LAWN TENNIS.

New Zealand Graphic, Volume XLVI, Issue 5, 1 February 1911, Page 9

LAWN TENNIS.

Wellington Provincial Championships.

SUCCESSFUL, TOURNAMENT AT MASTERTON.

N-Z. Lady Champions Defeated—Parker and Miss Nunneley Again.

(Specialty Written for the " Weekly Graphic.”)

THE twelfth annual championship tournament of the Wellington Provincial Lawn Tennis Association was concluded at Masterton, on Tuesday, the 24th January, and was undoubtedly a great success from every point of view. The arrangements were very complete, and’ the many visiting players were delighted with the gene- ' ral neatness and picturesqueness of the surroundings, while the courts themselves were in good order and played fast and true during the three days the meeting was in progress. Although there was considerable disappointment at the absence of those two fine players, J. C. Peacock (N.Z. champion) and R. W. K. Swanston (the previous provincial champion), the 1911 tournament was nevertheless one of the most representative ever held in connection with a purely provincial meeting, amongst the competitors being the cream of those who took part in the New Zealand championships a month earlier at Blenheim, and three leading South Island players in Ollivier, Goss, and) Bonnington, all of Christchurch. The standard of the tennis was consequently very high, and some of the games were remarkable for - the fine showing of the various players, particularly of Parker, Cox, ■ Aitken, Fisher (single and combined), Misses Nunneley and Wellwood (combined). The tournament was conducted under the personal supervision of Mr A. R. Sclanders, the hon. secretary of the M'asterton L.T.C., which appointed the following officers for the meeting:—President, Very Rev. Dean McKenna; vice- £ residents, Messrs A. R. Bunny and N. >. Bunting; general committee, Messrs G. G. Aitken, H. M. BoffiTington, D. Caselberg, N. H. James, and J. B. Moodie; handicapping, ground and match committee, Messrs G. G. Aitken, H. M. Boddingtpn, N. H. James, and A. R. Sclanders; referee, Mr H. M. Gore (president Wellington Provincial Lawn Tennis Association) ; hon. treasurer, Mr G. W. Sellar; hon. secretary, Mr A. R. Sclanders. As a result of the events decided, the following are the new provincial champions, while those of previous years can be seen in the tables appearing in another portion of this account. 1911. Men’s Singles.—H. A. Parker. Men’s Doubles. —C. C. Cox and G. G. Aitken Ladies’ Singles.-—Miss K. M. Nunneley. Ladies’ Doubles.—Misses K. M. Nunneley and M. Simpson. Combined Doubles.—F. M. B. Fisher and Miss R. M. Wellwood. At the conclusion of the tournament, a very pleasing ceremony took place, when the Rev. Dean McKenna (president of the club) officiated at the presentation of trophies won by the successful competitors. In a very happy little speech the Dean stated that the annual tournament in Masterton had been lent almost national interest by the action of the Wellington association in allotting the championships to Masterton, and he believed that they could look forward to another championship meeting there nt no distant date. From all sides he had received congratulations on the undoubted success of the tournament, and Trad the following communication from Mr. IT. M. Gore, president, of the W.P.L.T.A., who was referee at the meet-

