The groom's mother's name was not recorded, other than what looks like a ?
and John A was 'possibly' younger than her as it says 'aetatis' (at the age of) and then a word I can't decipher. As she was baptised 1889, she would have been over 21, so perhaps he had not yet reached 21.
I have to confess the prominence of the entry number of 1902 threw me at first as I originally thought that was the baptism year and wondered how she was marrying in 1912! :-)
Boo