EDITORIAL

ACCORDING to my latest exchanges, the match in which John Roberts had to concede 7,000 in 21,000 to F. Weiss was exciting the keenest interest all over Australia. There is only one thing that I do not like about it—the seven-inch protected area at each corner pocket, in which "preserves" only two consecutive cannons are allowed to be made. As I wrote last week, "directly any fair stroke is barred a game becomes a bastard one," and it is quite certain that this stipulation alone would debar any break that may have been made from figuring in the list of records.

NOR can I see any object to be gained by the innovation. After his unpleasant experience in his great match with the late Frank Ives it is easy to understand that Roberts has a holy horror of the ' jam' stroke, but the present rules of the game render a recurrence of such an episode quite out of the question. Rule 19 is as follows:—"If the object balls become 'jammed' the red ball shall be spotted on the billiard spot, and the non-striker's ball on the centre spot, the striker playing from < the D.' If, however, the greater part of any ball so situated be off the table, it shall be held to be pocketed."

THIS being the case, the "protected area" appears to me to be a mistake. Two or three years ago, when the "push," though always forbidden by the rules, was in almost universal use, a long run of nursery cannons possessed very little attraction for many of the spectators at a billiard match, who very properly attached small value to a break which was largely made up of glaringly foul strokes. Now, however, the case is widely different; the player who can make fifty or sixty consecutive cannons well deserves every point he scores, and the break is a delightful one to watch. The greatest skill displayed at any part of it is shown in getting the object balls "round the corner," when they have been gradually nursed along one of the cushions to a corner pocket, and this beautiful work will not be possible with a seven-inch line.

IN another part of the paper will be found a very brief resume of the case of "Thurston and Co. (Limited) v. the London County Council," which resulted in that well-known firm of billiard-table makers receiving the sum of.£9,237 as compensation for being compelled to give up their premises, 16, Catherine Street, for the purposes of the Strand Improvement Scheme. As a rule, I think that compensation in these cases is awarded on a very liberal— not to say, excessive—scale, so I suppose that it has been the misfortune of Messrs. Thurston to be the exception which is said to prove the rule.

UNLUCKILY there is no court of appeal from the decision of last week, and it is quite certain that the sum which has been awarded to Messrs. Thurston will not quite cover the difference in the rent that they will have to pay, even supposing that they are fortunate enough to find suitable premises within reasonable distance of their old home. They have been in Catherine Street ever since 1814, and it is easy to understand that, as rents go nowadays, they may almost have been said to have been living rent free.

NOR is this the only loss that they will sustain. Three moves—or is it two?—are said to be as bad as a fire, and the removal of all the stock-in-trade of a billiard-table maker is a serious and expensive matter. Then it is impossible to estimate what loss of trade may ensue. We all know that Messrs. Thurston are household words wherever billiards is played, and it might be thought that anyone having made up his mind to purchase a Thurston table would make a point of finding out the new address.

Some people, however, are very singular in this respect, and it is perfectly certain that not a few would-be customers, who find that the old familiar premises have disappeared, will straightway go elsewhere, especially those who only require some appurtenances of the game less expensive than a table. This little idiosyncrasy of the public will necessitate a vast deal of extra expense in the way of advertising, and, on the whole, Messrs. Thurston's demand of £ 16,000 appears to have been a very reasonable one.

THE letter I have received from Mr. George D. Stevens, and which is published elsewhere, will relieve the anxiety of a good many who for years past have been accustomed to regard Mr. Stevens as Thurston's personified, and could not understand why, in the case in question, they heard nothing of Mr. Stevens, and so much of Mr. Craggs. What Mr. Stevens has done for the game of billiards is generally known, and his annual Licensed Victuallers' Handicap and Championship have been brilliant successes from the very outset. It is, therefore, highly satisfactory to learn that Mr. Stevens possesses such a comfortable interest in this old-established business.

AS the weekly Billiard Problem appears to be regarded as one of the most interesting features of the paper, I should like to impress upon those who join in the competitions the absolute necessity of complying with the few simple rules which have been drawn up for their guidance. It is very unsatisfactory to be compelled to disqualify a correct solution which arrives a few hours late, but, in fairness to the other competitors, there is no option in the matter. Then I should like to impress upon competitors that, although they are at perfect liberty to forward as many solutions as they please, a separate coupon, cut from the cover of the current number of THE WORLD OF BILLIARDS, must accompany each solution.

IN one of the many letters which have been received relative to the problems, the writer observed, "of course you will not allow professionals to compete." I must confess that I see no reason why they should be excluded, nor do I know how I could prevent them from joining in if they wished to do so. It would be so very easy for them to send m their solutions in the name of a friend, and moreover, how could I possibly debar any of the amateur competitors from consulting a professional as to the solution of a problem, if they felt inclined to obtain his assistance? No, the competitions must, I think, be open to all who observe the rules.