ing, and is probably the best known tennis authority in New Zealand: — “Dear Mr. President, —I am sorry that 1 am unable to attend the presentation of trophies, owing to early return to Wellington, but I want to say before leaving that I have never seen better management at any tournament, nor have I ever played on better courts than those your club provided for this meeting. Thanking you for the great kindness and hospitality shown by you and the Masterton Club to myself.—l am, etc., H. M. GORE. Proceeding, Dean McKenna said that the tournament had not only been a great pleasure to the spectators, but also an object lesson to the aspiring champions in the district. Contests such as that just concluded deserved every encouragement, for they were tests of endurance and self-possession on the part of players, and undoubtedly did much to promote good tennis throughout the Dominion. Dean McKenna’s reference to the action of the Dannevirke Club in altering the date of its tournament so that it would not clash with that of Masterton evoked hearty appreciation, and he stated that the experience had shown that both clubs could conduct successful meetings without clashing. His own opinion was that tournaments should be arranged in groups so that players could compete at more than one meeting. After making eulogistic references to the very fine services rendered by Mr. A. R. Sclanders, the hon. secretary, the trophies were then presented amidst great enthusiasm, Parker, Misses Nunneley, and A. Perry coming in for rousing receptions. Three cheers for the president himself, and the energetic secretary terminated a very happy function. Details of the several rounds in the championships and the scores of the semi-finals and finals, of the handicaps are subjoined:— MEN’S SINGLES. (Last champion—Mr. R. W. K. Swanston.) First Round.—J. G. Swainson v. T. E. Maunsell, 6—2, 6—4; H. W. Brown v. J. D. S. Heaton, 6—4, 6—o; J. Steele v. J. Mawley by default; H. A. Parker v» E. Y. Redward, 6—o, 6—o; G. Ollivier v. J. B. Parker, 6 —l, 6—o; N. H. James v. N. Groves, 6—4, 4—6, 6—l; W. Goss v. W. G. Groves, 6—o, 6—o; C. C. Cox v, E. B. Waddington, 6—o, 6—l. Second Round. —F. M. B. Fisher v. C> 11. Blundell, 6—4, 7—5; C. A. Griffiths v, J. L. Blundell, 6—l, 2—6, 6—o (Blundell retired after second set); J. G. Swainson v. H. W. Brown, 7 —5, 4 —6, 6—3; H. A. Parker v. J. Steele, by default; G. Ollivier v. N. H. James, 6—l, 6—2; 0. C. Cox v. W. Goss, 6—4, 7—5, G. G. Aitken v. B. Booth, 6—o, 6—4; L. Bonnington v. D. Cowan, 6—2, 6—o. Third Round. —F. M. B. Fisher v. Cj A. Griffiths, 6 —l, 6—l; H. A. Parker v, J. G. Swianson, 6—l, 6—o; G. Olli ver v. C. 0. Cox, 6—3, 6—2; L, Bonnington v. G. G. Aitken, 7 —5, I—6,1 —6, 6—3. Semi-Finals. —H. A. Parker v. F. M. B. Fisher, 6—2, 2—6, 6—4; G. Ollivier v. L. Bonnington, 6—4, 3 —2; (Bonnington retired.) Final.—H. A. Parker (N.S.W., v. G. Ollivier (Canterbury), 6—2, 3—l.

