James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1885

T H EC O U N T I E SIN 1 8 8 4. 9 3 particularly Mr. E. Roper, whose 65 was the highest score of the match. Kent h a d146 to win; thanks to the good cricket of LordHarris (53) Mr. R. S. Jones(not out 26), and G. Hearne (not out 38), these were got for the loss of onlythree wickets . Kent,156 and 146 (three wickets ) ; total , 302. Lancashire , 6 1and240; total , 301. Mr. Christopherson (1st inning Lancashire ) Wootton(1st inningf Lancashire ). Overs. Maidens. 2 3 R u n s. Wickets. 1 3 3 4 5 13.2 1 6 2 1 4 (3) K e n tv. Sussex. Brighton , July 3, 4, and 5. •Amatch of unusually heavy scoring . With a wicket in a rare condition for run-getting , the batsmen were seen to great advantage , and in all 1,083 runs were scored for thirty -seven wickets . In the first innings of KentLord Harris made 101 out of 205 from the bat, and it was entirely his good play in the second which saved Kentfrom a certain defeat . As it was, the gamewas drawn, with Kent still 385 runs behind , and only three wickets to fall . Jesse Hide (39 and 112) was principal scorer for Sussex . In the second innings Messrs. W. Blackman (77) and Wyatt (45) put on 109 runs while they were together . In this all the Kentish eleven wenton to bowl. Sussex, 270 and 464; total , 734. Kent, 219 and 130 (seven wickets ) ; total , 349 . (4) K e n tv. Sussex. Tonbridge , July 17, 18, and 19. A tthe outset the wicket played very queerly owing to the rain , and twenty-one wickets fell for 218 runs. B y the second morning, though , the wicket hadimproved considerably , and Messrs . N e w h a m(137), Whitfeld (63), and Jesse Hide (50), gave quite a different aspect to the game, the two amateurs adding 198 runs during their partnership . Kent were left with 277 to win, but this proved to be beyond their powers, and they fell short b y 114 runs . Humphreys' " lobs " were of great use to Sussex . In the match he was credited with eight wickets for 53 runs. Sussex won by 113 runs . Sussex , 98 and 294 ; total , 392. Kent, 116 and 163 ; total , 279 . (5) K e n tv. Surrey. Maidstone, July 28 and 29. ThoughKent had only a weakeleven, they were able to claim an easy victory . Lord Harris won the toss , but, after the heavy rain, he decided to put Surrey in, and his judgment proved so correct that his opponents were all dismissed in less than an hour and a half for the small total of 44. They m a d ea m u c hbetter showin the second innings, but K e n th a dtoo m u c hin hand for them to have anything like a chance . Kent owed its success mainly to tho good batting of Lord Harris and the effective bowling of Wootton. T h e former contributed 101 runs for once out; the latter took eleven wickets for 92 runs. K e n tw o nb y eight wickets. K e n t, 140 and82 (two wickets ) ; total , 222 ; Surrey, 44 and 174 ; total , 218. Overs. Maidens. R u n s. Wickets. Wootton(Kent) Mr. Lipscomb (1st innings Surrey ) 5 9 2 0 2 1 1 0 9 2 1 9 1 1 5 (6) K e n tv. Middlesex. Canterbury , August 7, 8, and 9. Though Middlesex were without the H o n. A. Lyttelton , Messrs . C. T. Studd, O'Brien, and Lucas, they were able to claim a fairly easy win. Kent, w h ow o nthe toss , made, singularly , precisely the same total as that against