SUSTENANCE FRAUDS

Dominion, Volume 31, Issue 206, 28 May 1938, Page 13

SUSTENANCE FRAUDS

Plea That Husband Did Not Know Of Wife’s Earnings

MAGISTRATE’S REMARKS

TO WIFE

By Telegraph—Press Association.

Auckland, May 27.

“I do not believe it is possible for a man to know nothing of his wife’s earnings, but I am not going to send a man to jail for getting into trouble through a wife who is prepared to make money out of his lies,” said Mr. C. R. OrrWalker, S.M., in the Magistrates’ Court when fining Owen Barber on charges relating to sustenance frauds. Accused was represented by Mr. Robinson, and pleaded not guilty to charges of making a false statement to the Labour Department as to the total earnings of his wife and himself and of obtaining sustenance moneys from the department by falsely representing the amounts earned by hLs wife and himself.

“The case is the first of its kind in Auckland,” said Mr. AV. A. Black, representing the Labour Department. “The question in dispute is whether accused knew his wife was working between March and October of last year when he was obtaining sustenance on the No. 13 scheme to which he was not entitled under the circumstances. He did not declare any of his wife’s earnings, and told an officer of the department his wife was not working.” It was stated that accused received over £B5 in sustenance and obtained £l4 to which he was not entitled.

Mr. Robinson sai'd Ibero was ranch unhappiness in accused's home over financial matters, and his wife and he agreed not to discuss them. He went on sustenance in March of last year, and she obtained work in May last, but he knew nothing of it until January oi February of this year. Consequently, in making his declarations to the department, he made no mention of his wife’s earnings, but he always accurately stated the sums he earned from caspal work on the waterfront. Accused gave evidence that he made the false declarations in complete ignorance of his wife’s position. Whenever he asked her if she worked or what amount she had in the bank she refused to divulge the information. Ruby Barber, wife of accused, said rhe did not tell her husband when she got work. She usually got home first, and when, she did not she made excuses, so that he would never know where she had been. She earned wages as a laundry employee, and received a good deal extra for overtime. She had property valued at about £7OO. "It was through me that my husband got into trouble,” sai'd witness in reply to the magistrate. "I knew he was getting sustenance while I was working but at first I did not know the grounds on which he obtained it. When I did learn that he was not entitled to it while I was earning wages I allowed him to continue making false declarations.” "If that is the case you are the guilty person, but I don’t believe it is possible for your husband not to hare known you were working,” said the magistrate. "You were keen, like many women, to make money, but in this case you got it dishonestly and you are as bad as your husband, if not worse. It is also a woman all over to defend her husband from jail when by a word she can do it. It is up to you now to pay back some of your ill-gotten gains by paying your husband’s fine, otherwise he will go to jail.” On one charge accused was fined £5O and costs, in default one month’s imprisonment, three days being allowed for payment. On the other charge he was convicted and ordered to come up for sentence if called upon within six months.