MEIN’S DOUBLES. (Last champions: R. N. K. Swanston and C. C. Cox.) First Round.—H. A. Parker and H. W. Brown v. C. A. Griffiths and J. I» Blundell, 6 —o, 0—1; G. Ollivier and W. Goss v. J. Steele and B. Booth, 6—2, 6—l; F. M. B. Fisher and J. G. Swainson f. J. D. S. Heaton and E. B. Waddington, by default. Second Round.—D. Cowan and A. W. Soundy v. T. E. Maunsell and C. H. Blun; dell, 6—4, 6—3; H. A. Parker and H. W. Brown v. G. Ollivier and W. Goss, 7 —5, 7 —5; F. M. B. Fisher and J. G. Swainson v. L. Bonnington and E. Y. Redward, 6—4, 6—3; C. C. Cox and G. G. Aitken v. W. G. Groves and N. Groves, 6—l, 6—l. Semi-Finals.—H. A. Parker and H. W. Brown v. D. Cowan and A. W. Soundy, 6 —o, 6—o; C. C. Cox and G. G. Aitken v. F. M. B. Fisher and J. G. Swainson, 6— —3, 6—4. Final.—C. C. Cox (Hawke’s Bay) and G. G. Aitken (Wellington) v. H. A. Parker (New South Wales) and H. W. Brown (Wellington), 7 —5, I—6, 6—l. LADIES’ SINGLES. (Last Champion: Miss K. M. Nunneley.) First Round.—Miss L. Turton v. Miss E. Williams, by default; Miss K. M. Nunneley v. Miss D. Bell, 6—o, 6—o; Miss A. L. Brewster v. Miss D. Booth, 6—2, 6—l; Miss E. Travers v. Miss R. Hughes, 6—4, 6—l; Miss M. Simpson v. Miss L. D. Hughes, 6—2, 6—3; Miss R. M. Wellwood v. Miss L. K. Hughes, 6—4, Second Round.—Miss N. HartgilT v. Miss L. Turton, 6—3, 7—5; Miss K. M. Nunneley v. Miss A. L. Brewster, 6—o, 6—2; Miss E. Travers v. Miss M. Simpson, 6—2; 6—3; Miss R. M. Well wood v. Miss G. Booth, 4—6, 6—4, 6—l. Semi-finals.—Miss K. M. Nunneley v. Miss N. Hartgill, 6—l, 6—3; Miss E. Travers v. Miss R. M. Wellwood, 6—3, Final. —Miss K. M. Nunneley (Wellington) v. Miss E. Travers (Wellington), 6-—l, 6—rl. LADIES’ DOUBLES. (Last Champions: Misses K. M. Nunneley and E. Williams.) First Round.—Misses K. M. Nunneley and M. Simpson v. Misses N. Hartgill and E. Williams, 6—3, 6—3; Misses G. and D. Booth v. Misses D. Bell and F. Maginnity, 6—o, I—6, 6—3; Misses L. Turton and A. L. Brewster v. Misses S. Bolton and L. K. Hughes, 6—4, 7—5; Misses E. Travers and R. M. Wellwood v. Misses R. and L. D. Hughes, 6—2, 6—o. Semi-finals. —Misses K. M. Nunneley and M. Simpson v. Misses G. and D. Booth, 6—2, 6—2; Misses E. Travers and R. M. Wellwood v. Misses L. Turton and A. L. Brewster, 6—o, 6—l. Final. —Misses K. M. Nunneley and M. Simpson (Wellington) v. Misses E. Travers (Wellington) and R. M. Wellwood (Hawke’s Bay), 7—5, 6—3. COMBINED DOUBLES. (Last champions: H. W. Brown and Miss K. M. Nunneley.) First Round.—H. A. Parker and Miss E. Travers v. C. A. Griffiths and Miss L. Turton, 6—2, 6—o; A. W. Soundy and Miss L. K .Hughes v. C. H. Blundell and Miss A. L. Brewster, B—6, 7—5; W. Goss and Miss E. Williams v. D. Cowan and Miss S. Bolton, 6 —2, 6 —o; J. G. Swainson and Miss D. Booth v. G. G. Aitken and Miss M. Simpson, 4—6, 6—3, 6—3; C. C. Cox and Miss N. Hartgill v. E. Y. Redward and Miss R. Hughes, 6—2. 6—2; T. E. Maunsell and Miss F. Maginnity v. B. Booth and Miss L. D. Hughes, 10—8, 6 —4; F. M. B. Fisher and Miss R. M. Wellwood v. 8. Kempthorne and Miss D. Bell, 6—o, 6—o ; H. W. Brown and Miss K. M. Nunneley v. J. Steele and Miss G. Booth, 6—o, 6 —o. Second Round.—H. A. Parker and Miss E. Travers v. A. W. .Soundy and Miss L. K. Hughes, 6—o, 6—l; W. Goss and Miss E. Williams v. J. G. Swainson and Miss D. Booth, 6—l, 6—2; 0. C. Cox and Miss N. Hartgill v. T. E. Maunsell and Miss F. Maginnity, 6—o, 6—2; F. M. B. Fisher and Miss R. M. W’ellwood v. H. W. Brown and Miss K. M Nunneley, 6—l, 6—4. Semi-finals. —11. A. Parker and Miss E. Travers v. W. Goss and Miss E. Williams, 6—l, 6 —o; F. M. B Fisher and Miss R. M. Wellwood v. 0. 0. Cox and Miss N. Hartgill, 2—6, 6 —4, 6—2«

