Unusual Charge Against Hindu

Manawatu Times, Volume 69, Issue 56, 9 March 1944, Page 8

Unusual Charge Against Hindu

A case of unusual nature came before the Court at Marton on Tuesday, when Dahya Bhangia, Hindu, of Marton, faced five charges'of making false declarations pertaining to the arrival of Hindu boys in New. Zealand. Messrs A. J. Sicely and H. Y. Cameron, J.P. ’s, presided. Mr. J. R. Stanford appeared for accused and Senior-Detective Meiklejohn conducted the prosecution. William H. Fisher, deputy AssistantComptroller of Customs, Wellington, said liis department received a communication from accused regarding the bringing to New Zealand of his tw’O sons in 192(5. Forms were sent to him to fill in aud also some to be sent to India for filling in before a Magistrate. Declarations were received from accused, and Barber Bhangia arrived in New Zealand on November 23, 1926. Lallu Bhangia was the subject of an amendea declaration. Unka Dahya arrived here on April 9, 19-10, and Moral Dahya, was given a permit, but it had now expired. Accused described all of them as his lawful sons. With each of the applications were photographs of applicant and his sons. The name of accused’s wife was given on the forms in four different ways. In response to an inquiry regarding this, it was explained that the different names arose through her going under her maiden name at times ana under her married name at others. Two of the boys were declared to be the lawful natural sons and the other two to be the sons. The department was not satisfied that the certificates sent from India were genuine. As the result of inquiries the department would not have allowed the boys to land iu New Zealand liad the original position been known. Evidence was given by Unka Dahya, aged 23, who said lie had known accused as his father since he was little. Witness was now employed as an hotel porter in Palmerston North. Air. Ateiklejohu produced a statement made by accused in which he said that ho arrived in New Zealand in January, 1920. His wife had no children of then marriage and he had no children of bis own. His brother, Nana Bhangia, ban three sons, Unka, Aloral and Lalla. Barber Dahya was not liis son, but the son of another brother. Accused had brought two of the boys to New Zealand and also signed forms to have the two others allowed into the country. He declared that both were lawful sons by his wife. This was untrue, because liis wife did not have any children. He' mado the declarations because ho had made up his mind to help them as they were the sons of his brothers. Barbei Dahya’s father was dead in 1926 when lie made the declaration and Nana Bhangia died when the youngest of the boys was about two years old. He treated the boys as if they wero his sons. When lie made the declarations he did not consider he was doing wrong because he had arranged to keep them after his brothers died, just as if they were his sons. Further, if he died, all his pro perty would be divided between the four boy's, because he had no children. In reply to Air. Stanford, witness said the statement .was made mostly' in the form of answers to questions. He had not asked accused if he had adopted the boys. Accused pleaded guilty and was committed to the Supreme Court at Wellington for sentence, bail being allowed.