James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1879

Si Foord—Kolceyv, Mackinnon, Cunlifi‘e, and oth‘ers absent. The wickets, too, were very rougli, and as Daft, nfter winning the toss, decided to give limit the benefit of them, Morley played sad havoc with the batsmen of the home County. Daft (52) and Shrewsbury (5:0) mede mz out of an eggrcrrate of I?” by Notts. but this total was far in excess of the double effort of Kentfilr. Fulchcr (I and Bonnie £12) alone getting double figures. Notts won by‘ nu innings and L runs. Notts f . Kent {Hi and 50; total, 86. Overs. Mnidens. Runs. “lekts. . l-') 9 7 lfl Ifli S Morley (Ist inns, Kent) .. Morley (ma ,, ).. (2) Kent 1). Laneashire. Manchester, Julie 2“ 21. Lancashire misscil Mr.’A. G. Steel's howling. but considering,, the early date and that it Wes an out match, Kent was fairly, if not well, represented. Bari-mg some good hitting by Messrs. Hornhy (UN) and Kershaw (fix!) for Lanca 0, there was little worthy of note in the batting, though mention should he in. lo of Mr Miselum’s Iii" and JH for Kent. the latter, the only double figure consist ing of: Just one»half of the runs c from the hat in the seeoiid innin The fielding of the home (J unty is very brilliant. Imucashirc won by nine Wickets. Laneashire, IT!) and 12 (one wicket); total, in]. Kent, 127 and liil; total, 1911. v Overs. Maidens. R‘."‘s' \Vckts. Barlow (2nd inns, Kent) .................. D o 1 a (3) Kent 0. Sussex. Brighton, 1, ‘J and 3. Occasional rain during the game. and wickets (lend frum copious (luu’nfulls just brevious to the match. Them was little chance under suuii circumstances of h’l'J‘ scuriiig, and two of the four innings did not reach three nnurcs. In consequence of the Inter-University Match at Lord’s, Kent lost the valuable serviees at Hon. Ivn Bligh and Messrs. Absoluin. )IaeKiimon. and Foorrl yelccy -. and bus-sex. who missed Messrs. Cotterill. Greenfield, iVliitficld.a1nlA. 1? ml: profited by the_u‘enk- of their opponents to secure their one victory during “10 seasons Of JN' ' “1111 Oil both “dos the battiii r was 0111)‘ moderate. aml comments are needlh on by uh runs. Sussex, MG and Elli ; total. 2212. Rent, I I.) and I Total. 180. Runs. “'ic cts. Us l‘.’ Lillywhite ..................... . .................... (4) Kent r. Sussex. Tnnbi’iilge “Wells, July I?! and IG. '1‘hc'1’iir5t match of the Tunbridgc “"ells week. _Kcnt this time' with g‘ he exceptiiiii of the absence of ) FuDrd-lxelcey. . “1311 I‘l‘pl‘ enter]. and it {0113' nnnlc up for its prc ens dcPezlt ut OBrighton. Sussex begun moderately well with a respectable tot'il of vl‘lll‘us second highest score in INTN—aiiil but for very hild fiellm" might have made Hmnething like a good show all the first iunin Lox'tl Hair 76, which was not a faultless dis . , however, enabled Keiit tr: e ' on 111 runs on the oomph-mm (if an innin'a "(l the feeble exhibition of the Sussex batsxucii ut the close Dllt‘C— tuully decided the result. Tu'o wickets were clown fo 1an the Eleven all out for fill, so that Kent had an ens win by an nmmgs . in; runs. Kent. 1. 5. Sussex, I-lz amiss; tour], 207. iir. A. Penn’s slow round arm howliiig in he second innings of Sussex was remarkable. Overs. Mair-lens. Rims. \Vickcts. |:I.:I l 1 :- b