Final.—F. M. B Fisher (Wellington) and Miss R. M. Wellwood (Hawke's Bay) v. H. A. Parker (New South Wales) and Miss E. Travers (Wellington), 6—o HANDICAPS. MASTERTON LAWN TENNIS CLUB. MEN’S SINGLES (First Grade). Semi-finals.—L. Bonnington (scratch) v. 'H. W. Brown (owe 10), 70—46; M. E Denniston (35) v. J. L. Blundell (25), 70—63 Final.—L. Bonnington (scratch) (Christchurch) v. M. E. Denniston (35) (Thorndon), 70 —58, MEN’S (SINGLES (Second Grade). Semi-finals.—A. Caselberg (20) v. N. Chamberlain (15), 70—64; R. W. Stevens (scratch) v. A. C. Gawith (8), 70—67. Final.—A. Caselberg (20). (Masterton) v. R. W. Stevens (scratch) (Eketahuna), 70—59. MEN’S DOUBLES (First Grade). Semi-finals.—G. Ollivier and W. Goss (owe 25) v. J. D. S. Heaton and E. B. Waddington (25), by default; S A. Lawrence and D. M. Koan (25). v. H. M„ Gore and M. E. Denniston (15), 70 —56. Final.—C A Lawrence and D. M. Kean (25) (Broughham Hill) v. G. Ollivier and W. Goss (owe 25) (Christchurch), 70—60. MEN'S DOUBLES. SECOND GRADE. Semi Finals.—-A. and J. Caselberg (15) v. A. C. Gawith and J. Sutton (scr.), 70 —• 51; W. Hendry and B. Hebenton (10), v W. G. and W. Groves (10), 70 —66. Final: —W. Hendry and D. Hebenton (10), (Masterton), v. A. and J. Caselberg (15) (Masterton), 70 —66. LADIES’ STNGI.ES. Semi-finals. —Miss M. Simpson (10) v. Miss L. D. Hughes (10), 50—43; Miss A. Perry (35) v. Miss L. Turton (15), 50 —46. Final—Miss M. Simpson (10), (Thorndon) V. Aliss A. Perry (35), (Masterton), 50—42. LADIES’ DOUBLES. Semi-finals. —Misses O. Caverhill and L. Walters (18) v. Misses E. Williams and M. Simpson (owe 10), 50—34; Mrs. Hulme and Miss Dixon (25), v. Mrs. T. Evans and Miss Robieson (30), 51—49. Final.—Misses O. Caverhill and L. Walters (18), (Petone), v. Mrs Hulme (Blenheim), and Miss Dixon (Thorndon), (25), 50— 45. COMBINED DOUBLES. Semi-finals.—H. A. Parker and Mrs. Hulme (scr), v. C. 0. Cox and Miss N. Hartgill (owe 15), 50—18! G. G. Aitken and Miss M. Simpson (owe 5), v. D. M. Overhill (20), 50—44 (scr.), (Sydney). Final. —H. A. Parker (Sydney), and Mrs. Hulme (Blenheim), (scr.), v. G. G, Aitken (Masterton), and Miss M, Simpson (Thorndon), (owe 5), 50—42. Notes on the Tournament. THE CHAMPIONSHIPS. MEN'S SINGLES. The best matches in the earlier rounds were the Swainson-Brown and Cox-Goss heats. In tlie former Swainson proved himself a player of resource in defeating such a well-known and tried player as Brown, who, on his fifth service game, was within an ace of taking the first set at 6—4, but missed his opportunity and ■lost it instead at 7 —5. Had he accomplished the feat he would probably have w’On in straight sets, as he was right on his game next sqjt, which, after a great fight for the first few games, he captured at 6 —4, and going on led 2—love in the deciding set. Here Swainson overhauled him and. after losing the fifth game, and the lead again, thenceforward took command and ran out a winner with an unfinished break of four games. The Pahiatua representative deserved his win ns he was driving well throughout the match and keeping a splendid length. Brown did not start well, but after losing the first set he settled down to business and played his usual bustling game, though not successful at the net, and was beaten nt the back of the court by Swainson’s superior driving. Cox and Goss had a keen contest, in which there was plenty of good tennis. Cox won in straight sets after Goss had challenged him several times in the second one, aud had he annexed it would possibly have defeated Cox, as the Can-

