“DELIBERATE FRAUD”

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LXV, Issue 19624, 7 May 1938, Page 13

“DELIBERATE FRAUD”

SUSTENANCE MAN’S ACTS WIFE’S £I2OO ASSETS THREE MONTHS’ GAOL (Por Pross Association.) AUCKLAND, this day. “These people are making it difficult for genuine cases of sustenance,” said Mr. J. H. Luxford, S.M.. in the Police Court, when Alfred Duncan Gray Adams, fgced one charge of obtaining money from the Labour Department by false pretences, and also three charges of making a false statement for the purpoes of obtaining benefit under the Employment Promotion Act.

“These are not cases where we can consider the individual, as they are committing deliberate frauds,” added the magistrate. Appearing for the. Labour Department, Mr. W. A. Black said the accused was frequently away from Auckland in a motor car, returning only to collect his sustenance money. He made several declarations tnai neither he nor his wife was possessed of any income. It was subsequently disclosed that his wife was receiving 15s a week from a sub-tenant, and was being allowed £1 a month for the maintenance of the motor car. Assets Worth £I2OO Undisclosed assets of the accused r wife consisted of various bank, gas, pastoral, shipping and miscellaneous shares, valued by the department at £I2OO, said Mr. Black. She was also receiving an allowance of £8 a month during the time the false statements were made. He pointed out that capital assets of £SOO or more disentitled a person to sustenance. For the defence, Mr. Ilogbcn, who appeared for the accused, stated that the ev'dence was not denied. However, the statements made were true,

as the accused did not know that his wife had any assets. The car was not owned by the accused, but was the property of his sister-in-law, who made an allowance of £1 a month, out of which 2s Gd a week was paid for a garage.

He pointed out that the attitude of the accused’s wife was illustrated by the. fact that as soon as she had discovered the accused knew her to be a woman of substance she had left him, and they were now living apart. Mr. Black pointed out that from June, 1935, to January of this year, the accused had made 150 statements declaring he had no income each time. The excess payments totalled £209 8s 4d. ' “I have no doubt That this man was guilty of deliberate fraud, and there is not one redeeming feature in the case,” said the magistrate. The accused was sentenced to three months’ imprisonment with hard labour on the charge of false pretences, and was convicted and discharged on the remaining charges.