FRAUD CHARGE

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 57, Issue 247, 30 July 1937, Page 6

FRAUD CHARGE

SUSTENANCE PAY OBTAINED. FALSE STATEMENTS MADE. ASHBURTON MAN FINED £l7 10s. OTHER CASES HEARD IN COURT. A charge of having, between June 8 and August 8, 1936, at Ashburton, lie did make a false statement in order to obtain sustenance payments from the unemployment funds, was made against Robert W. Parsons, a labourer, in the Ashburton Magistrate’s Court this morning before Mr H. Morgan, S.M., and a fine of £l7 10s, with 10s costs, was imposed. “There are too many of these cases, and we must stop them,” said the Magistrate, in commenting on the case. It was stated that the records showed that defendant had obtained from the Employment Department £2O 7s, and that at the same time he had made £3l 14s 8d in private earnings. He had shown that his earnings were nil, while he had actually been in fulltime employment at the Gas Works. Defendant stated that he had not worked full-time at tho gas works had never worked there for six days in one week. He had worked a few odd days. It was stated that the Department had been defrauded of a sum of £l3 13s Id. The Magistrate said the fine must equal the amount the Department had overpaid, together with something more, and fixed the sum at £l7 10s. Parsons asked for time to pay the fine, stating that he was receiving only sustenance now. The .Magistrate: What amount are you receiving ? Parsons: £2 3s a week. I may he able to get some shearing in about two months, and I have put in for a job in Christchurch and should know about it in two weeks. The Magistrate said the fine should be paid in a reasonable time. Parsons was ordered to pay the Court costs within the next two weeks, and the question of the payment of the fine was held over till next Court day to see how Parsons gets on about the job he has applied for. Shop Open on Sunday. Robert Henry James was charged with having kept his shop open on a Sunday for the sale of goods. Constable Harris stated that on June 27, at 2.45 p.m. he saw the shop open in East Street. He saw people going in and leaving with parcels. He warned defendant, but in the evening he saw a man leave with four sticks of chocolate. Defendant, who did not appear, was fined 15s with 10s costs. Cycling Without Light. Lindsay Parkin was charged with having ridden a bicycle at night, at Bankside, without a light, and was convicted and discharged, the Magistrate stating that as defendant’s bicycle, for which he had paid £lO, had been destroyed in an accident at the same time lie had been sufficiently punished. Excessive Speed. Ernest F. Porter was charged with having operated a heavy motor vehicle on the main highway at an excessive speed. He did not appear. It was stated that the vehicle was licensed to travel at 20 miles an hour, and its speed had been checked at Selwy.n at from 44 to 47 miles. He was fined £2 10s with 10s costs. No Driver’s License. Charged with having driven a motor lorry without a driver’s license, A. J. Breakwell (Mr Charles) guilty and was fined 10s with 12s costs. It was stated that defendant had been under the impression that liis license had been renewed at the time his heavy traffic license was renewed. j Civil Business. Judgment for plaintiff by default was given in the following cases: — Tuckers, Ltd. (Mr G. C. Nicoll) v. Tom Hunt, £8 14s Id, with £1 I.os 6d costs; Ashburton Hospital Board (Mr W. H. Woods) v. J. Madden, £ll 11s, with £2 11s costs • H. R. Porter (Milt. Kennedy) v. T. Henderson, £1 6s, with 8s costs; same v, A. Hardy, junior, £9 17s Bd, with £1 12s 6d costs; New Zealand Farmers’ Co-operative Association, Ltd. (Mr Kennedy) v. H. Henderson, £l3 Is 4d, with £2 16s costs. Old Maintenance Case. Stephen James Rhodda (Mr Charles) was charged with having been in arrears with payments in respect of a maintenance order. He asked for cancellation of the order and remission oi tho arrears. The order, it was stated, was made many years ago, for the support of a daughter, who was now married with a considerable family. The warrant for defendant’s arrest was issued in 1923 and had not been served till recently. Tho complainant (defendant’s divorced wife) had not allowed the ease to die out, having regularly kept at the police to locate defendant. Defendant stated that the order was for 10s a week, in respect of his daughter. That was in Wellington. He came to Ashburton soon alter that. He did not know about the warrant being issued, but bad been imprisoned for six months under a previous warrant. He had sent money to his daughter to take a holiday when she was living with her mother. He had been in had health and had not done much work. He had been working on a larm for three months, driving a team lor £2 a week. In reply to Sergeant J. F. Cleary, defendant said his sister in Ashburton did not know where he was some time ago, though she received a letter from

his daughter to bo handed on to him. He had been in hospital and had been out of work for a long time. The Magistrate said the case was somewhat peculiar. Defendant knew of the order, but had not made payments. The mother had had to keep the daughter and the defendant had' been exempt. The warrant was suspended so long as £lO was paid, defendant being convicted and sentenced to one month in gaol. He was allowed one fortnight to pay-