“MOST SERIOUS CASE”

Dominion, Volume 26, Issue 219, 12 June 1933, Page 10

“MOST SERIOUS CASE”

Relief While - Employed LABOUR OFFICER MISLED Dominion Special Service. Auckland, June 10. “This is the most serious case under the Unemployment Act that has ever come before the courts of the Dominion,” said Mr. F. Wilson, inspector of factories, when Gavin Percy, aged 48, was prosecuted in the Hamilton Police Court yesterday on two charges of making misleading statements to an officer of the Labour Department. Mr. Wilson said that defendant was employed as a cellarman at C. L. Innes and Company’s brewery. In October, 1931, be was dismissed and on October 19 of that year he registered as being unemployed. He was given unemployment relief on November 14, 1931, 'but early in that month he was re-engaged as a night cellarman by Innes and Company.

During the S 4 weeks which followed, Mr. Wilson continued, defendant worked for the brewery company at night and he was engaged on unemployed relief in the day. During 71 weeks he received £217 from Innes and Company and £95 15/3 from the Unemployment Board. In one month his income from both sources totalled £23/17/-, and on many occasions he received over £5/10/- a week.

Mr./Wilson pointed out that in the means test form defendant gave particulars of two casual jobs he had, but made no reference to his employment with the brewery company. Mr. W. J. King, for defendant, said he could not challenge the facts. Defendant pleaded guilty. Up to a few weeks ago, when he was charged with the theft of beer from the brewery, defendant had borne a good character and reputable men had given evidence to this fact.

The magistrate, Mr. F. H. Levien: Evidently they did not know him. Mr. King said that defendant was affected by outside influences. He was a simple type of man, but there was nothing counsel could suggest in palliation or mitigation of the offence. Defendant was in a very difficult position. He had two children. He could not get work or relief employment. He had a bad heart and his position was hopeless.

The magistrate said he regarded the case as extremely serious. There was only a certain amount of relief money to go round and defendant must have known of the distress which existed in the country. He must have known he was keeping someone who needed help out of work as the result of his false declaration. His was a particularly mean and wilful act. The magistrate said he did not think the maximum penalty was an excessive punishment.

Defendant was fined the maximum penalty, £2O. One month was allowed in which to pay.