£20 IN FINES

Evening Post, Volume CXXIV, Issue 69, 18 September 1937, Page 28

£20 IN FINES

Fines totalling £20 and costs for what were stated to be "particularly deliberate attempts to. mislead employment officers," .were imposed by Mi*. W.F.; Stilwell, S.M., in the Magistrate's "Court yesterday, upon a.clerk, Lewis Joseph Murphy,...who pleaded guilty to 'two charges-of makingl false-state-ments."'"'■■"■■ •"• ■•■■-■

Mr. E. A. Selman,. .who . prosecuted, said that the Department viewed these breaches very seriously. Unfortunately "it Was uhabTe to p'foceed against Murphy 'under .the Justices of the Peace Act. '■.'.■■. '■"■■■■':.■..'■

Murphy, he said, had been in receipt oi relief assistance for varying periods ever since July, 1932. For the eight weeks ended May 1 and June 26 respectively, the defendant, who was obtaining relief work under the No. 5 scheme, made nil returns of income. At the time, however, he was employed casually as a night attendant at the Wellington Hospital, and during the periods referred to earned £37 15s Gd and £22 3s;7d. He obtained £18 16s relief to which he was not entitled.

When first asked for an explanation Murphy emphatically denied ever having worked at the hospital," but on being shown' his signature to amounts paid to him for this work he admitted his .offences. ■•■■■.

On May 3 arid May .10 the wife tof the defendant, Mr. Selman said, made declarations that her husband was too ill to work. As a result.she was given authority to collect sick pay on her husband's behalf. Actually, during these two weeks, the defendant earned a total of £11 18s at the Wellington Hospital.

The fact that Scheme .s•.workers declared their.earnings only once in eight weeks made it more difficult to check them than in the case of those who declared weekly.

Mr. Stilwell to defendant: What have you to say about your deliberate attempt to mislead the Employment Department?

The defendant made no reply. Fines of £10. and costs on each charge were imposed.