John and James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Companion 1882

85 not altogether bad, disappointing as it must be to those who can recall the old achievements of the County. Jupp’s thoroughly well-earned benefit is described under the heading o f North v . South . May 23.—Lord’s.— Surrey v. Middlesex.— ( See M idd lesex Review .) June 2.—Huddersfield.— Surrey v . Yorkshire.— (See Yorkshire Review .) 1st Inns. 2nd Inns. Total. June 9, Surrey 130 214 * 344 Oval. Gloucestershire 261 84 345 Gloucestershire won by 8 wickets. A decidedly good match, though Gloucestershire won easily at the finish. The Surrey men, on winning the toss, should have certainly scored more than 130, and they could never make up for this bad beginning. Gloucester­ shire’s batting was very even, eight men reaching double figures in the first innings. Mr. E. M. Grace made 77 (a thoroughly characteristic display), Mr. W. G. Grace 21 and (not out) 50, Mr. Townsend 23 and (not out) 22, Fainter 37 and 4, and Mr. Gilbert 30. For Surrey, Mr. Lindsey played fine cricket for 37 (not out) and 50, Mr. A . P. Lucas made 12 and 42, and Mr. \V. W. Read 8 and 42. The most successful piece of bowling was that of Mr. Gilbert in Surrey’s second innings—5 wickets for 42 runs. June 13.—Nottingham.— Surrey v. Notts.—(&ee Notts Review.) June 1C.—Manchester.— Surrey v . Lancashire.— (See Lancashire Review.) June 20. —Oval.— Surrey v. Cambridge University .— (See University Matches.) 1 st Inns. 2nd Inns. Total. July 21, Surrey 293 — 293 Oval. Notts 109 162 271 Surrey won by an innings and 22 rims. A very welcome victory after a run of ill-success. Surrey won the toss, and going in first on a fast wicket run up 293- Only four batsmen got double figures, but these four scored 244 runs between them, Mr. Pontifex making 89, Mr. \V. W . Head 63, Mr. J. Shu ter 57, and Morris Head 35. They all batted well, but Mr. W . W . Read’s innings, which included 14 fours, was decidedly the best. Owing to rain the wicket was not in such good order on the second day, and the weak Nottingham team could not, even in two innings, reach the Surrey total. Oscroft made 28 and 39, Mr. W.C. Oates 19 and 39, and E. Mills (not out) 28 and 33. The “ boy Jones ’ ’ and Barratt bowled remarkably well for Surrey. July 25.—Maidstone.— Surrey v. Kent.— (See K en t Revieio.) 1st Inns. 2nd Inns. Total. August 1, Surrey 193 39 232 Oval. Sussex 95 136 231 Surrey won by 8 wickets. vurrey’s decisive victory was mainly due to the bowling of Barratt, who ook 14 wickets for 103 runs. It was curious that the Sussex men tl °U,• !mvc score(l better in their second innings than their first, though ticket meanwhile had suffered severely from rain. On winning the toss filf?] t0 l)ave made considerably more than 95. Mr. Bettesworth hit V q °r ~~ an(l ( n°t out) 53, while Mr. Ellis played steadily for 25 and 22. W . W . Read played a capital innings o f 62, Mr. Lindsay Bricliael 27 UC* ^not out^ ^ Morris Read 17 and (not out) 16, and Mr. Car-