RELIEF BY FRAUD

Gisborne Times, Volume LXXIII, Issue 11946, 17 May 1933, Page 7

RELIEF BY FRAUD

FAMILY EARNING £8 15s A WEEK. CHARITABLE AID FOR FOUR YEARS. ACCUSED ADMITTED TO PROBATION. WARNING TO OTHERS. (Press AssociaGoi 1 • : WELLINGTON, May 16. Iu the Supreme Court, before Mr. Justice Ostler and a jury, Keith Bartlett was charged with obtaining relief rations valued at £2 10s fid from the Wellington Hospital Board by falsely representing that, ho was iho only member of the Bartlett family working. He pleaded not guilty. Mr. Mazonga.rb said there were two charges of obtaining rations by false pretences. Inquiries made showed that at the time referred to, members of the Bartlett family were earning a. total sum of £8 15s 2d a week. Evidence given by officers of the hospital was to the effect that Bartlett obtained. grants by-saying -that he was the cnlv one of the family working. The family had been receiving grants' for a. period of four years. The accountant at the Paten Farmers’ Co-operative Company’s work’s said Alfred James "Bartlett, farther of the accused, from December, 1931. earned £lB9. Tho manager of a firm of coopers, said Lionel, a son of the accused, during the last three years, had received wages amounting to £99. The, aeountnnt of Messrs. J- C. Hutton (N.Z.) Ltd., said a brother of the accused since October. 1930, received wages totalling £172. 'Members of tho family gave, evidence concerning illnesses and unemployment. Mr.'Cornish for the accused, said that on the. day the statement wn 3 made the accused was the only member of the family working. Mr. Justice. Ostler said the. accused should not be acquitted on amount of his youth. Tho .question was of some importance? The amount spent on charitable aid was increasing every year. There were many, eases of distress, and insufficient money to go round. The family must have had hundreds of pounds of charitable me The prisoner was found guilty °f a charge relating to statements made on August 1, with a recommendation to mercy. Charges weep also laid against a sister of the, accused, two being withdrawn, and a verdict of not guilty returned on the other.

Taking iho view that the prisoner apparently wag the tool of an older head and that the prosecution was brought to some extent as a warning to others, Hi s Hono f admitted accused to probation. . His Honor said the offence was mean and dishonest. For years the prisoner's fafnily appeared to have been living on. charitable, aid to which they were not entitled, having, according to. the papers before him, received hundreds of -pounds while theaverage earnings of the family had been sufficient to support it without relief. One condition of probation would be that the prisoner would pay the costs of the prosecution, £l9 16s, within one-year. His Hono r said ho knew Bartlett- was only able to earn 15s a week, and the order made would mean hardship, but at the same time he did not think the State, through the Hospital Board, after having paid out some hundreds of pounds, should in addition be out of pocket to the eytent of £l9 16s. If the prisoner did not, pay he would ho sent to gaol. The familywould have to help him pay. In the ease of Mona Mildred Bartsister of the prisoner, Bartlett, charged with obtaining from the Hospital Board money for rent and coal by false pretences by stating that nqnc of the family .was working a yer/det of not guilty was returned.