FALSE STATEMENT

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXXI, 14 January 1937, Page 5

FALSE STATEMENT

BREACH OF EMPLOYMENT ACT

A BLENHEIM CASE

“Well, I’m not going to swallow a story like that. I think the defendant could be prosecuted for perjury, said Mr T. E. Maunsell, S.M., in the Blenheim Magistrate’s Court yesterday morning when imposing a penalty of £lO on Arthur Leslie Hendra on a charge of making a false statement to obtain benefit under the Employment Promotion Act (reports the “Express”). It was alleged that the defendant had stated that his wife and son were living at home with him and that he was maintaining them whereas actually his wife had left for Wellington some time before the statement was made and was maintaining herself and her son. A plea of not guilty was entered by Mr C ~ Smith on behalf of the defendant, and several witnesses were called by the police, including the defendant’s sister-in-law, from Lower Hutt, who stated that during the time the defendant’s wife was in Wellington about six letters had arrived at her home from the defendant and had been posted on to her address. It was stated by a representative of the Employment Office in Blenheim that through his statement the defendant had earned £22 more than he was entitled to. Evidence was given by the defendant that although he knew his wife and son were not at home when he signed the statement he did not think it mattered, as he had been sending them £1 per week to Wellington, posting the letter's care of his sister-in-lav/. He could not account for the letters not having arrived. It vas stated by the police that a statement had been signed in Wellington by the defendant’s wife that she had received about six letters from her husband but at no time had she received any money. After hearing the evidence the Hagistrate’ said he did not believe the defendant’s story that he had posted money to his wife. The offence was one for substantial punishment, he said, and after some deliberation he imposed the fine mentioned.