FALSE STATEMENTS

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXXI, 21 December 1937, Page 8

FALSE STATEMENTS

UNDER EMPLOYMENT PROMOTION ACT AN AUDACIOUS PROPOSITION SAYS THE MAGISTRATE

MAN FINED £OS

Strong comment on wlial he tlescribed as ail audacious proposition b,v the defendant was made by Mr T. E. Maunscll, S.M., in the Magistrate's Court this morning, when William Edward A. Ncwcnhani was lined £65. There were 11 charges refilling to making false statements that he was maintaining his son for (he purpose of obtaining benefit under the Employment Promotion Act; and two charges concerning making false statements that he was maintaining a housekeeper, Harriet Ann Merritt, for the same purpose.

The police prosecuted for the do partment.

Mr W. C. Harley appeared for the defendant, who pleaded guilty to all the charges in connection with the son. and not guilty to the other two charges. Detective McLeod said the defendant furnished the department with a declaration that he was maintaining a housekeeper, and lie y\as granted an allowancc, receiving itt all £33 15s. The woman did not receive any payment as housekeeper.

Mr Harley said (hey admitted making the declaration and the receipt ol the money i Harriet Ann Merritt gave' evidence that she knew the defendant, and lived with him for a while. She once did three weeks’ work at his rooms. Defendant did not tell her that he was receiving an allowance for tier as housekeeper. She was dumbfounded when acquainted of Ihe fact. She had supported herself entirely since August last year.

To Mr Jlarley. she denied that she had ever been defendant’s housekeeper. When they were living together each contributed to the expenses. Witness did work in the house, because it was her home. Marie Elizabeth Hansen said that defendant rented a room in her house for about four years. Me left but returned about the end of last year. During the time he hved there Mrs Merritt visited him daily, but did not stay at night.

Detective Frank Hayhurst said he interviewed the defendant who would not make a statement.

CASE I’OR THE DEFENCE Mr Harley asked the Magistrate to glance al the letters handed in. "Hell has no fury like unto a woman scorned,” he went on. The relations between the parties had been intimate, and defendant said he had recently been endeavouring to free himself from the entanglement. He had given Mrs Merritt money, food and meals. When he made up his mind lo cut free, these prosecutions resulted. With regard to the charges relating to the boy the defendant pleaded guilty and must be convicted. Defendant had not been ro sponsible for the maintenance of the son. With regard to Mrs Merritt, we.it on counsel, one might call her what one liked, but she had done work about die house. He disagreed with the department’s definition of a housekeeper. Evidence was given by defendant who said that Mrs Merritt had acted in the general capacity of a housekeeper, doing housework and preparing meals. He paid her; and they were living as man and wife. He used to pay over the money he received to her when living in Alton street, and in Brougham street tiicy often discussed the allowance.

To Detective McLeod, who asked how Mrs Merritt could be housekeeper in October, 1936, when she was working at a factory, defendant said many wives worked at the factory. It was untrue that Mr Merritt took food lo the place, apart from sonic jam. The last money he gave her was two days before she left, about the end of August this year. He admitted that be drew 10s a week from War Pensions for his son whom he was not supporting. To the Magistrate, defendant said that the housekeeper attended the room in Brougham street daily, and used to arrive about 10.30 o’clock. He did the shopping. Mrs Merritt used to leave about 10 o’clock at night. He could have done the work himself, lie admitted.

The Magistrate: "Did you need a housekeeper?” Witness: "Well, I'm not allowed to live on my own.” The Magistrate: “Could you not have bad male friends? Did you live together as housekeeper or mistress?” Witness: “Man and wife ”

The Magistrate: "You were not man and wife. Was she living with you as mistress or housekeeper?’’

Witness made no answer

“An awkward question isn’t it?” remarked the Magistrate. "Stand down."

"MOST AUDACIOUS” "I consider this man has been most audacious,” commenced the Magistrate when Mr Harley intervened to say that it was possible to have a wife who was a housekeeper; also a mistress who was a housekeeper. "Do you suggest that it was the intention of the Government to provide a man with the means of keeping a woman in adultery?’ asked the Magistrate.

"Your Worship is letting a sense of social fitness run away with your logic,” said Mr Harley “I am speaking of the spirit of the Act,” said the Magistrate

Mr Harley: “Your Worship is precluding in your own mind tire possibility of a mistress doing housework.” Tire Magistrate: “I am satisfied he had her not as a housekeeper but as mistress. 1 find that as fact.” Mr Harley: “She might also have been housekeeper Surely my wife is housekeeper? This man might have used his housekeeper as mistress.” "Sire was not his housekeeper.” said the Magistrate emphatically. Mr Harley said that at some stage this woman was definitely his housekeeper. She herself did not dispute that.

The Magistrate asked how a man could have a housekeeper without a house?

Counsel replied that defendant had rooms.

The Magistrate said that his opinion was that she was not defendant’s housekeeper within tile meaning of the Act. “I consider this man has put for-

ward an audacious proposition," commenled the Magistrate. "If I uphold the defence it amounts to (his. A man unemployed can lake a woman and commit adultery, and if she does housework he ran call on the Stale lo provide for her. 1 lake il that when a man has a house and needs assistance he is entitled to a housekeeper.”

The detective said that the amount involved on the thirteen charges was £0(1 19s. These offences were occurring all over the Dominion.

The Magistrale added that irrespective of the (pies! ion of being housekeeper he accepted Iho statement that defendant did not pay her this money. There was no inference against the woman as tar as her honesty was concerned and defendant had already admitted dishonesty, lie would lake Ihc woman’s evidence as regards paying the money.

A fine of £25 was imposed on Iho first charge, and £29 on each of the charges relating lo Hie housekeeper, defendant to pay al the rale of £.’{ a month. Court eosls amounted lo £1