AFTER THE WEDDING

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLIX, Issue 111, 10 April 1929, Page 11

AFTER THE WEDDING

, UNUSUAL CLAIM, PAYMENT FOR BREAKFAST. Ouster patties, asparagus rolls and other dainties were discussed in legal proceedings at the Magistrate’s Court yesterday afternoon, being the principal elements involved in a case Drought before Mr J. L. Stout, S.M., who was asked to determine who should pay for a wedding breakfast. The question arose as to what custom should be followed. A claim was made by G. Steel, pastrycook, of Palmerston North, against G. E. Hickford, salesman, of Dannevirke, his wife (Mrs M. L. Hickford.) and-his mother-in-law) (Mrs I. K. Barker) for goods of the value ot £8 9s sold and delivered for a wedding breakfast on November 16 last. Mr Grant appeared for plaintiff and Mr Yortt for the defendants Hickford. It was alleged that Mrs Barker had ordered the goods for the occasion, and no definite arrangements were made for payment, as i*t was the practice t<j receive a cash settlement. WHOSE LIABILITY? The Magistrate: Who usually pays for the wedding cake ? Mr Yortt: I am not prepared to say. The Magistrate: I think that it is usual for the bride’s parents to do so. Who was sued ? Mr Yortt: The bride, bridegroom, and bride’s mother. The Magistrate: Why can t they settle it among themselves? Giving evidence, Mrs Steel stated that the account was sent to Mrs Barker, in the first place, but she replied that she was not in .a position to pay and suggested that the bill be forwarded to nlr Hickford. The bridegroom, however, returned the account with a similar statement, and it was still unpaid. Mrs Barker had stated that she bad received authority from Mr Hickford to order the goods. With her daughter, she gave the order, and the entry was made in her name. She did not say who would pay. The son-in-law had never put in an appearance. Mrs Barker stated in evidence that she was the mother of Mrs Hickford, with whom she ordered the wedding breakfast after discussing the matter. Witness had offered to provide a small wedding breakfast, but Hickford wanted a large one. She understood that be was to pay. The majority of the guests were his friends, and an invitation was not extended to many of the friends of witness. Mr Yortt submitted that the contract was really made between Mrs Steel and Mrs Barker. His Worship: Well, can’t she sue the other party ? . , , Mr Yortt: But it is logical that she should pay. The Magistrate: It is not a question of what is logical. I want to hear his evidence. Does he deny his liability? He is bound to pay, considering his wife. Mr Yortt: The contract was incurred before the marriage. Gordon Edmund Hickford stated that he did not know his credit was being pledged. . H-e liad. said he could not afford to do anything in the matter at all. About three months afterwards ho received the account, which had been forwarded to him at the instance of Mrs Barker. PAID NEARLY EVERYTHING. Mr Yortt: You had to pay other incidentals, too. In fact, they tried to bundle the whole box of tricks on to you, both their side and yours? Defendant: Yes, practically all. Witness added that he did not know anything about the arrangements for the wedding breakfast, with the exception that he was shown the wedding cake in the window and. was told it was costing £3. Mr Grant: You were at ihe wedding breakfast, were you not? Defendant: Yes, naturally. Mr Grant: Do you think that you ought to pay for it? —No, I don’t. Mr Grant: Do you think it was Mir for your wife to pay for it?—According to what I hear, the bride’s parents usually pay for the wedding The Magistrate: I suggest that you pay half each. Have you any objection to that? Mr Yortt: I can understand the position, although I am not married myself. The Magistrate (facetiously): Then I am afraid that I can’t accept your evidence. Mr Yortt: He was called upon to pay for several things which the others should have paid for. The Magistrate: What has he paid for ? Mr Yortt: Well, I don’t think he wanted to mention that. WINE AND COCKTAILS. ’"Defendant: It was suggested to me on the night of the wedding—l don’t know exactly what it was —but somebody rang my people and mentioned wine, but they did not view it favourably. In the end, my brother brought two bottles, but when I arrived there were wine; cocktails and whisky. My wife told me that if I did not pay for that I would , have to pay for the rest of the business. The Magistrate: Didn’t you drink any of the wine? Defendant: No, I did not.' The Magistrate: Perhaps we had better hear what Mrs Hickford has to say. Myrtle Lillian Hickford said that she accompanied her mother when she went to arrange for the breakfast. At the time no mention was made that Mr Hickford should pay. Mr Yortt: What is understood in such a case as this? Mrs Hickford: I understood that my mother was to pay for it. Replying to Mr Grant, Mrs Hickford said that she discussed the matter with her mother prior to the wedding. Her husband was to pay for the cake and her mother the remainder. PAYMENT FOR CAKE. Mr Grant: Did Mr Hickford know that he was to pay for the cake? Mrs Hickford: I think so. Mr Grant: Do you know why he won’t pay now? Mrs Hickford: He does not want to pay for the the lot. He is willing to pay for the wedding cake. At this stage of the proceedings, the defendant Hickford undertook to pay for the cake. / _ The Magistrate: I think that the matter should be settled on that basis. The goods were ordered by the mother-in-law. His Worship adjourned the case for a week in order to allow the parties to arrive at a settlement.