8 8 The receipt-* and expenditure of the match give the following figures : Reeeipit, £ ». d. First day ..................................... 134 ® 0 Second dav...................................... 135 0 Third d a y .................................... 128 10 0 Expenditure. P layers — ^ H- Shuw, Oscroft. Selby, Morloy (£5) 20 0 Greenwood, Lockwood, Pinder, Emmett, Hill, (£6) .................. 30 0 0 Pooley , . . ...................................... 3 0 U Lillywliite. Southerton, Chnrl- wood (£2) ................................. 3 0 u Shrewsbury.......................... 4()0 Jiipp and Humphrey ................... 0 0 0 £68 0 u Umpires—Barnes £5 & Barratfc £2 Police ........................................ Scorers.......................................... Gatekeepers................................... Primin" .................................... Ghccktakers................................. Advertisements............................ Seotton (fielding for Shrewsbury) 7 0 8 13 3 0 2 10 10 12 1 1 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 (J 0 0 0 0 Total £39H 3 0 £35 0 6 . i - ■ I, m. Total ................... £98 0 6 SUSSEX. OrriCEUs fok 1870. — Patron, The Earl of Sheffield. President , Mr. IT. M. Curtcis. Vice-President, 'Sir. Henry Brand. Treasurer , Mr. W. G. Ashby. Committee —East Sussex : Mr. T. R. Burt, Captain H. Campion, Mr. II. Curteis, Mr. S. Board, Mr. R. Loder, Lord Arthur H ill;—West Sussex: Viscount Tumour, Rev. H. Nicholls, Lient-Col. Ingram, Major Wisdcn, Mr. A. J. W. Biddulph, Mr. Win. Napper;—Brighton: Mr. H. Dering, Col. Baines, Rev. J. Pycroft, Mr. H. Cooke, Rev. Geo. Cottcrill. Mr. K. R. Murchison. Hon. Secs., Mr. G. W. King, 41, Brunswick Place, Brighton; Mr. C. H. Smith, 31, Ship Street, Brighton, and Monstow’s Manor, Henfieid. Sussex can hardly be said to have had a very successful season in 1870. Of eight matches, fonr were lost, so that the balance of events was not unequal, and, indeed, in only two matches, to wit, the returns with Surrey and Gloucestershire, did the eleven show any particularly good form. Chariwood was more successful than ever with the bat, but otlierwiso there was a sign of retrogression rather than of advance. Mr. J. M. Cotterill was not the same batsman as in previous years, nor Mr. Greenfield, while Tillery was altogether out of form, and James Phillips showed the effects ol lack of practice. Lillywhite bowled, as ho always has done, consistently well, and Mr. Greenfield’s lobs were occasionally effective. Mr. Arthur Smith only played in the last few matches, but his bowling was very useful, and Mr. Brown and Hide proved valuable changes. Results of Matches.^- Matches Played, Hon, 3; Drain /,!; Tost, 4. Opponent*. When Played. When- Played. Matches If on (3). ; K<nt .................... IBrighton Luucashirc............. |Manchester iAug 3, 1 , f> ►Surrey .................Brighton Aug 11,13, 16 Club. Opponents. 1st 2nd 1st 2nd lull. Inn, Iuu. Inn. July 10, 11, 12 180 129 311 330 203 *98 *4 67 159 192 165 Won by 250 57 runs 3 wkts *7 wfl 8 wkts *2 w d • Have all been treated in previous reviews.