FRAUD NOT PROVED IN RELIEF CASES.

Star (Christchurch), Volume XLIV, Issue 185, 6 August 1931, Page 9

FRAUD NOT PROVED IN RELIEF CASES.

DEFENDANTS WILL PAY BACK MONEY EARNED. “ The form which these men have to fill in is badly drawn up. I don’t want to say much on the subject, but I think the whole thing is pretty rottdn. The legislation is extraordinary, but it is an effort to cope with the problem of the times.” That was the comment of Mr E. D. Mosley, S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court this morning, when further prosecutions for false pretences against men who had allegedly made misstatements in filling up forms applying for relief work were brought before him. Before the cases were proceeded with Mr Stacey, who appeared for several of the defendants, called the attention of the Magistrate to decisions made by Magistrates in the North Island, when it was held that the men did not obtain money by false pretence, as the charges said, but only the right to work. “ Their decisions are not going to bind me,” said Mr Mosley. “We will admit the facts against these men,” said Mr Stacey, “ but we still say that they did not obtain money by fraud.” Senior-Sergeant Fox, who prosecuted, said that until the Christchurch Magistrate decided against it, the police here would continue to charge on the ground of false pretence. If there had been no fraud, the accused men would not have obtained the money. “If one man likes to appeal against the decision I will adjourn the other cases,” said the Magistrate. Mr Stacey: Before a jury? “ No, certainly not,” replied Mr Mosley. “ This is a point of law, and I am not going to have a jury upsetting my decisions on law. I will hold to my attitude till my ruling is upset by the Supreme Court. “No Intent to Defraud.”

The case of Cyril Norman Gilbert M’Pherson was then called. The prosecution stated that M’Pherson had not disclosed the receipt of a pension. M’Pherson, in the witness box, said that he and his wife received pensions, amounting altogether tp about £2O per month. The Unemployment Board had notified all pension holders in a certain class that they had to apply for relief -work. Witness did so, and what he earned on relief was deducted from his pension. “ I can see no intent to defraud,” said the Magistrate, when the evidence was heard. “He seems a perfectly honest man.” Then he added with a smile, “ You cannot very well appeal on that, Mr Stacey.” Charles Henry Dalrymple (Mr Archer) was charged with obtaining £6 6s by making the false statement that he had no investments, when he actually had £l3O in the Post Office Savings Bank. Mr Archer said that the defendant did not regard the money as an investment. lie did not understand that it was till he saw a similar prosecution. Then he at once reported to the Labour Department. “ That word investment is used unfortunately,” said the Magistrate. “ I am satisfied that this honest and thrifty young man had no intent to defraud. However, though one has every admiration for his thrift, there is the fact that he would not have got the work had his savings been disclosed. I do not want to convict him.” N

The charge was dismissed, on the understanding that the defendant paid the money back to the Department, an undertaking which he readily gave. An exactly similar case was that of Peter Wood (Mr Twyneham), a woodworking machinist of Sydenham. Wood regarded his £179 in the Savings Bark as a “ nest egg,” not as an investment, he said. As soon as he knew the position he reported. “ Victimised.” “ I think he has been victimised,” said Mr Johnston, who appeared for him. “ Two or three explanatory words would have saved him the indignity of this charge, and a lot of trouble for the country. He grafted hard for the £l6 7s 6d he earned, and caught rheumatism as well.” The case against Wood was dismissed, Wood paying back £lO by agreement. Similarly, Albert Edward Dobbie (Mr Stacey) was discharged, it being understood that he should pay back £5 of the £lO 12s 6d he earned. Case Dismissed. Ernest Leonard Smith (Mr Stacey) was charged with obtaining £l7 10s by false pretence, his fraud, it was alleged, consisting in the statement that he was living with his wife and children, while in reality his wife was away, and his children in a home. “ His wife, in fact, had to go to hospital,” said Mr Stacey. “ She was actually ill from starvation. The children, with no one to look after them, had to go to a home. Smith thought his wife would be away only about a fortnight, but the health authorities prohibited her return home to live in its present condition. Smith has no money whatsoever, and is living on relief work.”

“ I will dismiss this case,” said the Magistrate, “ and I cannot expect him to pay anything back. His is a deserving case,” he added to Mr Bailey. “ I would not be hard on him.” “We try to help such cases,” said Mr Bailey. “ This man has not lost his work. If only they would be frank with us it would be so much easier.” T*.s case against James Taylor Brown was dismissed on. condition that he paid back £5 out of £5 8s paid to him. Mr Stacey’s proposed appeal fell through, as none of to-day’s prosecutions was sustained.