RELIEF WORK FUNDS

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LXI, Issue 18580, 14 December 1934, Page 15

RELIEF WORK FUNDS

THEFT ALLEGATION TOWN CLERK CHARGED WAIPUKURAU CASE (Tor Truss Association.) WAIPUKURAU, this day. Herbert Monterey Tansley, formerly town clerk of Waipukuvnu, and Christian Mathieson Grorin, a relief worker, were charged with the theft of sums totalling £164 5s fid, the property of the Government., arising from, the administration of unemployment, relief. The charges were about July 7 last, and to November 3, they did steal a total of £B7 11s 3d, and also, about January 13 to June 30, a total of £76 14s. Both charges were heard together. L. E. Hanson stated that since December 9 he had been employed by the Waipawa Hospital Board. For two ■ years previously he had been employed by the District High School Committee and the Borough Cuncil on relief work. The signatures “L. E. Hanson” on the wages sheet and book of the borough on various dates, and the amounts detailed, were not- his, 'and he had not given authority to anyone to sign on his behalf, and had not received the monies. Ilis last pay from the borough was drawn prim* to December 9, since when he had not. been on relief. B. A. Baigenfc said that for two years lie"was on and off relief. The signatures “B. A. Baigent” on the borough wages sheet and book were not his. He had given no authority, and not received such monies. All payments for relief work he received, and signed for, at the council office.

O. T. Bowen gave similar evidence. For the week ended October 27, lie worked three days and three hours for the borough, and received £1 13s 9d. Sometimes when a man omitted to work out his allocation lie had been allowed to work in the stand-down week, and had been paid at tho week-end prior thereto. On November 2 lie called on the accused, Tansley, who stated that witness could not get pay for a week ahead. He asked Tanslev if Mr. Crooks, an hotelkeeper, bad spoken about witness working in tile stand-down week. Tansley replied in the negative, -ridding that it would make no difference, as the money was nob worked for. Witness, therefore, did not expect money. On November 7, Tansley interviewed him at the Tavistock Hotel, where ho is working. He called witness aside, stating that he had his pay. He believed that Tansley was referring to work not done, but which lie intended to do for the week ending November 10. Aft envelope was produced with witness’ name on, arid the word “hold.” Tansley said lie had held it since the previous Friday, and drew attention to the word “hold.” He told Tansley he did not want to take ■the money, and intended to see Mr. Browne, the postmaster. The accused told him to put it in Ills pocket aud tell his wife he had it all along. He replied that he could not, as it had been refused him on November 2, and lie had to borrow money since. Tansley explained that lie had held it until he put in his time the following week. Accused urged its acceptance, as if he said anything it would mean “queer street,” or “funny business,” or something like that for him, as he had certified that the work had been done. Witness said he had to see the postmaster in reference to the signature for the money, as witness had- been told earlier that clay that someone had signed his name. Tansley said he knew nothing about the signature, but had to send the papers to Wellington, and probably Someone signed down there. On further pressure by Tansley witness took the envelope. He, had then seen the postmaster.

The next witness, 11. J. Hitchens, stated that he worked for three days for the borough in the week ended November 3. On November 5 lie called for his pay and was informed by Tansley that there was no pay, accused saying that witness had been working for Winlove’s tbo previous Week. He did not reply, but, knew £1 was due. On November 7 he was shown a wages sheet to November 3, which bore his signature, but it was not his. With the postmaster, be went to the borough office, and was told by Tansley not to make a fuss, as lie would, give him the money then. The accused said it would mean losing his job, arid witness said he should have thought of that before. He did not receive the money. On November 7, the accused, Gronn, called at witness’ house. He heard biro trying to get Mrs. 1 Bowen £o accept unemployment pay due to the husband, and Airs. Bowen asked Witness whether she should accept it and sign. In witness’ presence, Groan told her not to do so. To his knowledge, she did not do so. Later, Gronn asked witness to fake the money, and not to make a fuss. He replied: “Never in your life.’’ J. S. R'apley deposed that the signature, “J. S. Rapley,” on wages sheets and books of the borough was not his. For the period shown he was employed by Mr.*J. W. Harrison, at Mt. Vernon station, and A. S. Wilder. E. J. Moffatt stated that a signature for £29 13s 9d was not his, nor authorised by him. He* had been a relief worker for 2\ years, and had worked for the borough. F. It. Lucas said that signatures for a. total of £lB 7s 6d were not his. During the greater part of the period covered he had been employed permanently at Winlove’s. and since October 1 by the Central Hawke’s Ray Power Board.

D. W. White gave evidence that about March, 1933, he was on relief work in the borough, and afterwards worked for Air. R. Young, a fruiterer. Later he was relief at the District High School, and subsequently in employment at the Hatuma Lime Company. He informed Gronn, who said lie would keep him on the relief list for the time being. Since August, witness had worked at the High School and Gronn paid him wages which were received and signed for at the accused’s house. The signatures on the borough sheet and hook were not i hose of witness.