FARMER FINED

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 53, Issue 204, 10 June 1933, Page 3

FARMER FINED

WORKER “OVER THE FENCE.”

FALSE DECLARATION MADE. As a number of witnesses had travelled long distances to attend, it was arranged late yesterday afternoon to continue the hearing, before Justices of the Peace, in the case, adjourned earlier in the day, of William Hope Price, senior, farmer, of Hinds, who was charged with having obtained benefit from the Unemployment Board 'by falsely declaring that H. A. F. Larcombe had wqrked /for him for a certain period. Larcombe was also charged with having made a false statement, and obtained benefit thereby from the Board. The hearing as it concerned Larcombe, was re-opened at 3.20 o’clock, before Air W. H. Rundle. J.P., and Air E. F. Nicoll, J.P. Air Bailey said that the workers involved in the case were engaged under a scheme whereby a wage of 10s a week was paid, and a food allowance of 7s 6d # a week was made to the farmer.

The Investigating Officer stated that Larcombe liad worked 300 hours for another farmer during the time he was supposed to have been with Price. Larcombe drew two sets of wages. Mr Bailey said a sum of £3 10s was involved.

Larcombe said lie had agreed to work out the extra time with Price, and had worked ten days of it when the Investigating Officer put in his report.

The case against Price was then proceeded with. Defendant pleaded not. guilty. Air Bailey said that Price had been granted four men ‘as was usual under the scheme, and, without the authority of the Board, had transferred two of them to his son’s farm. The food allowance was not given where less than four men were engaged on one, farm. He had claimed for the subsidy as if the four men had worked on his farm. Several farmers had written to the authorities pointing out the l abuses of the scheme on the part of Price.

Defendant: They were despicable neighbours to do such a. thing.Air Bailey : I thing it was despicable for a farmer to do such a thing.

Air Rundle: Never mind about that Give us the case.

Giving evidence in the box, Price said he understood that the men could be divided. It was agreed that Larcombe could go harvesting if he came back later, and work out the balance of the time. It was all done in good faith.

To Mr Bailey: His son may have gone contract ploughing while the two relief workers were on the farm. He did not look at it as being unfair to sign the declaration that Larcombe had worked a certain period when Larcombe did not work them. Larcombe was convicted, and was ordered to refund the amount of money be collected, and to which he was not entitled, and to pay costs. Price’s case was regarded by the Bench as serious. He must have known ho was doing wrong. He was ordered to.refund the amount he collected for Larcombe’s keep, and was fined £3 with costs. He was allowed till the end of the month in which to pay. Price will refund £2 ss, and Larcombe £2 ss, and each was ordered to pay £1 16s costs.