MISLEADING STATEMENTS

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LXI, Issue 18528, 15 October 1934, Page 11

MISLEADING STATEMENTS

TWO MEN CONVICTED OBTAINING RELIEF. WORK Two men were conyicfed by Mr. E. L. Walton, S.M., to-day for giving misleading information with regard to securing bneefits under tl\e Unemployment Act. Mr. S. V. Beaufoy appeared for the defendants. Ernest Parfitt, who was convicted and discharged, was charged with misleading the Unemployment ilqard for the purpose of obtaining benefits for another person, William Colvin. William Colvin was charged with making false statements for the purpose of misleading the Unemployment Board, and also with misleading tiie Unemployment Board for the purpose of obtaining a benefit of £1 2s 6d in money. He was convicted and fined £5 on the first charge, while the second was dismissed. Percy Fulton, in charge of the unemployment bureau, Gisborne, said that Parfitt hai| been employed under' the Unemployment Act both by the Cook County Council and Borough Council at the one period. He was a married man with one child depending on him, and was entitled to days’ relief work in four weeks at 10s a day. Arthur George Sired, Borough Council ganger, said that Parfitt came to witness under the name of \V- Colvin. Witness was told' later that Parfitt took Colvin’s place because Colvin was ill. During the time Parfitt was in witness’ gang, he was one of the best workers witness had ever had.

Constable Birch stated that he had interviewed Parfitt, who said that he worked on an unemployment job in place of Colvin, who was ill. Colvin collected the money on the first occasion, but Colvin in Vstatement- said that lie did not collect any money for the second occasion that Parfitt worked for him.

Tine magistrate said that there was no evidence in one charge against Colvin that the Unemployment Board had been misled; it had been the Borough Council.

Senior-Sergeant Wade maintained that the bog,rd had be,ea misled, through the Borough Council. His Worship said thgt if he convicted Colvin on the charge, the accused might glso be charged later with obtaining money from the Borough Coupcil on the same set of circumstapces. The Unemployment Board had no right to bring such loose information, and had 119 right to prosecute a man unless the charges were set out correctly. He refused permission to amend tlie information against C.olyin, apd it was dismissed, but be agreed to the. charges against Parfitt being amended to that of misleading t|ie Gisborne Borough Council. Colvin, in evidence, said lie did not understand the full effect of the forms he signed. Parfitt gave evidence that he had been under the impression that if a relief worker was sick another could do tlje work for him.

Jdis Worship, in convicting. the two men as outlined above, said ne was sat-, isfied that the instigator of the scheme was Colvin, w|io was the one who perpetrated the fraud.