terbury man is a 'demon once he gets wound up, and the longer a game lasts the better he. seems to like it. His driving in this match was very good, though he could have varied his game -to ad- , vantage when Cox got his measure, as the latter was not only anticipating his returns but volleyed so accurately that once he got in to the net he rarely failed to win the ace. Aitkin and Bonnington played a pretty match, as both players have very attractive styles, and their three setter was characterised by fine driving rallies, with Bonnington a trifle sounder. In the first set Aitkin made more mistakes and often failed to take advantage of opportunities when getting into a winning position at the net (Aitken possesses the happy knack of nearly always getting a good position in anticipation of his opponent s returns—gets in quickly off his but. despite that he made a great cffor t to capture the first set from love—4, and just failed in a vantage set. After Aitken captured the second set easily, Bonnin ton made the pace in the deciding one, "• - though Aitken recovered later but could not reduce the lead of 3—love with which Bonnington started away. Cox caused great disappointment by failing to even extend Ollivier who gave a fine all round exhibition, his drnin o and volleying feeing very clean and accural Cox appeared to fee playing poorly, but it requires a very sound judge of tennis to say whether a player is off-colour, or whether he is playing just as well as his opponent will allow. Certainly his volleying failed him badly, but then again Ollfivier is a very awkward man to play against, and his dnvin o takes some volleying; inasmuch as he drives well across all the time, and Cox seldom got on to them. In view of the controversy in Wellington some time ago over the selection of a New Zealand team had the Australians come over ; this writer wishes to remind ‘link ft that Ollivier whom he omitted from the first half-dozen has in his latest three matches (at time of writing) against leading North Island players, defeated •Swanston, Peacock and Cox in turn, whatever his fate was to he in the representative match against Wellington (probably Peacock would lower his

Colours). In the semi-finals. Bonnington retired against Ollivier after the second set had been in progress some time, -wlith a view to saving himself for the handicap singles, which he won from scratch, •the other game between Parker and Fis’her was the ’best single played at the ineeting. plisher gave onlookers the impression that he did not intend to take the match seriously especially after his Revere trouncing in the final at Dannevirke, but after Parker had taken the prst set in simple fashion, Fisher thereafter Pi veiled up, and the last two sets provided a great battle, the W eHing-T-oniau winning the second, 6 —2, and leading 4—3 in the final after Parker had apparently monojiolised it by starting oil 3 —love. Fisher’s effort in taking four successive games and overhauling •him created great enthusiasm, but he was unable to last Gt out, Parker winning the three games necessary for match with loss of only five aces. Fisher gave a surprisingly fine exhibition, and was in one of bis brilliant moods, (but did not play quite so confidently when victory was within lilis grasp, perhaps because of the fact that he has never beaten Parker. He was very clever for the l»est part of two sets, and was especially good on low volleys and drop shots. Parker plaved mainly from the base-line, and kept very accurate, his placing alone saving the match. He was just as clever as Fisher, too, on the ■shorter ones, thouglw the latter was quicker to get up to them, and occasionally made a great recovery.

Ollivier was palpably affected bv the Importance of the occasion when he met (Parker in the final, and the mat<;h w*»B eoon over, the Canterbury man scoring only three games. He was never comfortable, and was anything but accurate when in volley, though Parker is notab’y fl wk ward to sot position »ga»n«t. and when Ollivier adopted base-line tactics his driving failed as well. Parker «e*Mo»n made a mistake, and he neve* looked Jike losing, plavfing with aro«*t confidence, and giving a fine evhHvHinn. Though Iwaten so ihadlv it mn«t Iv* remembered that fflrvier hras mooting Parker for the first time, and will probably do infinitely hetier if t.ho same pair ever face the starter agcFn. LADIES’ SINGLES. It is .hardly necessary, in view of the fact that figures speak for to be very lengthy about Mlflfl Nunneley’a

