SUSTENANCE FOR EIGHT YEARS

Southland Times, Issue 23740, 11 February 1939, Page 8

SUSTENANCE FOR EIGHT YEARS

MISREPRESENTATION BY WIDOWER

IMPRISONMENT FOR ONE MONTH

(United Press Association) AUCKLAND, February 10. “This is the worst case of deliberate misrepresentation to obtain sustenance that I have heard of,” said Mr F. H. Levien, S.M., in the Police Court in sentencing a wharf labourer, Joseph Farrell, a widower, aged 58, on eight charges involving excess sustenance amounting to £268 4/5 received over a period of seven years. Accused admitted six charges of making false statements to obtain sustenance and denied two of false pretences. Prosecuting on behalf of the Labour Department, Mr W. A. Black said the accused registered for relief when the unemployment scheme began in 1931. He declared he was married and was maintaining a wife and two children and he had been in receipt of relief ever since. In October 1936 an inquiry officer interviewed the accused about the employment of his son and when he asked to see the boy the accused made excuses. Later he called at the Labour Bureau saying his son had left home. Unsuccessful attempts were then made to interview the accused s wife, Mr Black continued. In November 1937 the accused applied to have his classification reduced to that of a single man, explaining that his wife had left him. Supporting statements regarding his wife and children were occasionally made to inquiry officers by the proprietress of a boarding house where the accused lived. The matter of locating the accused’s wife was subsequently handed to the police for investigation. The accused could not produce his marriage certificate, and said he was married in Napier between 1912 and 1914. He was unable to give the whereabouts of his wife or his sons or any relation who might have supplied information. As the result of inquiries made at Napier and Auckland it was established that the accused s wife died in 1918 and there were no children. In August 1938 the accused made a statement to the police that since he first registered as unemployed he had deliberately misled the officers of the Labour Bureau as to his true position.' “My wife died in 1918 without having children and I did not remarry,” the accused said. “I now frankly admit that I have repeatedly supplied wrong information and told numerous lies over a period of years in trying to justify the existence of an alleged wife and child. My sole reason for doing so was to get increased benefits from the department.” When sentencing the accused to a month’s imprisonment the Magistrate said he did not consider that a fine in addition to imprisonment would serve any good purpose.