Cricket 1891

68 CKICKET A WEEKLY EECOED OF THE GAME; APR IL 23,1891 experienced members of the eleven. A lively partnership theirs proved too. TheYork- shire total was increased at a rapid pace while they were together, and indeed Moor- house, who contributed 105 out of 170, scored at the rate of precisely a run a minute. An idea of his hitting, too, can be gathered from his figures, which included as many as sixteen boundary hits for four. Moorhouse gives every promise of ripening into au all-round player of more than ordinary merit. He hits with any amount of freedom all round the wicket. When the ball comes along fast he is a very fast rungetter, and one who should with more experience develop into a very dangerous batsman. As a field he is smart as well as safe, in this department, too, above the average. He canJbowlmoreover|if required. He is a right handed bowler as well as hat, fast and with a break oft. Moorhouse, who is a woollen spinner by trade, was engaged at Lord’s last season, and is on the ground staff there for this year. He is 5ft. 8in. in height, and lOst. 'libs, in weight. Our portrait is from a photograph by Hawkins & Co., 108, King’s Road, Brighton. CRICKET IN THE LAW COURTS. The connection between law and cricket has been slight; for is not your good cricketer as Miss Mitford says “ commonly the most industrious man in the parish " ? And though a couplet of Pope’s recurs naturally to the mind, it is not the lawyer but the parliament man he sets plying the game. “ The Judge to dance his brother sergeants call, The Senators at cricket call the ball.” In our own times Old Father Antic has visited Lord’s or the Oval, only to call from the arena to his narrower realm some famous cricketer—a Lyttelton or a Steel. But in that “ dark chapter of cricket history ” which tells of matches bought and sold, of the threatened degra­ dation of the cricket field to the moral level of a bucket shop, there was matter more likely to call for legal interference than [the game itself affords. Twice in the recorded cases we find cricket mentioned as the cause of litigation. At Common Law a wager was recover­ able as an ordinary debt. But the legis­ lature which had in Henry V III.’ b reign made illegal “ bowling, coyting, cloysh-cayls, half-bowl, tennis,” and other games, in 1711 passed “ an Act for the better preventing of excessive and deceitful gaming.” This statute, the 9 Anne, c, 14, made void any mortgage or security given for money lost at play, and rovided that any person who had lost by etting or playing “ at cards, dice, tables, or other game or games whatsoever,” .£10 or more “ at any time or sitting,” and had paid his losses, might recover the money so paid by action brought within three months. In 1748 an action of Jeffreys v. Walter (1Wils.220) the question was raised whether cricket was included in the “ other game or games whatsoever ” mentioned m the Statute. The contest arose out of two matches between Kent and England, but the dates of the matches are not given in the report, except that they were after the 1st May, 1711, when the Act of Parlia­ ment came into operation. One of them may well have been the great match of 1746, but the only information given is that in the defendant’s plea, by which it appears “ on such a day and year certain persons unknown to the defendant, who styled themselves the County of Kent, played against certain other persons who styled themselves all England at a cer­ tain game called cricket, and that the Plaintiff won of Parsons 25 guineas on a bet upon tick upon the said game.” Parsons, it appears, lost a further 25 guineas to Jeffrey, the Plaintiff, “ upon another^aroe at cricket played between the same persons.” He paid neither bet, but applied to Jeffrey to lendhim .£44710s. Od. more, making up his indebtedness to £500. This the Plaintiff did, and thereupon Parsons gave a bond to the Plaintiff to pay him £100 a year during their joint lives as a collateral security; the defendant Walter gave the Plaintiff his bond to the same effect. Upon this the action was brought. It was clear that if Parsons’ original bond was void under the Act of Anne, as security for a gaming debt, the collateral bond of the defendant was void, too. The point of law was argued before the King’s Bench, and the Court inclined to agree with the defendant’s con­ tention that “ cricket is a game though not mentioned in the Statute, and comes in under the general words or any other game or games whatever; it is (to be sure) a