SUSTENANCE FRAUDS.

Evening Star, Issue 22890, 23 February 1938, Page 2

SUSTENANCE FRAUDS.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —Some time ago a number of cases were before the Police Court of “ sustenance frauds.” I was present .and listened attentively to the legal argument by the defending counsel. The presiding magistrate (Mr Bundle) led me to believe in his decision that imprisonment would not be inflicted in these particular cases, yet ye had the same type of case before the court last Friday and the defendant was sentenced to one month’s imprisonment, the magistrate, before passing sentence, stating that the accused could not pay back the money. I would like to know if in any of the previous coses the men were able to pay the fines imposed upon them, even though the magistrate had no alternative but to make it weekly instalments. I am quite convinced that there was no difference between this case and any other, and as one who stands for justice, maintain that the defendant should have had the same treatment. ■ I do not hold any brief for the accused in this case, but, like many more, am seriously asking myself the question; Who are the ones that have to bear the penalty of _ this latest crime when imprisonment is imposed? Tbe severest punishment is inflicted on the wives and families of these men, who in most cases have to go through the trying ordeal of begging for charity from different institutions and are generally subject to a gruelling cross-examination and come away with nothing. I wish to state a case that actually has happened now. This woman, who has nothing, appealed to the Charitable, Aid Board yesterday, was insulted and abused, and received nothing. Who is responsible for these people if the Charitable Aid Board is not? These are the ones who are left unprotected to battle for their existence, and it is up to all responsible parties to give them every assistance. While I maintain in some of these cases punishment should be inflicted, the majority of them demand a thorough investigation and understanding by the Government as to why .this crime, is being committed all over, the country. The answer is easy and simple: The allowance made to men on sustenance is totally inadequate for the necessities of life; therefore, as the guardians of their families and homes, they break regulations and laws. It is the duty of the Labour Government to realise that flinging men into prison everywhere for this particular offence is most decidedly not a solution of this difficult problem. Some more humane way should, and can be, thought out for these unfortunates, who, after all, played their part in placing the Government where it is to-day, and certainly expected, along with many others, quite the reverse of its attitude regarding ■“ sustenance frauds.”—l am, etc., Justice. February 21.