NEARLY £500 IN RELIEF

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXX, Issue 21439, 13 March 1933, Page 11

NEARLY £SOO IN RELIEF

HOSPITAL BOARD'S GRANTS AID FOR PETONE FAMILY ALLEGATIONS OF FRAUD On the strength of certain representations allegedly made that, a family named Bartlett at Petone was in straitened circumstances, and that some of the members were in ill-health, the Wellington Hospital Board, for a period of over throe years up to October, 1932, granted rent, relief and rations amounting in all to £498 4s 6d. The board now alleges that some of these representations are false, and accordingly proceedings were taken in the Police Court in Wellington last Friday against certain members of the family. It was stated that in the period the income of the family had averaged between £6 lis and £ll 16s 6d a week.

Proceedings were taken against the mother, Maud Bartlett, the father, Alfred James Bartlett, a son, Keith Bartlett, and a daughter, Mona Bartlett, but when the defendant Mona Bartlett produced a letter to the effect that her father and mother were upable to attend Court, the magistrate, Mr. E. Page, agreed to the case being taken against Mona and Keith Bartlett together, the other proceedings being adjourned. Mona and Keith Bartlett were charged with being rogues and vagabonds in that they made false representations to the board in order to obtain rent, rations and relief.

Mr. A. J. Mazengarb, who appeared for the Hospital Board, said that the alleged offences were committed by members of the Bartlett family continuously from April 5, 1929, to August 1, 1932. Throughout the whole of that period rent, relief and rations had been supplied by the board on the representation that the family of six was in ill-health and poor circumstances.

The methods of the family, counsel said, were so complete that although they were visited each month by an officer from the Hospital Board, there was no suspicion for some time. The officer who dealt with relief for the family had seen the boy, Keith Bartlett, at a race meeting. Inquiries made resulted in evasions and nothing definite came about until October. On October 7 Mrs. Bartlett wrote to the board saying that they would no longer need relief. Counsel said that for six years one of the boys had been employed in a timber mill. The father also had been on relief work. From September, 1929, to October, 1932, the family had received £498 4s 6d in rations and relief. The weekly income of the family had averaged between £6 lis, the lowest, and £ll 16s 6d, the highest. About £4l had been provided also by charitable contributions from various organised sources and from private individuals. Both defendants, Mona and Keith Bartlett, were committed to the Supreme Court for trial.