SENT TO GAOL.

Star (Christchurch), Volume LXVI, Issue 20266, 28 March 1934, Page 9

SENT TO GAOL.

ARREST OF DEFENDANT IS ORDERED. Refused to Tell Name. SENSATION IN MAGISTRATE’S COURT. “ Constable—put that man tinder j arrest! ” I This order of Mr H. P. Lawry, S.M., j provided a sensational ending to a case in tile Magistrate’s Court this > morning. The order was for the arrest of Thomas George, described as a boot repairer, 28 years of age, of Cambridge Terrace, on a charge of contempt of Court. At the later hearing of the case, George was sent to prison for seven days. George was applying for the rehearing of a case brought a fortnight ago by Mr R. T. Bailey, officer-in-charge of the Labour Department at Christchurch, when George was fined 10s on each of three charges of failing to pay his unemployment levy. He had been convicted and discharged on two others. In the witness-box this morning George alleged that he had paid his levy at the Labour Bureau, after he had received the summons and that he had been told by an officer there he would not need to appear at Court as the charges would be withdrawn. Mr Bailey asked witness where he had got the money to pay his levy, and was told that witness had been working. Afraid of Trouble. “ What is the name of your employer?” asked Mr Bailey. “ I cannot say,” said George. He said he was afraid that his employer would get into trouble for employing him. Mr Bailey again pressed for the name, and the Magistrate ordered George to answer the question. When the witness still refused, the Magistrate warned him. “If I am satisfied that you have reasonable ground for your application, I can grant you a rehearing and take any facts you may bring forward into consideration when hearing the case again,” he said. “If you do not answer the question you are liable to a fine of £lO or imprisonment for contempt of Court.” W 7 itness still refused to give the name. “ If you will not answer I must order your arrest,” said the Magistrate. “Take the Consequences,” “ I’ll have to take the consequences, I suppose,” said witness. At this stage the Magistrate ordered George’s arrest. Later the Magistrate asked the court orderly (Constable Harper) if the prisoner in his charge was of a different frame of mind. “He is still determined,” said the constable, and the Magistrate adjourned the Court until midday, when the charge was heard. Hearing of Charge. George was represented by Mr Spiller at the first hearing, but was unrepresented when he was charged with contempt of Court. “Have you changed your mind?” asked the Magistrate when the accused stepped into the dock. “ I wouldn’t like to tell the man’s name.” answered the accused, who was looking very white and worried. ** Get into the witness-box," said the Magistrate, and when George did so Mr Lawry asked, “ Are you prepared to answer the question?” “ A Bookmaker.” “ I explained to Mr Bailey that I couldn’t say, as the man w-as a bookmaker,” said witness. “You have a wife and children?” asked the Magistrate. “Yes, sir,” said the accused. “ You have been most defiant,” said the Magistrate. “ You have no excuse for not giving the answer required, and will have to go to prison for seven days if ycu do not.” Had Promised. George: “But I have promised the man I would not tell his name.” The Magistrate: And you are prepared to go to gaol rather than tell? George: Yes, sir. The Magistrate repeated that George would go to prison for seven days if he did not change his mind, but the accused remained firm. “ Very well ... I will grant your application for a rehearing,” said the Magistrate, who then questioned George closely as to his earnings. George admitted that his application to the Commissioner of Unemployment for exemption from the levy, in which he stated that he was earning only £6O a year, was incorrect. False Application. I have to do something to teach men like you that you can’t come here and fool the Court like this,” said the Magistrate. “ There is no question that you are technically guilty for failing to pay your levy. You have admitted having made a false application to the 1 ommissioner of Unemployment.” The previous decision of the Court was wiped out, said the Magistrate, and defendant would be fined £5 10s on. the first charge and 10s on each of the other two charges. The costs as fixed at the last hearing would stand. George was again asked if he would give the name of the man who had employing him, but refused. I’ll do the seven days,” he said.