FRAUDS COMMITTED BY RELIEF WORKERS.

Star (Christchurch), Volume XLIV, Issue 143, 18 June 1931, Page 6

FRAUDS COMMITTED BY RELIEF WORKERS.

CONVICTIONS ENTERED against THREE MEN. “ The Courts will insist on the fullest information being given by these applicants for relief work. The greatest honesty and straightforwardness is essential in these days. Everything possible is being done for unfortunate people; but, if they take advantage of it, the whole system is in danger of breaking down,” said Mr E. D. Mosley, S.M., at the Magistrate’s Court to-day, when three men were charged with obtaining money by false pretences, in that they made fraudulent declarations when applying for relief work under the Unemployment Board’s scheme. Rennell Lawrence Bennett, of 11, Clare Road, St Albans, was charged that between May 1 and May 15 he did obtain from the Unemployment Board £3 2s 6d by falsely stating that he was not employed at the time that he was employed as a part-time worker for wages. John Ernest Brown, of Eastern Terrace, Fisherton, was charged that on May 2 he obtained £2 10s from the Unemployment Board by falsely representing in April, 1931, that he had not received any income during the past twelve months apart from wages. Michael Morrissey, , 401, Barrington Street. Spreydon, was charged that between February'- 11 and May 8 he obtained £7 4s from the Unemployment Board by falsely representing that he was a married man with two dependents. Morrissey (Mr Russell) and Bennett (Mr M’Lachlan) both pleaded guilty, but Brown (Mr Saunders) pleaded not guilty, and his case was proceeded with first. Money from Tomatoes. Sub-Inspector O’Hara said that on April 13 defendant filled in form ÜB2, and omitted to state that he had a glasshouse in which he grew tomatoes, and that he had received over £6O for the sale of tomatoes. Alfred Russell Smith, of the Labour Department, said that he recognised accused. Accused had filled in the form produced in Court. Mr Saunders: If he had stated that he had made over £4O from his tomatoes, but that he had to use it to pay accumulated debts, would that have prevented the department from giving him work ? - Witness: If a man has no money and nothing to live on, the department would endeavour to give him work. The trouble was that he was not frank enough. Did not the department take action because they heard his wife had a motor-car?—That may be so. R. T. Bailey, officer in charge of the Labour Department, said he knew accused and his circumstances. The statements made in accused’s form were not correct. To Mr Saunders, witness said that accused was not in line for work when his true position was disclosed. There were thousands of more deserving cases.

Swallowed Up by Debts. Constable John Cummings read a statement by accused in which he said that all the money made by the sale of tomatoes was swallowed up by debts. The property, worth £450, was mortgaged for £4OO. The first mortgagee was R. L. Saunders, solicitor. His wife was not legally separated from him, but they'- were living apart. He had paid her first of all £4 a week, and later, when he was unemployed, £2 a week. The house she lived in was worth £7OO, and she had a Buick motorcar worth £3OO. He had only his glasshouse and a two-roomed whare. In evidence accused said he had been out of regular employment for over twelve months. He first had work from the Unemployment Bureau in March. He had twelve day's’ work before reregistration. He did not consider his tomatoes at the time of registration. He had no wish or intention to be fraudulent. Mr Saunders: I consider he made a grave error of judgment, but I submit that he would have been given just the same amount of work had he filled everything in. i To Sub-Inspector O’Hara, accused .said he did not think it was necessary to mention the money made from the tomatoes. He was earning 16s a day, now the cut was in operation. Wife’s Property. “You are lucky,” said the Magistrate. “If you were up against it, why did you not go to your wife, or at least stop paying her money'? She has £IOOO worth of unencumbered property'.” “I’ll never have a woman maintaining me, sir,” was the reply. “So you want the public to maintain you?” asked the Magistrate. Accused: I work for what I get. Mr Saunders, submitted that, in omitting to include the information about the money from the tomatoes, accused had not affected the position, but indeed had actually' saved the department trouble. “It is clear to me that he has committed a fraud,” said the Magistrate. “The question is, to what extent?” Musician in a Band. When Bennett was called, Mr M’Lachlan asked if accused might be excused from getting into the dock. It hardly seemed necessary, he said. “It is all the more necessary,” said the Magistrate, “as he has committed a false pretence and defrauded the public.”

Sub-Inspector O’Hara said that accused was a musician in a band and earned 15s one night every week. He had not included that in the form. It was essential that the men should include every item or more deserving cases would suffer. He had been open with the police. Mr M’Lachlan said that Bennett had not realised the position. He was a married man with a sick child and had expense to meet on that account. In the case against Morrissey', SubInspector O’Hara said that accused had stated that he was a married man with two dependants. He had frankly' stated to the police that he thought he was more likely to get work that way. Mr Russell said that accused had aged parents to support, as well as a brother. He might have been confused by the old scheme, under which a single man with dependants had the same privilege as a married man. “ His is the worst case of all,” said the Magistrate. “It was certainly' deliberate.” Severer Penalties. “ These,” the Magistrate continued, “ are the first cases of their kind in Christchurch. I am going to treat them as such, but it must be clearly understood that in the future the penalties will be severe. No Court will put up with such frauds while the country is in such a parlous state and such measures as the unemployment scheme mean so much to the community'. In future the punishment will be summary.” Bennett was convicted and ordered to refund £3 2s 6d in thirty day's, in default seven days’ imprisonment. Brown was convicted and ordered to repay £2 10s in fourteen days, in default seven day's’ imprisonment. Morrissey' was ordered to refund £7 4s in thirty days, in default ten day:s’ imprisonment.