LAWN TENNIS.

King Country Chronicle, Volume VII, Issue 549, 12 March 1913, Page 5

LAWN TENNIS.

HOWARD SHIELD MATCH.

On Saturday last the representatives of the Taumarunui Tennis Club made a determined but unsuccessful attempt to obtain possession of the Howard Challenge Shield from the Mangapehi Club. The weather was perfect, the court in first-class order, and altogether a very pleasant day was spent. Taumarunui was represented by Misses Meyenberg, Garrett and Cook and Mrs Kensington, Messrs Prouse, Ross, Raven and Allking, whilst Mangapehi players were Misses Johnson (2), McCracken and Donaldson. Messrs McCracken, Hayson, Buck and Seymour. Appended are the scores, Taumarunui reading first in each case: Prouse v. McCracken, 6—4, 4—6, 2—6; Raven v. Buck, 2—6, 6 —4, 10—8; Ross v. Hayson, 6—4, 4—6, 6—l.

Prouse and Allking v. Hayson and Buck, 6—l, 6—4. Prouse and Miss Garrett v. McCracken and Miss Johnson, o—6, 2—6; Allking and Miss Cook v. Seymour and Miss McCracken, 6—4, 6 —4.

Mrs Kensington v. Miss Donaldson, 3—6, 4—6.

Although Taumarunui won four matches to Mangapehi's three they decided to forfeit the remaining matches as they considered they could not secure sufficient matches to win the Shield. They have decided, however, to lodge a further challenge for March 29th, and another really good contest should result.

REPLY TO MR H. 0. ROBINSON

The Editor.

Sir, —Having read Mr H. 0. Robinson's letter commenting on an article which appeared in the columns of your paper recently, I would like to make a few remarks in connection therewith. MrR obinson's contention that the Te Kuiti Club has expended more money on the same of tennis than any other club in the King Country may bs perfectly correct, but if such is the case it would appear that the money has not been invested to the best advantages. The coui-is provided by the Taumari-mi Club, three in number, are superior in every respect to those of Te Kuiti, as also is the pavilion, conveniences, etc. Taumarunui can show two hard courts and one sand court, all of which are in good playing order, and it is a well known fact that asphalt courts are far more expensive to put down than sand courts. I think I may safely assert that it was mainly due to the poor courts provided that so few Shield matches resulted. Even the old sand courts at Te Kuiti, at their best, were but poor courts. As regards the statement that "the Mangapehi Club insisting upon playing" I would draw Mr Robinson's attention to rule 7. which reads: "The holders shall have the right to defend their title on their own courts provided —firstly, they will play the challengers Within 14 days; secondly, they do not arrange with the challengers to play on another court; thirdly, or the King Country Lawn Tennis Association do not order the game to be played on a court selected by them." It is perfectly correct that the Mangapehi Club was informed that the Te Kuiti courts were unlit for play, but it will perhaps be remembered that the writer informed the secretary of the Te Kuiti Club by telephone that Mangapehi was prepared to play at Taumarunui or Mangapehi to save further trouble, and that it was Te Kuiti that elected to defend the Shield on their own courts. Had the matter been brought before the association it is very probable that neutral courts would have been appointed. Mr Robinson further contends that the last match with'Te Kuiti Was not a legitimate match by reason of the Te Kuiti Club being unfinancial at that time, but states that Te Kuiti would not raise that point. It would"; certainly not be to Te Kuiti's credit to raise that point, although should the matter be brought before the association, the Mangapehi Club is quite prepared to abide by its decision. Should Mangapehi's claim be proved illegitimate the Shield would probably be contested again at open tournament, and this would tend to enliven King Country competitions, and this, above everything else, is what is required.—l am, etc., A. E. McCRACKEN, Hon. Sec. MangapehLL.T.C.