"DOLE" FRAUDS.

Auckland Star, Volume LXVI, Issue 271, 15 November 1935, Page 8

"DOLE" FRAUDS.

GLARING IMPOSITION.

HAIRDRESSER FINED £20.

WORKED AND GOT SUSTENANCE

What the ' magistrate described as a bad case of protracted deception on the part of a hairdresser who, while in steady work, drew sustenance money, came before Mr. Wyver'n Wilson, S.M., in the Police Court to-day, when three men were prosecuted by the inspector of factories for breaches of the Unemployment Act. Alexander Teece Smith, hairdresser, for whom Air. B. Elwarth appeared; pleaded guilty to a summons charge of making a false statement to obtain benefit under the Unemployment Act. £97 Wrongfully Received. Inspector Fielder, of the Labour Department, who prosecuted, said Smith, who had previously been on sustenance, obtained work at his trade in November of last year. Between November of 1934 and September last, when this offence was discovered, he had been earning from £4 10/ to £4 15/ per week. "During the whole of this period a<s has also been drawing sustenance ranging from £1 16/ to £2 4/ per week." said the inspector. "Hi 3 income for the weeK prior to detection was £6 19/, being £4 15/ wages as a hairdresser and £2 4/ as sustenance. Altogether he wrongfully obtained from the Unemployment Board £97 14/, and in addition to thri money he received an issue of boots and blankets." "Smith has a wife and seven children," said Mr. Elwarth. "He is—" Mr. Wyvern Wilson: He seems to have had eight good reasons for keeping straight, leaving out of consideration his own self-reapect. Counsel said Smith went on relie , ' work in 1932, but got a job at his trade in November of last year. Smith did not realise the seriousness of his act. He had spent all the money on his family. "I would ask your Worship to take into consideration the temptation cha' beset this man, who had been out of work for two years," said Mr. Elwarlft. "Hitherto ho has borne an unblemished character, his sole interests being thoi-i of his wife and family. 1 would aak that he be treated as leniently as possible." The magistrate told Smith that he had been defrauding the country, not only once, but over the long period of 12 months. "This is a case of protracted deception," said Mr. Wilson. "He • was in steady work and yet ho defrauds the country like this. He will be fined £20 and costs."

"I Was Hard Up." "I was hard up, that's all," was what Phillip Henry Nicholson said in pleading guilty to a similar charge. Inspector Fielder said Nicholsou declared that his earnings were 13/4 for the particular period under review, whereas he had been paid £2 16/. "The facts in this case are unusual," added the inspector, "for since the charge was laid we received a letter from his employer stating that £2 of the money was a loan. The total amount he wrongfully obtained was only £1 16/" Nicholson was fined £2 and costs. Attempting to mislead for the purpose of obtaining benefit under the Unemployment Act was the charge which brought James Conroy, a relief worker, to the Court. Conroy pleaded guilty. Conroy, a bootmaker by trade, said Inspector Fielder, had been on relief work at the Stone Jug since November, 1934. This was subsidised work and he did not work full time. Conroy failed to disclose his full private earnings at a quarry, the amount he wrongfully obtained as a •esult being. £5. "I've worked hard at the Stone Jug for what I earned," Conroy told Mr. Wyvcrn Wilson. "Yes, and you lied hard while you worked." the" magistrate remarked in fining Conroy £5 and costs.