FRAUD ALLEGED

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXVI, 14 March 1933, Page 6

FRAUD ALLEGED

£SOO IN RELIEF HOSPITAL BOARD CASE Allegations that in three years relief and rations to the total value of £498 4s 6d had been obtained from the Wellington Hospital Board by means of false representations were made in the Magistrate's Court last week, when charges against two of the lour members of a family said to be concerned were dealt with, reports the “Rost. ’ Mr E. Rage, S.M., was on the Bench, and Mr A J. Mazengarb appeared for the I hoard. The defendants, who pleaded not guilty, were not represented, by counsel. Three charges were made against Mona Bartlett of being a rogue and vagabond, in that she obtained rent, coal, boots, and shoes by falsely representing that none of the family was working, and that her father was unable to pay the rent. Her brother, Keith Bartlett, was charged with being a. rogue and vagabond in respect .of two alleged offences of obtaining rations of a total value of £2 11s by falsely representing that he was the only member of the family working. Alfred James Bartlett and Maud Bartlett, father and mother respectively of the other defendants, did not appear, and a medical certificate was produced The former was charged with being a rogue and vagabond in that lie obtained £1 5s 6d by falsely representing that lie was unable to work, and there were two similar charges against Mrs Bartlett, who was alleged to have falsely represented that Keith Bartlett was the only member of the family working. The cases against Mona and Keith Barlett were proceeded with. Mr Mazengarb said that the informations were laid under the Rolice Offences Act, and it might be contended that the time limit of six months had expired if the defendants elected summary trial. He submitted that the Court might deal with the cases as indictable cases having regard to the circumstances.

The information alleged offences committed by members of the family between April, 1929, and August, 1932, said Mr Mazengarb. During the whole of that period rent and rations had been supplied by the board on the definite representation that the family was in distressed circumstances, and that the only income was the 15s earned on relief work by Keith Bartlett. It was alleged that the methods adopted were so complete that, although the Bartletts were visited each month by officers of the board, no suspicion was aroused until July of last year. Inquiries were then instituted, but they were met with evasions, and nothing definite was obtained until October. It was suggested that as a result of the inquiries made the mother was put on her guard, and on 17th October she wrote to the board to the effect that two of the boys were working. It would be shown that one of the boys bad been working for six years and that another bad been in constant employment since November. 1930; also that Mona Bartlett had been in some employment, and that Alfred Bartlett had been employed at the Patea freezing works. From September, 1929, to October. 1932, rent and rations to the value of £498 4s 6d had been granted to the family by the board, continued Mr Mazengarb. That amount was exclusive of clothing, bedding, and medicine. It would be shown that the .lowest weekly income of the family during the period was £6 11s, and the highest £ll 16s 6d, combining wages and grants by the hoard. In addition, grants were made by other sources. Mr Mazengarb submitted that charges of false pretences should he made against the defendants. The Magistrate intimated that lie would deal with the charges ’udictahly.

An officer employed by the iciief depot of tile board gave evidence of having granted Keith Bartlett two amounts totalling £2 11s for rations in July and August, 1932, on the latter’s representation that his family’s sole income was 15s a week. Between tlie two occasions, witness saw the defendant at a Ilutt Park trotting meeting. On being asked for the lent book, Bartlett said that his father had it.

Anno Leila Gray, a visiting officer of the board, said that when she visited the defendant’s house in duly last Mrs Bartlett said that her husband's health was unchanged, and that the only member of the family working was the sou Keith, who was on relief work. Witness recommended the granting of rent and rations.

George Percy Pettigrew, accountant to the Patea Farmers’ Co-operative Freezing Co., said that Alfred James Bartlett was employed by the company from December, 1931, to October, 1932. Apart from odd days off and short periods when he was on compensation Bartlett was in constant employment. His total earnings were £1&) 11s lOd. William D. Smith, accountant to J. C. Hutton (N.Z.), Ltd., said that since October, 1930, a brother of Keith Bartlett had been employed by the firm. His total earnings to date were £172 16s.

Albert L. Cook, manager of Cook and Sons, coopers, said that a member of the family, Lionel Bartlett, had been employed by the firm under its present name for the past three years, and had received a total of £299 7s 6d, his average weekly earnings being £1 12s 6d. Dr. Christina Findlater said that in April, 1932, she was called to the Bartlett house. The defendant Mona Bartlett said that her father bad been suffering from heart attacks for some years and was not able to do any work. She also said that her father had had a’ seizure a few days before while in the country. Witness thought his appearance was consistent with tile daughter’s statement. She gave a certificate recommending the family to the relief authorities and setting out Mr Bartlett’s precarious state of health owing to heart trouble. Some months later Mona Bartlett told witness that her father had been ill again, and that Keith had been refused relief because it had been reported that her father was working. Witness called at the house, but Bartlett, senior, was out looking at another place, and she asked that he should call for an examination. As the matter was urgent she gavet another certificate dealing with the health of the parents. Bile had not seen the father since.

William Jeffery Lowe, relief officer"

of the board, said that at various times lie had discussed the financial position of the Bartletts with them. In April, 1929, Mona Bartlett called upon him and told him that none of the family was working, and they were not in a position to pay the rent. She said that one of the boys had been promised work and expected to get it very soon. A grant of rent, coal, and a pair of boots was made. In December, 1930, Mona Bartlett wrote to witness on the subject of the rent. Two visitors employed by tlie board had visited the Bartlett home regularly shortly before expiry of each relief period. Witness recommended relief according to their reports. Altogether the Bartletts had received £498 4s 6d in rent and rations. For quite a long time it was stated that the only income was 15s, earned by Keith Bartlett on relief work. The wages of the other boys were never mentioned. Ernest W. Hayton, a clerk in the Railway Department, said that K. It. Bartlett was employed by the Department from October, 1929, to December, 1930, earning at first £3 13s a week, and afterwards £4 8s a week. Mrs Gray, recalled, said that Mrs Bartlett and Mona were always present when she visited the house. On, the occasion of one visit in December, 1930, Mrs Bartlett said that none of the boys was working. Mona Bartlett said she was badly in need of shoes, and showed a worn pair she was wearing. It was stated during a subsequent visit that the landlady would not collect the rent from the board, and on witness’s recommendation the money was paid direct to the Bartletts. At the conclusion of the evidence, Mr Page said that as the matter stood lie thought there was a case for the Supreme Court. Both defendants pleaded not guilty, and were committed for trial, bail being allowed in a bond of £SO eacli. The cases against the father and mother were adjourned until 22nd March. An application by Keith Bartlett for the suppression of the names was refused.