SUSTENANCE FRAUDS.

Manawatu Standard, Volume LVII, Issue 194, 17 July 1937, Page 11

SUSTENANCE FRAUDS.

“VIRTUAL THEFT INVOLVED.” Per Press Association. AUCKLAND, July 16. The riew that it was the duty of the Labour Department to prosecute in every case where it was satisfied that a man on sustenance had deliberately made a false declaration to obtain benefit to which lie was not entitled under the Employment Promotion Fund was expressed by Mr C. R. Orr-V alker, S.M.. in the Magistrate’s Court when a further 10 offenders were fined. “There are many eases throughout New Zealand where hardships have been involved where the department has made arrangements with offenders to repay sums dishonestly obtained without taking them to Court,” said Mr A. T. Grandison, district employment officer of the department, when prosecuting Joseph Fletcher Nicoll on a charge of making a false statement. Investigations sometimes disclose special circumstances which warrant some leniency being extended to an offender. This is one such case. Illness in defendant’s family had aggravated the hardships of living on relief pay, and doubtless increased tlie temptation for defendant to augment his income by making a false declaration. The circumstances caused the department to defer Court action and give the offender an opportunity of refunding by reasonable instalments, but only two payments were made. “The department considers that if it were now denied the power to exercise the right, of processes previously withheld it would be forced to refuse consideration in many cases similar to this where severe hardship would warrant deferring legal action,” Mr Grandisnn added. “The department should not differentiate inst because it thinks a man '* domestic affairs are hard,” said the Magistrate. “In mailers sm-li as that before the Court virtual t.liel'l. is involved and offenders should be prosecuted. The Court should he allowed to decide the matter of penalty.” Nieoll was fined £5 and costs 10s.