SUSTENANCE FRAUD

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 83, Issue 35, 11 February 1939, Page 10

SUSTENANCE FRAUD

WORST CASE KNOWN TO MAGISTRATE .. SUM OF £268 4s 5d INVOLVED [ Per Press /.Bsociation.) AUCKLAND, Feb. 10. “This is the worst case of deliberate misrepresentation to obtain sustenance that I have heard of,” said Mr. F. H. Levien, S.M., in the Police Court in sentencing a wharf labourer, Joseph Farrell, widower, aged 58, on eight charges involving excess of sustenance amounting to £268 4s sd, received over a period of seven years. Accused admitted to six charges oi making false statements to obtain sustenance and denied two of false pretences. Prosecuting on behalf oi the Labour Department, Mr. W. A. Black said that accused registered for relief when the unemployment scheme began in 1931. He declared he was married and maintaining a wife and two children and he nad been in receipt of relief ever since. In October, 1936, an inquiry officer interviewed accused about the employment of his son and when he asked to see the boy accused haa made excuses. Later he called at the Labour Bureau saying his son had left home. Unsuccessful attempts were then made to interview accused’s wife, Mr. Black continued. Accused had made statements that she and one child were still living with him but in November, 1937, accused applied to have his classification reduced to that of a single man, explaining that his wife nad lefv him. Supporting statements regarding his wile and children were occasionally made to inquiry officers by the proprietress of the boarding house where accused lived. The matter of locating accused’s wile was subsequently handed to the police for investigation.

Accused could not produce his marriage certificate and said he was married in Napier between 1912 ana 1914, He was unable to give the whereabouts of his wile or sons or any relatives who might have supplied the information. As a result of inquiries made at Napier and Auckland it was established that accused s wife died and there were no children. In August, 1938, accused made a statement to the police that since he first registered as unemployed he had deliberately misled the officers of the Labour Bureau as to his true position.

"My wife died in 1918 without having any children and I did not remarry,” accused continuel. "I now frankly admit that 1 have repeatedly supplied wrong information and

have told numerous lies over a period of years in trying to justify the existence of an alleged wife and child. My sole reason for doing so was to get increased benefits from the department.” Sentencing the accused 1o a month’s imprisonment, the magistrate said that he did not considei that a fine, in addition to imprisonment, would serve any good purpose.