She worked as a top sculptor alongside her husband Robert Mawer.
She was a partner in Mawer & Ingle, but she does not describe herself as a stone carver in the 1861 and 1871 Censuses, although her son does so.
She is credited by the Leeds Intelligencer for her Caen stone carving in 1857, however, and by other newspapers for other work between 1854 and 1859, listed below.
In 1856 she summonsed an apprentice to court for disobeying orders, but her case was dismissed.
The apprentice was Matthew Taylor, who was "exceedingly clever at his business."
The case sheds some light on the conditions of work for apprentices at the stone carving works:
"On Saturday (19 February 1856), at the Leeds Court House, Mrs Mawer, widew of the late Mr Mawer, stone-mason, near the new Town-hall, summoned one of her apprentices to show cause why he did not obey her lawful command to go into the country to work.
Mr. Horsfall appeared for Mrs Mawer, and Mr. Ferns for the apprentice.
The case was brought into Court for the purpose of deciding the legality of the apprentice's claim for 2s. (
equivalent to £9.68 in 2016) a week for expenses when from home performing his employer's work.
It appeared that Mrs Mawer paid him 8s. (
equivalent to £38.72 in 2016) per week, and by reason of his proficiency in his business he was frequently sent into the country to carve stone in churches and churchyards, and on such occasions his railway fare was paid, and 6d. (
equivalent to £2.42 in 2016) per night allowed for lodgings.
Mr. Horsfall called several master stone-masons, who proved that the custom of the trade was to allow 6d.
per night only when apprentices or journeymen were sent into the country to work.
Mrs Mawer had, however, made occasional presents to the apprentice; but he now claimed 2s.
per week for expenses.
Mr J. Hope Shaw decided that, although the apprentice's indenture compelled him to obey all the lawful commands of his employer, yet, if the means were withheld whereby he could perform such command, he could not be punished for refusal.
It was the same when a witness was subpoened; if a reasonable sum were not tendered to him for expenses, he could not be punished if he failed to obey the command.
The sum of 2s.
per week for expenses when an apprentice was away from home, the Bench considered a reasonable sum; and that not having been paid, they were of opinion that it was not a disobedience requiring punishment.
The summons was therefore dismissed."
She worked as a top sculptor alongside her husband Robert Mawer. She was a partner in Mawer & Ingle, but she does not describe herself as a stone carver in the 1861 and 1871 Censuses, although her son does so. She is credited by the Leeds Intelligencer for her Caen stone carving in 1857, however, and by other newspapers for other work between 1854 and 1859, listed below. In 1856 she summonsed an apprentice to court for disobeying orders, but her case was dismissed. The apprentice was Matthew Taylor, who was "exceedingly clever at his business." The case sheds some light on the conditions of work for apprentices at the stone carving works:
"On Saturday (19 February 1856), at the Leeds Court House, Mrs Mawer, widew of the late Mr Mawer, stone-mason, near the new Town-hall, summoned one of her apprentices to show cause why he did not obey her lawful command to go into the country to work. Mr. Horsfall appeared for Mrs Mawer, and Mr. Ferns for the apprentice. The case was brought into Court for the purpose of deciding the legality of the apprentice's claim for 2s. (equivalent to £9.68 in 2016) a week for expenses when from home performing his employer's work. It appeared that Mrs Mawer paid him 8s. (equivalent to £38.72 in 2016) per week, and by reason of his proficiency in his business he was frequently sent into the country to carve stone in churches and churchyards, and on such occasions his railway fare was paid, and 6d. (equivalent to £2.42 in 2016) per night allowed for lodgings. Mr. Horsfall called several master stone-masons, who proved that the custom of the trade was to allow 6d. per night only when apprentices or journeymen were sent into the country to work. Mrs Mawer had, however, made occasional presents to the apprentice; but he now claimed 2s. per week for expenses. Mr J. Hope Shaw decided that, although the apprentice's indenture compelled him to obey all the lawful commands of his employer, yet, if the means were withheld whereby he could perform such command, he could not be punished for refusal. It was the same when a witness was subpoened; if a reasonable sum were not tendered to him for expenses, he could not be punished if he failed to obey the command. The sum of 2s. per week for expenses when an apprentice was away from home, the Bench considered a reasonable sum; and that not having been paid, they were of opinion that it was not a disobedience requiring punishment. The summons was therefore dismissed."
Catherine Mawer