Interesting stories and letters from Advertiser's of the past

ONE HUNDRED AND SIXTY-FOUR YEARS AGO – FRIDAY 18 MAY 1860

CRICKET MATCH

A very interesting cricket match was played on Monday last between the Andover and Whitchurch clubs – which terminated in favour of the former, whose superiority in fielding and bowling secured them an away victory. The match, which was played in a field near the railway station, attracted a larger number than usual of spectators, but should it really be considered a match between Andover and Whitchurch, when the Andover club have to go to Danebury for its best bat, and to Clatford, Penton, Redenham, Appleshaw and other villages for many of the players, while Whitchurch scoured its own neighbourhood for talent, and contributed just three men from its own parish, with the remainder being from other places? When the CC of one place professes to play that of another we would suggest that the players should be selected exclusively from men living in the two parishes and should feel ashamed that they cannot field a team from their own town and that any victory or defeat (as the case may be), is ascribed to the efforts of strangers.

ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY-FIVE YEARS AGO – FRIDAY 19 MAY 1899

NEW PUBLIC FOOTWAY

Notice is hereby given that at the next Court of Quarter Sessions before Archibald John Mackey Esq. on 12 July next, that an application to stop up the public footway, 755 feet long and two feet wide, leading from the Winchester Road across a field belonging to Henry Gamman Esq, called the Pitts Mill Building Estate, and reaching the Clatford road, as being unnecessary and it is proposed to substitute a new public footway in lieu thereof, 440 feet long and eight feet wide that will be nearer and more commodious to the public. And that the certificate of two Justices having viewed the same highway or footway, and the line of the proposed new public footway, with a plan of the same, will be lodged with the Clerk of the Peace for the said borough on 13 June next. Given under my hand this 18 May 1899, Alfred Purkess, Surveyor of the parish and borough of Andover. (Compiler’s note: the new footway was what became Anton Road.)

ONE HUNDRED YEARS AGO – FRIDAY 16 MAY 1924

CORRESPONDENCE – MOTORS OUTSIDE SHOPS

Dear Sir: I agree with your correspondent’s remarks concerning the practice of mid-day shop closing in Andover but disagree with his sentiments regarding motor cars standing in the Market Place. May I first of all disclaim any connection with the ‘prosperous’ tradesmen to whom he refers. I very much doubt if this designation can be truthfully applied to any retail trader in Andover today. No one desires to prohibit car owners from leaving their cars for a reasonable period in the street while shopping. Personally, I see no need for any restriction in this direction on ordinary days, but on market day and Saturday evening, in view of the necessity of finding enough room for buses coming into the town, it appears to be reasonable to ask that motor cars be garaged, and not leaving them in a continuous row along the gutter for several hours, making access to the shops difficult. I also have to add that he would not be allowed to leave his car for any length of time in the main streets of Salisbury and Winchester on any day of the week. Yours OSH.

SEVENTY-FIVE YEARS AGO – FRIDAY 20 MAY 1949

THIS HEN MADE SURE

When Mr A Shears of Broughton took eggs from his chicken run recently he picked up one which was exceptionally large, and on weighing it found it to be 5oz. What’s more, after the egg had been boiled and cracked open, it was found to contain another egg complete in its own shell. A poultry expert at the Andover Packing Station told the Advertiser that the 5oz egg was not so very unusual. ‘We pick out on average two or three such eggs each week’, he said, ‘but of course we are handling thousands of eggs’. He added that finding a complete egg inside was rare but not unheard of.

FORTY-SEVEN YEARS AGO – FRIDAY 20 MAY 1977

TENANTS ARE CONFUSED ABOUT COMPENSATION

Tenants displaced in the Town Development pilot scheme to repair faulty houses are confused about the compensation they are to receive, said a councillor this week. Cllr Brian Smith said that tenants who would not be going back to their original houses receive a payment of £140. The sum was towards the cost of replacing or adapting curtains and carpets. Now they discovered that the removal fees were being deducted from that figure. ‘They could have moved themselves more cheaply if they had known’, said Cllr Smith at a Test Valley Borough Council Housing Committee meeting on Tuesday evening. Borough Secretary, Mr S C Millen, said that the council had arranged removals for these tenants at a cost of £20 which he felt was not expensive. ‘They must claim separately for furnishings damaged through damp and faults in the housing and this is being dealt with by the insurance company’, he pointed out. Cllr Smith felt that tenants should be kept informed of the current situation and he asked the Housing Manager, Mr Eric Kimpton, to write to the permanently displaced tenants to let them know where they stood.