REGISTRY OFFICE ROOKS.

NZ Truth, Issue 106, 29 June 1907, Page 7

REGISTRY OFFICE ROOKS.

The Tricks of the Tricksters.

A Cruel Case of Fraud.

Wanted Legislative Enactment.

The Way of the registry office keep- i •er is regrettable and unpraisworthy, i Hiul capable of legislative amendment, I- It is a lucrative employment, bejciiise the fees charged are payable '•by Loth employer and employee. The Lei th.it' the unfortunate servant has :.io \). y more than the employer is a c ircit m-st.i nee of appalling'diaprbpor'.i'?u. ! e^ally, the registry office busi- :• :.:; is a gigantic, steal, but under v. c rose and per means of various de•,i-. cs ih-o steal is made more gigan- = iic i'huh is customary under the jiiiv.. Under the Servants' Registry ■ Office Act, 1895, there is a scale of charges by the registry office keeper to his victims. "Where the yearly rate of wages m the country does not exceed £50, for married couples, ths charge is 7s 6'd ; above £50, 10s. This is the rate to the servant, who has io pay 5s for any job where the weekly rate of wages m the town is 12s 6d. It is noticeable that provision is made m the scale of fees of a charge of 2s for jobs worth no more than 5s per week. What sort of a job does 5s a week represent, anyway ? The villainous part of the .business is that the fees are . exceeded by , certain registry office • keepers if they meet a mug who is liable to be victimised, say a young girl who. is unacquainted with the world ana registry office ways* It is made illegal m a subsection to section siiteen of the a-bove-mentioned Act to "take 'or accept goods or chattels m payment of such fees," namely the registry office fees. Yet it is known that hardups pawn .valuable goods with the registry office / keepers every day, and seldom recover tdiem. Deponent recollects a case where a man placed a gold watch with a registry officekeeper, and when he came back and demanded it the keeper (who kept the watch with great suddenness) denied any PREVIOUS KNOWLEDGE OF THE DEPOSITOR, and of course the latter person had no hope of recovering his property. There are many fraud phases of the registry office business. A man may pay his money for a lucrative 1 permanent billet, aad find afterwards that the employment was only for three days. This employee has no redress. As a rule he has no money to fight the case, even if he has. redress; and the unfortunate worker is victimised every time. "Truth's" attention has been drawn to this subject by the experience of a married couple who went to Palmerston m response to a telegram sent by a registry office keeper. The man and his wife were informed, ncr wire, that they might have a billet m a Palmerston hotel at a certain wage, and within a certain time. Their home was m Wellington, and THEY- SOLD UP EVERYTHING they had and proceeded to Palmerston, and when they got there they were cooly informed that the situation had been filled, and they found themselves homeless m a strange place. They were informed that they were, to attend the registry .office,' and probably something would" turn up presently. Fortunately, they had something left from the proceeds of the sale of their furniture, and they returned to Wellington. But "Truth" •, asks i!he public to observe that they sold the}r "little all" at a loss, m the expectation of getting a situation which was contracted for by telegram, and they failed to obtain the billet through 'the duplicity of the registry house-keeper" m Palmerston North, whose name is Mrs. Anderson. The husband was to have the position of barman, and the wife was to be housemaid, andvthe two werp to receive £100 per year. The police station was handy to the registry" office, and the astounded dupe made his way there, but COULD GET NO SATISFACTION. If there is one thj&g that requires legislative amendment m God's Own Country it ig the law relating to registry offices. Take the scale of fees. In the case of country engagements, where the yeajrly rate of" wages does not exceed v £so the fee paid by the servant is '7s 6d, when jthe yearly rate does exceed £50 the fee to the servant is 10s. To the employer m each case it js only ss. Why ? Is not the employer best able to pay the fee ? This disparity m fees, is only noticable m connection with the country fees, and is due prob,ablv to the influence on our legislation of the affluent squatter person^ who gets more concessions from thie Government than he is entitled to. Another anomaly m the fees is that m town, where there is.jgood wages, a billet costs the couple 2s 6d only. In the country, where the wages are bad, it costs them 7s pd to 10s. The servant is the person whom these birds of prey get at. It is known that quite recently a circular was sent to emnloyers offering to get servants and charge the employers no fee. That is to say the profit of the office is taken out of the poor ipnorgnt girl servant, who would pay anything -m ■• their anxiety to get work. It is provided by law that the books showing the engagement of- servants shall be open to inspection by the inspector, but the law badly requires amendment to provide that the servant shall pay no registration fee, and that the fee of registration shall m every case BE PAID BY THE EMPLOYER. The fact thai last week Inspector Lindsay opposed the application of Patrick Francis Brosnahan for a re- i gistry office license on the grouhds that he was under arrest on two charges, one of which was conspiracy to defraud, is m itself a commentary on ifc? class of people who engage m this registry office busi- . ness. ,