"PUBLIC SCANDAL"

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23203, 29 May 1937, Page 11

"PUBLIC SCANDAL"

FALSE STATEMENTS THE UNEMPLOYMENT FUNDS WARNING TO OFFENDERS (Special to Daily Times) AUCKLAND, May 28. A warning that future false declarations made deliberately to obtain benefits under the Employment Promotion Act would be met by substantial fines was given by Mr C. R. Orr Walker, S.M., in the Magistrate's Court when seven men were prosecuted by the Labour Department for offences of that kind. The magistrate said that when the first batch of such cases came before him he thought he had done justice by making the men repay the amounts involved. The position had now become a farce. Men were making false declarations for the purpose of getting more money than they were entitled to and the Labour Department was put to great trouble. As the men paid their fines out of sustenance funds they themselves did not suffer, although their wives and children did.

"I do not know why the department lays informations under an Act which provides no penalty of imprisonment," continued the magistrate. "I wish to intimate that future false declarations deliberately made for the purpose of getting this money will be met by substantial fines and no time will be given in which to pay except in very special circumstances. The result will be that in a few days they will be sentenced under warrant of commitment.

" The matter has become a public scandal," added the magistrate.

All the defendants were fined the amounts that they had been paid in excess of what they were entitled to receive from the . department. Costs were added in each case.

W. H. Bennett, who made five false declarations and obtained £6 6s 9d, was fined £7. It was stated that he had been employed casually on the waterfront and had received £4 a week for casual work in the railway goods shed. A fine of £6B was imposed on E. Delaney, who obtained £67 15s 5d as the result of 28 false declarations. He was described as a married man with four- children, receiving sustenance of £2 lis a week and a war pension of £1 a week. Another married man, T. G. Hughes, on sustenance of £1 15s a week, who obtained £lB 4s lid by 14 false declarations, was fined £ 20. In the case of H. E. M'Veigh, who was fined £4l for obtaining £4O 10s 6d by means of 36 false declarations, it was stated that he had been warned twice before for making false declarations. He had worked on the wharves under another name and stated that he had adopted an alias after being warned. Another waterside worker, K. Seifar, who made five false declarations and obtained £4, was fined £5. He ilso was stated to have been working, under an assumed name and was discovered when a check on the levy books was made. A fine of £l4 was imposed on W. R. Sutton, who obtained £l3 9s by making 13 false declarations. He had casual work on the wharves, and between December, 1935, and April, 1937, declared his earnings as nil or only small sums. K. Viskovich, who obtained £3O 5s by making 19 false declarations, was fined £3l. He was stated to be a married man with three children and on sustenance of £2 7s a week.

The magistrate stated that, if the defendants wished to pay their fines by instalments, they could make application to him in Chambers.