latest performance. At Dannevirke the ex-New Zealand champion scored 48 games to 13, including her defeat of Miss Travers, 6—o, 6—4; but at Masterton she did even better still, losing only eight games in four matches; while her third defeat of the N.Z. (.'hampion (Miss Travers) was more decisive than ever, 6-—l, Miss Hartgill was more successful than any other player who met Miss Nunneley in either of the North Island Tournaments, and she earned every one of the four games she won in the semi-final. The Dannevirke girl played the correct game, and went for her shot every time; and. her exhibition was only in keeping with her reputation as a player of great promise, possessing, as she does, stamina, plenty of confidence, and a niee free style. MEN'S DOUBLES. Ollivier and Goss got a very handy start of two-love in both sets against Parker and Brown, but then lost five of the succeeding six games. Queerly enough, they evened up again at five all, only to lose in vantage sets on both occasions, 7 —5. . The matejj, was not a great one, as all four players made too many mistakes, but it was very interesting, and would have been more so had Goss and Ollivier managed to take either the first or second set. Aitken was brilliant in his semi-final and final matches along with Cecil Cox, and that factor more than anything else accounted for their defeat of Fisher and Swainson; but Parker and Brown, who were not a very happy combination, on the last day had the misfortune to find Cox as well in one of his happiest moods, with the result that Cox and Aitken defeated them in a three-set match amidst a scene of great enthusiasm. Cox was certainly the steadier player of the two, as Aitken was rather inconsistent in the second set, but after Parker and Brown just lost two or three important games, at the commencement of the final set Aitken struck his game again, and his volleying and overhead work were subsequently up to the best New Zealand standard, and, in addition, he was serving well. They combined splendidly, and got in to the net every time, and to some purpose. Brown was never at his best, and it was hard lines on Parker that he should have got so little help when it was so badly wanted; and Brown’s inability to do anything right eventually affected his partner’s game as well, and after the first few games of the last set it was quite evident Cox and Aitken had them beaten. Cox has been in the successful Double combination five, times since the inauguration of the Provincial Championships in 1900 -— three times with Swainson and once each with Fisher

and Aitken. LADIES’ DOUBLES. A great surprise was caused by the defeat of the N.Z. Champions in the final, especially as the latter got a fine start, leading 3 —love and 40 —15. From that stage Misses Nunneley and Simpson were easily the better combination, and while •the latter played safely, and kept getting them back from all sorts of positions, Miss Nunneley made the pace. The champion gave one of her best exhibitions and her driving was always well placed and accurate. Misses Travers and Wellwood gave a very ordinary display for players of their capabilities, but as a double combination they have never been happy since winning the New Zealand championship, for, apart from their defeat by Misses Nunneley and Baird in the final at Marlborough, Misses Butterworth and Ledger were only defeated through pure luck, and at Dannevirke the fates were again kind to Misses Travers and Wellwood, when the Sydney player, Miss L. Williams and Miss Ryan led 5 —3 in the third set of the semi-final, and twice wanted only one point for match. On this occasion they played absolutely without confidence, and though Miss Travers oftener wont for her shot. Miss Wellwood was content to get them back, which isn’t enough in a championship, and the livtter -would have greatly improved the attack had she played the net game, at which she is very good. COMBINED DOUBLES. There were some fine matches in the combined*, that played in the second round being a splendid exhibition of ihe mixed doubles game. Fisher and Miss Wellwood, after losing the opening game of the match took the set without loss of an additional game. But the second was very even and exciting from the. stage when Fisher’s side led 2—o, and the games going -evenly, up to 4 all. Then Brown and Miss Nunneley led 40—15 in the ninth game, and lost four points

