James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1896

(9) Essex v. Somersetshire. Taunton , July II, 12 and 13. E ssex M ake 692. Somerset, who were without Messrs. Ilewett and Fowler, were thought to have done pretty well to get 246 (Porch 85 not out), and few were prepared for what ensued. Carpenter, who was run out when he had made 153, Mr. McGahey (147) Mr. Lucas (135), and Russell, the latter of whom was unluckily run out when one less than his 100, w'ere responsible for nearly 550 of the enormous total of 692, towards which “ Extras” contributed 31. The weakness of Somerset's attack on a slow’ wicket was made manifest, Mr. Woods fast ones coming in for dire punishment. Somerset did not make much of a >tand at the last, and Essex won by the extraordinary majority of an innings and 317 runs. Essex, 692. Somersetshire, 246 and 129; total, 375. ♦ e (10) Essex v. Hampshire. Southampton, July 25, 26 and 27. A more than creditable performance by a fairly good eleven of Hants Barton, who had scored well in the previous Essex maten, was responsible for a really fine 79, Baldw in (who took 13wickets in the match) found a spot, and had it not been for a stand by Messrs. Lucas and Kortright, Essex would have had to followr on. At the last they might have retrieved the position, as Hampshire in their turn broke down. Yet no stand was made, and Hampshire won meritoriously by 171 runs. Hants, 246 and 136; total, 382. Essex, 128 and 83; total, 211. LILLYWHITB’ 8 CRICXETKH s ’ ANNUAL. (11) Essex v. Leicestershire. Leicester , Avg. 5, 6 and 7. No play possible on Tuesday, and a “ damp” match in all ways. On the Monday, while the ground was easy, Carpenter batted superbly for 87, and Leicestershire were 100 in arrear at the close of an innings. Mead wrought the execution, taking twelve wickets in the match at a cost of 101 runs. Essex *ad, after a prolonged struggle against the rain, much the best of the draw. Essex, 245 and 02 (3 wickets); total, 307. Leicestershire, 144 and 56; total, 200. (12) Essex v. Surrey. Leyton , Aug . 8, 9 and 10* Considering that Richardson was “ resting,” it was a remarkably fine performance by Surrey to win by so large a majority as 201 runs. Lohmann And Smith demisted tlie home eleven cheaply enough each time, and only Carpenter, with a finely-played first innings of 56, offered serious resistance. The butting feature of the three days was undeniably Abel's correct, forcible, and stylhb hc <re of 88 jn the first innings, which was practically “ chanceless.” Surrey won by 201 runs. Surrey, 2J4 and 209 ; total, 423. Essex, 138 and 84 • total 222.