MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Grey River Argus, 30 November 1937, Page 6

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

/SITTING AT GREYMOUTH. The following cases „ were dealt with by Mr. Raymond 'Ferner, S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court at Greymouth yesterday before Mr Raymond Ferner, S.M.:— —. Arthur Noble Heaney, 25, a steward, of America, was charged that on November 12, at Wellington, he was absent without leave from the s.s. Naumberg. Senior-Sergeant E. Quayle asked for a remand until 10.30 o’clock this morning. Heaney was charged with deserting his ship. Wellington had been communicated with, but so far no reply had been received. The remand was granted. George Millard Elkins, 28, steward, an American, was charged tnat, on November 27, he was deemed to be an idle and disorderly person within the meaning of the Police Ofrences' Act, 1927, Section 50, in that he had insuflicient lawful means of support. Senior-Sergeant Quayle said that this defendant was also a prohibited immigrant. The police at Greymouth had communicated with Wellington to see what was desired to be done with the defendant, but so far no reply had been received. He asked for a remand until to-day. The remand was granted. William McNeill, was charged that, on or about May 28, at Greymouth, he did for the purpose of obtaining a benefit under Section 45 of the Employment Promotion Fund, 1936, make a false statement as to his dependents, thereby misleading an official engaged in the administration of the Employment Promotion Act. The information was laid by the District Employment Officer (Mr. T. McDonnell).

Mr. W. D. Taylor, on behalf of defendant, entered a plea of guilty.

Mr. McDonnell said that defendant registered ror relief on December 2, 1936, and~set out that he was maintaining his daughter, Maria McNeill. On this declaration he was classified for relief as a married man. On May 28 last, he still set out that his daughter was being maintained oy him. ' Defendant was working for the Borough Council, receiving £1 18s 6d a week, the amount due to a married man. On June 28, he was placed bn a full-time subsidy job with the Borough Council, for which the Borough received £2 5s as a subsidy. The defendant was still being recognised as a married man. It was ascertainaff in September that defendant’s daughter was working for a Mr. Armstrong at Ngahere. On this the allocation was reduced to that of a single man. Defendant had received £l2 8s 5d in excess relief.

Mr. Taylor said that this was not a case where a man had deliberately set out to defraud/the Department. He was a widower and had employed his daughter as a housekeeper. His daughter had been under medical treatment and still was. She obtained work about the end of March of this year, with Mr. Armstrong. She still did the housekeeping for defendant at the week-end, when she attended to the cooking, housekeeping and washing. Defendant had been straight forward when approached. He asked that the Magistrate deal with the case as leniently as possible. The Magistrate said that the defendant would be convicted and would be required to make restitution of the monies. He would be fined the sum of £l3 8s sd, which was to be paid in such instalments as the local officer of the Department shall determine.