running, thus losing a great opportunity of getting the ball, at 5 —4, the match ending-'bn Fisher’s service. The winning pair.'were easily the. better combination though- Miss Wellwood was bhfr weaker lady of the two, as she frequently tossed short ones, and Ridwii scored off them nearly every time, exempting four or., five wonderful recoveries by both Fisher and Miss Wellwood.- Fisher again played a clever game, but occasionally, in working for an opening Miss Nunneley beat-him with a. beauty, and in one game she passed him twice across court and once down the side line with fine drives. Miss Nunneley was at a disadvantage owing to a distressing accident which caused her retirement for nearly an hour. Fisher sent in a terrific smash low down the centre of the court, and in endeavouring to return it, struck herself on the face with her raquet. When the second set was started afresh, later oh,; she -was evidently affected by the shock, and her game suffered accordingly. ' Excepting for giving Brown many ohanujes at the net. Miss Wellwood otherwise played well and backed her partner up splendidly —rather an effort sometimes, as one never knows where the next stroke will find him. -Swainson and Miss D. Booth had a well deserved win from Aitken and Miss Simpson, Swainson in particular showing excellent form. Parker and Miss Travers easily defeat ed a very strong .pair in Goss and Miss Williams, who scored only one game in the match, but the other semi-final was a much better game, Uoxand Miss Hartgill taking the first set from Fisher and Miss Wellwood, who afterwards proved too strong, -winning the last two sets comfortably. The final was one of the worst contests the writer has ever seen tor- a championship final, and there was only one pair in it from start to finish Fisher and Miss Wellwood were playing well together right through this event, but it ■was simply ridiculous, that Parker and Miss Travers should score but one game out of the first twelve, and be beaten eventually, 6—o, 6—3. It was not a fair test in any way as Parker and Miss Travers were tired, notieably so; indeed the former looked as though he weren’t even trying. The last paragraph is not written with the intention of detracting from Fisher and Miss Wellwood’s win, a* they are two first-class combined players, and deserved to win the event even if they weren’t the strongest pair on paper.'

Winners of the Wellington Provincial Championships, MEN’S SINGLES. 1900— F. Laishley 1901 — F. Laishley 1902— G. C. Cox' 1903— C. C. Cox 1904— C. C. Cox 1905— C. J. Dickie 1906— H. M. Gore 1907— C. C. Cox 1908— R. N. K. Swanston 1909— H. Riee (New- South Wales) 1910— R. N. K. Swanston 1911— H. A. Parker (New South Wales) MEN’S DOUBLES. 1900— F. Laishley and C. F. Adams 1901— F. Laishley and C. E. Adams 1902— F. Laishley and C. F. Adams 1903— C. C. Cox and R. N. K. Swanston 1904— C. C. Cox and It. N. K. Swanston 1905— C. J. Dickie and A. G. Wallace 1906— F. M. B. Fisher and A. Young 1907 — C. C. Cox and F. M. B. Fisher 1908— H. M. Gore and G. G. Aitken 1909— H. Rice and H. W. Brown 1910— C. C. Cox and R. N. K. Swanston 1911 — C. C. Cox and G. G. Aitken LADIES’ SINGLES. 1900— Miss Cave 1901— Mrs Payne 1902— Mrs Payne 1903— Miss L. Powdrell 1904— Miss L. Powdrell 1905— Miss E. Travers 1906— Miss A. Ward 1907— Miss K. M. Nunneley 1908— Mrs Hickson 1909— Miss K. M. Nunneley 1910 — Miss K. M. NcVmeley 1911— Miss K. M. Nunneley LADIES’ DOUBLES. 1900— Misses Gore and Kennedy 1901— Mrs Marchbanks and Miss Gore 1902— Mrs Payne and Miss Cave 1903— Mrs Payne and Miss Cave 1904 — Mrs L. Pearce and Miss L. Powdrell 1905 — Misses E. Travers andi E. Williams 1906— Misses L.-Powdrell and E. Travers 1907— Misses L. Powdrell and E. Travsrs

