RATIONS BY FRAUD

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXX, Issue 21492, 16 May 1933, Page 10

RATIONS BY FRAUD

GRANTS FOR FAMILY STATEMENT REGARDING WORK PROSECUTION AT WELLINGTON [BY TELEGRAPH—PJRESS ASSOCIATION*] WELLINGTON. Monday A plea of not guilty was entered by Keith Bartlett, who was charged in the Supreme Court to-day with obtaining relief rations valued at £2 10s Gd from the Wellington Hospital Board by falsely representing that ho was the only member of* the Bartlett family working. Mr. Mazengarh said there were two charges of obtaining rations by falso pretences. Inquiries made showed that at the time referred to members of tho Bartlett family, were earning a total sum of £8 15s 2d a week.

Evidence given by officers of the Hospital Board was to the effect that Bartlett obtained grants by saying he was the only one of the family working. The family had been receiving grants for a period of four years. The accountant of the Patea Farmers' Co-operative Freezing Works said that Alfred James Bartlett, father of accused, from December, 1931, to October, 1932, earned £lB9. The manager of a firm said that another member of the family during tho past throe years received wages amounting to £299. . The accountant for J. C. Hutton (N.Z.), Limited, said that a brother of accused since October, 1930, received wages totalling £172. Members of tho family gave evidence concerning illnesses and unemployment. Mr. Cornish, for accused, said that on the days the statement was made accused was the only member of tho family working. In liis address to the jury Mr. Justice Ostler said the accused should not bo acquitted on account of his youth. The question was of some importance. The amount spent in charitable aid was increasing yearly. There were niany cases of distress and there was insufficient money to go round. This family must have had hundreds of pounds in charitable aid. Accused was ■ found guilty on the charge relating to statements made on \ugust 1, with a recommendation to mercy. He was remanded for sentence. Charges were also laid against a sister of accused. Two were withdrawn and the jury returned a verdict of not guilty on the other.