manly game, and not bad in itself, but it is the bad use that is made of it, by betting above £10 upon it, that is bad and against the law.” Mr. Pycroft, in “ The Cricket Field,” states that the Court decided the case in this way, but the statement appears to be an error. The cause stood over for further argument, and, as the reporter heard,the parties came to terms. Probably the unfortunate Plain­ tiff, after seeing that the Court inclined against him, agreed quickly with his adversary in the way, It was not until 1833 that the question was raised again, in the case of Hodson v. Terrill ( 1 C. and M. 797), and in this we are afforded information so much more detailed and precise concerning the match, that one suspects Crompton or Meeson to have played the game in his ante-legal days. It appeared, we are told, that the Warwick and Birmingham Cricket Clubs had agreed to have a match at cricket on the following terms. “ The Birmingham Union Club agree to play at Warwick on Monday next, October 8th, a match at crioket for twenty sovereigns a side with the Warwick Club. A deposit of £5 is placed in the hands of Mr. Terrill, on behalf of the Warwick Club. Wickets to be pitched at te n ; to begin at half past ten, or forfeit the deposit. Wickets to be struck at half past five, unless the game is finished before. To be allowed to change three men according to the list sent this morning. “ J. COOKES. ‘‘ H. TERRILL. “ A deposit of £5 is placed in Mr. Terrill’s hands on behalf of the Birmingham Club.” The match was commenced according to the agreement on the 8th of October (1832), the stakes deposited with the defendant, the plaintiff paying the Birmingham Club’s remaining £15 for them, and two umpires were appointed. “ The game was played to the end of the first day, when the Wanvick Club was 16 runs ahead, and had eight men to go in. No objection was then made to any of the players. On the fol­ lowing morning the Birmingham Club objected to one of the Warwick Eleven, stating that he belonged to another club, and refused to play out the game. The wickets were pitched, and the umpire appointed by the Warwick Club called ‘ play ’ at eleven o’clock. The B ir­ mingham Club, however, refused to play out the match, and the Plaintiff gave the Defendant notice not to pay over their deposit to the Warwick Club, but to re­ pay it to him.” The Defendant, the stakeholder, paid over the whole of the money to the Warwick Club, whom he naturally considered the winners. There­ upon Plaintiff brought the action to recover his £20. At the assizes Lord Chief Justice Denman non-suited the Plaintiff, but a rule nisi for a new trial was obtained, and the question of law was argued. The unsportsmanlike Plaintiff succeeded. Four Judges were unanimously of opinion that “ a match at cricket for £20 is within the meaning of Sect. 2 of the 9 Anne, c. 14, and, there­ fore, illegal.” A new trial was conse­ quently ordered, but doubtless the money was paid back without further litigation. The Warwick Eleven had, therefore, to content themselves with the honour of victory on the field; and cricketers at large to be consoled with the judgment of Baron Vaughan, “ the question here turns not on the legality of the game, but on the amount of the stake rendering it illegal.” The Act of Anne has been repealed and Mr. Justice Hawkins has said that wagers, however large, would not now make a game illegal; but another statute has made all bets, not indeed illegal, but irrecoverable at law. Betting on cricket has happily declined since the days of which Mr. Pycroft speaks, when bookmakers were found at Lord’s as regularly as at Epsom ; and it is to be hoped that the game and the law have met for the last time. E. B. v. C. l'\ "W”. M \v i > k , W . C. Bridgemanj and J. H. Roberts are competing in the Prince’s Club Tennis Handicap now in progress. A. P. (i askei , l , late Hon. Sec. Chiswick Park C.C., on Friday last won outright the Amateur Billiard Championship Cup, valued at one hundred guineas. A pplications to play for Yorkshire Colts v. Notts Colts at Sheffield, on June 8th and 9th, are to be sent to Mr. J. Wostinholm, 10, Norfolk Row, Sheffield, on or before April 30th. T h e name of H. W. Studd, 3rd Batt. T h e Royal Scots, is in the list of successful candidates at the recent competitive examination of Militia Subalterns for com­ missions in the Army. CRICKETERS— B est Goons City Agents — b e a r t h is M a e k .— A dvt. P a r to n & L e s t e r , 94, Q u e e n St., C h e a p s id e .