ? (The captain of the side would be justified in objecting to the man playing.) A lderta . —Does a no-ball hit for two count three ? Is a batsman out if he moves out of his crease, and then back again, while his partner runs into his ground, and the unoccupied wicket is put down.— (1. Two runs are to be scored to the striker, but no run is under those circumstances to be added to the score of no-balls. 2. If the batsman had got back into his ground before his partner had crossed him, the latter is out.) G .E . S mith (Birmingham).—In a match played here the umpire gave a man out for knocking down his wicket whilst running a run ; is it out ? —(The batsman is not out for knocking down his wicket whilst running. It is only in striking at the ball that he would be ont for hitting his wicket.) P. M. C. J.—I have heard many old cricketers say that the famous George Griffith, when opposed to Bennett, a Kent man, hit four sixes in succession, all drives, and three fell 120 yards behind Bennett, the bowler ? Is this true, and, if so, has it ever been equalled ?—(On August 29, 1864, at Hastings, for United Eleven v. Twenty-two of Hastings and St. Leonards, Griffith scored in one over of 4 balls four successive sixes off G. Bennett. All the hits were out of the ground. We do not know of any similar feat.) F. H. F erp . is .—A man hits a ball and runs two, and in trying to make a third is run out. Are these two to be scored to him ?—(YeB.) C ricket . —A song, written and composed by J. H. Smith, and dedicated to A. N. Hornby, Esq. “ It will be welcomed heartily by all lovers of tho manly and truly national British game.”— Era. Post free, 18 stamps, of the aathc.r, 22, Clifton-sfreet, Wolverhampton.— A dvt . B ooks or M agazines on C ricket . —The Manager of C ricket is prepared to buy any old books on cricket subjects.—Advt.