CRICKET.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20287, 21 December 1927, Page 5

CRICKET.

HAWKE CUP MATCH. WANGANUI DEFEATS TARANAKI. INNINGS AND 67 RUNS. (Per United Press Association.) NEW PLY MOUTH, December 20. Wanganui won the Hawke Cup from Taranaki by an innings and 67 runs. In reply to Taranaki's first inningss score of 224, Wanganui completed its innings today for the formidable total of 430. The Taranaki batsmen in their second innings failed miserably, compiling only 139 runs. Scores: — TARANAKI. First Innings 224 Second Innings. B. 3. Wilson, Ibw, b Thakabau 22 Naismith, o and b U. G. Williams ... 35 M'Whirter, c Kerr, b Thakabau 14 C. Lash, c and b U. G. Williams ... 11 Grayson, run out 2 Kingston, c Thakabau, b U. G. Williams 0 Hockcn, b U. G. Williams ... 10 Penny, o Orr, b U. G. Williams ... 6 Barker, o Harris, bU. G. Williams ... 4 Clarke, not out 1 A. M. Wilson, c Bernau, b Holland ... 1 Extras 2a Total 139 Bowling Analysis.—Bernau, none for 15; Holland, one for 28; Thakabau, two for 45; H. Williams, none for 2; U. G. Williams, six for 23. WANGANUI. First Innings. Orr, b Clark ... 39 Wood, o and b Penny 14 Bunny, b Hocken 88 Kerr, st Kingston, b A. M. Wilson ... 71 Bernau, Ibw, b B. B. Wilson 40 Williams, b Clarke ... 37 Treadwell, o Grayson, bA. M. Wilson 2 Holland, not out 60 Thakabau, Ibw, b A. M. Wilson 10 U. G. Williams, o Penny, b Hocken 10 Harris, b A. M. Wilson 25 Extras 34 Total Bowling Analysis.—Clarke, two wickets for 72 runs, M'Whirter, none for 64; Penny, one for 58; A. M, Wilson, four for 111; Hocken, two for 25; Naismith, none for 13; B. B. Wilson, one for 41; Barker, none for 22. M'GLASHAN v. ST. ANDREW’S. A WIN FOR THE VISITORS. The visitors proved the victors by the comfortable margin of seven wickets in the match between St. Andrew’s College (Christchurch) and the John M'Glashan College, concluded at Carisbrook yesterday. M'Glashan started badly in their second innings, Esson taking four wickets for one run in his first five overs. The home team had lost four wickets for eight runs when R. Paterson and P. Riley became associated, adding 33 for the fifth wicket. Burt helped in the addition o£ 40 runs for the sixth wicket, but the remaining batsmen did not last long, the innings closing for 99. St. Andrew’s found no difficulty in com. piling the required runs, which they reached after the loss of only three wickets. M'Donald played a fine_ innings for 56 not out, and Jack, who brightened the proceedings by hitting two sixes oil successive balls, scored 38. Scores: — M'GLASHAN COLLEGE. First innings 99 Second Innings. Thomson, Ibw, b Esson .... • • • 2 N. W. Paterson, c Fairbairn. b Esson 0 R. Paterson, b Jack 21 C. Begg, c Kyle, b Esson 0 Sidey, b Esson 9 P. Riley, b Jack 22 Burt, b Jack 19 Armstrong, run out .... .. . • 8 A. Begg, b Gibb •> G. Riley, not out 2 Malcolm, b Gibb 0 Extras 20 Total 99 Bowling Analysis.—Esson. four for 13; Grimmer, none for 28; Gibb, two for 11; Jack, three for 11; Leverett, none for two; Fairbairn, none for six; M'Donald, none for eight. ST. ANDREW’S COLLEGE. .First innings 69 Second Innings. M'Donald, not out 56 Gibb, b C. Begg 15 Jack, b Burt 38 Esson, cC. Begg, bP. Riley .. .. 0 Leverett, not out 24 Extras 2 Total (for throe wickets) .. 135 Bowling Analysis.—G. Riley, none for 20; Malcolm, none for 10; C. Begg, one for 23; Sidey, none for 28; A. Begg, none for 11; P. Riley, one for 23; Burt, one for 18. ’

THE HOUSE OF COMMONS AND THE PRAYER BOOK.

TO THE EDITOR. Sib, —Your leading articles on the Prayer Book situation in to-day’s issue seems to me to contain a very dangerous thing, the statement of half a truth. It is perfectly true that Parliament was within its rights in rejecting the new book; but it is also true that it did so in opposition to the wishes of the vast majority of church members as expressed in the National Assembly and the Convocations and other controlling bodies of the church. Surely it is most decidedly “ not cricket ” for th e House of Commons, made up of members of all denominations and of many Agnostics and Atheists, to reject a book which has been put forward with the authority of an almost unanimous episcopate of the church. It is also perfectly true that the church is responsible for the present chaos within her ranks; but it is also true that the new Prayer Book was put forward mainly for the purpose of restoring order. No bishop or priest of th e church could possibly obey all the injunctions of the old book, and the natural result has been a steadily increasing confusion. I reply to the question, which concludes this article, with an emphatic “ Yes.” I personally doubt whether the majority of the members of the House of Commons gave the conscientious consideration to this question which was its due; but am much more inclined to think that they were swayed by the oratory to take sides in a question in which many of them had little interest.—l am, etc., Noel F. Benham. The Vicarage, Hampden, December 20.