The Sun.
London, England, 1836-08-30 00:00:00

UNION-HALL.

- -.--• -----
Yesterday the woman Harvey, who attempted to prac-
tice a gross imposition on a young man named Dawes, by
endeavouring to pass as his mother, and by the deception
succeeded in obtaining five pounds, to procure Counsel for
her, upon a charge of felony, was brought up for re-exami-
nation.

The prisoner was remanded, in consequence of the case
against her not being considered sufficiently strong to send
her to take her trial for the offence. It appeared that during
the interview she had had with the young man, Dawes, in
Tothill-fields prison, she related so many facts connected
with his birth and her separation from his father abroad, that
he was persuaded that she was his mother, and acting under
that impression, was induced to pay a solicitor the sum of 5L
for the purpose of undertaking her defence on a charge of
felony, at the Westminster Sessions. Although she had
hinted the necessity of employing Counsel in her case to
Dawes, yet she did not obtain the money from him herself
for the purpose ; neither did she mention that he was to
pay any specified sum for her, and under these circum-
stances it was considered that the case of fraudulently ob-
taining the money had not been so clearly made out as to
justify the Magistrates in sending her for trial on that
charge. It having been stated, however, that the prisoner
had obtained a smaller sum of money from a relative of
Dawes, and the Magistrates unwilling that such an offender
should escape the punishment so justly her due, sent for the
witness, and had the evidence taken with a view of dealing
with her under the Vagrant Act.
The witness, whose name is Mary Prior, stated that on
havingthe occasion of the prisoner having succeeded in making
Dawes believe that she was his mother, he sent her (wit-
ness) to the gaol to see her, for the purpose of rendering all
the service she could in alleviating her afflictions. She
(witness) proceeded to the gaol according to this wish, and
during the interview the prisoner manifested the utmost
affection for Dawes, calling him her " dearest son," and
evincing all the maternal feelings that a parent could for a
child ; so much so, that the witness had no doubt she was
the person that she represented herself'. The prisoner then
began to complain of the short allowance of provisions in
the gaol, and asked the witness for a shilling to buy some

to her,
tea and sugar, which sum was accordingly given
under the impression that she was Dawes' mother.
Mr. JEREMY said that in the whole of his experience be
never met with a more gross imposter. The Magistrate
added that he should commit the prisoner for three months
to hard labour, under the Vagrant Act—a punishment,
however, which was scarcely adequate to the scandalous
•
nature of the offence of which she had been guilty.
A young woman, named Landers, was charged with corn'
mitting an assault on her mother-in-law, under the following
circumstances :
The complainant had been newly married to the defFn"
dant's father, and on going to his house to take posscoon
she had all kinds of obstacles thrown in her way by the
young lady," who would not acknowledge her as a mother,
urging that her father had not the folly of marrying gait
y
The complainant endeavoured to assure her of the fact
exhibiting her " marriage lines," but all would not do; an
she (the mother) was treated more like an interloper onto e.
h
premises than as the lawful married wife of the owner
the the house. An altercation having occurred between 2
parties on the subject alluded to, the result was a solwe'
during which blows were interchanged, and although °ln:
plainant's husband was present, yet he did not interfere, °'
try to convince his daughter that she (complainant) was 1115

spouse.
The defendant said that the person who had just rea,der
the complaint accused her of felony, and made et'e
charges against her, for which there was no foundatioe!
and that, as she had only been the washerwoman to her
father, she had no idea that he would have degraded by;
self by marrying a person so much beneath him. She (Lt $
daughter) admitted that she would not acknowledge
mother, and this circumstance had given such offence r.
the lady, that there was no possibility of living under the
same roof with her, as she wanted to " rule the roast" °ye'
every body in the place.
In reply to the Magistrate, the complainant said that she
had only been married to the defendant's father a fortuiPci
adding that even that period appeared an age to her, aad
that she wished the " knot was untied" again, as she ba
quite enough of matrimony.—(Laughter.)
The husband here stepped forward, and a curious sane
took place between them, during which she accused hilP of
keeping her on sllc,rt commons ever since the day they 07Z
married ; that she expected, when she changed, her et%
tion, it would be for the better, but that she was $117.4
mistaken ; and, in fact, was deprived of all those pleaalli—
that a marriage life was calculated to create.
The husband said that if she was tired of matrimonY,Jel
was even more so, and that although they were only rnarriso •
a fortnight, he could do nothing to please her, she was
dissatisfied a woman ; and he was agreeable to part if 5'
was.
" Easy," said she, " not quite so fast any man ; you s-
have a little more of my temper before we part. A 1121.0
your lawful wife to be treated in this manner ? erni„
you shake in your shoes before you have done with me yep
my boy."
tthe
The MAGISTRATE said that it was quite eviden-
daughter-in-law could not live in the house, and as it aro
peared that both were aggressors, he should discharge t
warrant against the young woman, but advised her to leave
her mother-in-law, as they could not agree.
The complainant—l'll show them all that lam mist?*
and if my husband comes any of his tricks over me, he 5%
soon see that he has not a fool to deal with, but a well'o, 0
who will stand up for the rights of matrimony. She tue,
cast a piercing look at her husband, and flounced out of tb
office.