MOST DIFFICULT CASE

Evening Star, Issue 22804, 12 November 1937, Page 11

MOST DIFFICULT CASE

MAN WITH ELEVEN CHILDREN EXCESS SUSTENANCE OBTAINED PAYMENT OF FINE SUSPENDED “ This will be oue of the most difficult cases of this type your Worship will have had to deal with,” said Chiefdetective J. B. Young to Mr H. W. Bundle, S.M., iu the Police Court today when a married man with 11 young children, Clarence Harold Lowe, pleaded guilty to 12 charges of making false statements under the Employment Promotion Act, Chief-detective Young said Lowe’s children ranged in ages from 14 years to two years. Lowe had been on sustenance for a considerable time, and Was also receiving a ration allowance of 5s weekly and a family allowance of 16s weekly. Between February 29, 1936, and March 27 last accused made the usual declarations as to his earnings, and declared them to be nil. It was subsequently ascertained that for 12 periods he had been working. As a result of his statements he received £35 8s 2d in excess of the amount to which he' was entitled, and an additional £l4 5s as rations allowance. For six weeks his total income exceeded £8; for eight weeks £7, for 10 weeks £6, and for 13 weeks £5. “ I will say this to his wife’s credit —that she does everything possible for the children, whom, I understand, are well cared for,” said the chief detective. “ Apparently the trouble with accused is that ho is rather fond of drink.’ “ Accused had a double calamity at the outset of his difficulties,” said Mr 0. J. L. White. He met with an accident which affected his sight, and made him unable to take work as a fibrous plasterer. Then, about five years ago, there was a fire at his house, and they lost everything, there being no insurances. The manager of a firm near accused’s home gave him work, because he knew of Lowe’s desperate plight and that he was a good worker. Although Lowe had defrauded the Government of this fairly large sum he would have -had to receive the money from some other charitable source to keep going had he not obtained relief wrongly, said Mr White. It was a case of sheer desperation, as at times the children did not have enough to eat. Accused had had to wear one of the boy’s boots, as he could not afford boot leather. Any monetary penalty would fall hard on his family. On the first charge a fine of £5 and costs was imposed, payment to be sus- ■ pended under further order of the court. On the remaining charges he | was convicted on each and ordered to < come up for sentence if called upon Within two yeurs^