1908— Mrs Hickson and Miss E. William* 1909— Misses E. Travers and .A. Gray 1910— Misses K. M. "Nunneley and E. Williams 1911— Misses K. M. Nunneley and M. - — Simpson ~ , COMBINED DOUBLES. 1900— C. St. G. Gore and Mrs Marchbanks , 1 1901 — F. Laishley and Miss Kennedy 1902— H. M. Gore and Miss Gore 1903— H. A. Parker and Miss Kennedy 1904— F. Laishley and Miss N. Marchant 1905— F. Laishley and Miss N. Marchant 1906— H. W. Brown and Miss E. Travers 1907— C. F. Adams and Miss K. M. Nunneley 1908 — R. N. K. Swanston and Mrs Hickson 1909— F. M. B. Fisher and Miss A. Batham 1910— H. W. Brown and Miss K. M. Nunneley 1911 — E. M. B. Fisher and Miss R. M, Wellwood WELLINGTON. (By Romulus.) WELLINGTON v. CANTERBURY; The annual tennis tourney, Wellington v. .Canterbury, was played in splendid -weather on Saterdny last results: — Men's Singles.—Smythe beat Kiver, 3—6. 6 —l, 6—3; Pease beat Young, 6—4, 6 —l; Salmond beat Borrows, 6—4, 10 —8. Ladies’ Doubles.- Misses Nunneley anti Simpson beat Mrs Baltnntyne and Miss C'ottol,’adles*' Singles.—Miss Travers heat Mrs Ballnntyne, 6—l. 6—2. Miss Nunnelly beat Mrs Berry, 6—l, 6—o. The Canterbury ladies suffered defeat by six rubbers to nil and 11 sets to 2 Canterbury men were victorious by o rubbers to 4 and 13 sets to 8. The men’s singles were watched with the closest interest. The men's doubles finished very close, set nil. and in the last set were even up to the end. The concluding results are:— Men's Doubles. —Peacock and Wanston defeated Ollivier and Goss, 4—6, o—2, 7—5; Kiver and Borrows defeated Smythe and Salmond, 4 -G, f. -0, o—7; Pearce and White defeated Young and Dldsbury, 6 —3, o—ol • Men’s Singles.—Ollivier defeated I’ocock, 6 3, o—4; Swanston defeated Goss; 2—o, 9 3' c—2; White-Parsons defeated Didsbury, 6—3. 6—l. Ladies' Doubles. —Misses Travers and. Williams defeated Mrs. Berry and Mrs. Lord. 6—O. I—6, 6 —4. Ladies' 'Singles.—Miss Nunnelly defeated Mrs Berry, 6—l. 0—0; Miss Williams defeated Miss Cotton, 15—7, o—3, 6—l; Miss Simpson defeated Mrs. I,ord, 6—-4, 6 —o.

Miscellaneous. Two well-known identities in connection with lawn tennis in Wellington were competitors at the big meeting concluded last week at Masterton —H. M. Gore and E. Y. Redward. The former only took part in one event, as he plays very little of recent years, though only five years ago since he annexed the Singles Championship of the Province. Redward played in all six events, but, though not very successful, gave two or three exhibitions worthy of his better days, notably in the Championship Doubles (partnered by Bonnington) against. Fisher and Swainson. Redward was very sound, and greatly pleased Bonnington, the pair winning four games in the first set and three in the other,. although Fisher was not taking the game very seriously. Representatives of the Petone Club have been very successful in this year’s Tournaments, 'the latest players to distinguish themselves being Misses O. Caverhill and Walters, f.ho won the Handicap Doubles at Masterton. They received a handicap of 18, but were playing so well that they would probably have succeeded with a much smaller handicap. Wellington players competing in the various championships anl handicap events are:—Thorndon —F. M. B. Fisher, H. M. Gore, M. E. Denniston, O. A. Griffiths, Misses K. M. Nunneley, M. Simpson, H. Turton, and Dixon. Wellington —H. W. Brown, Misses E. Travers and E. Williams. Newtown —E. Y. Redward, Misses McLean and Yeitch. Brougham Hill —D.' M. Kean, €!. A. Lawrence; . Petone—Misses O. Caverliilt and L. Walters. Hutt.—J. D. S. Heaton. Victoria Col lege—E. Mackersey. Miss M. Simpson (Thorndon) won.the Ladies’ Handicap Singles at Masterton very easily. She was expected to get her closest game with Miss L. D. Hughes, and such was the case, but the latter had no < chance of defeating the Wellingtonian level, as Miss Simpson had already mot and defeated the promising Pahiat.ua. player in the Championship, 6—2, 6—3. Tn addition to her win in-the above event (Handicap Singles), Miss Simpson was a partner In the winning Championship