Mexborough and Swinton Times October 18, 1929
Dole Fraud.
Denaby Man’s False Statements.
Unprofitable Lodgers
When is a lodger not a lodger? This interesting problem was presented to the magistrates- at Doncaster (West Riding) Police Court on Tuesday, when George Alf. Guest, miner, of 65, Braithwell Street, Denaby, told the court that no one could be considered a lodger who was not paying 25s. a week for his maintenance.
Guest was summoned for making false representations in order to secure unemployment pay, he having stated when applying for benefit that his wife did not receive any income from boarders. By such statements he bad obtained over £25 to which he was not entitled. , Mr. C. R. Marshall, who prosecuted ‘on behalf of the Ministry of Labour, said’ that on Oct. 27, 1928, defendant applied at the Mexboro’ Employment Exchange for benefit. He was given a form to fill up, one of the questions on which asked whether his wife boarders at any time during the year, and another asked whether his wife did any work at home apart from household duties, these defendant answered in the negative. Consequently he was paid benefit in respect of himself, his wife, and five children. The application was renewed on several occasions, and in June of this year an anonymous letter was received by the authorities, and it was discovered that the two Lodges have been living with defendants in January 1925 and was still there.
Defendant was interviewed by an officer of the Exchange, when asked why he had made a false statement he replied that if he had revealed the fact that she took it to lodgers he would have lost all benefit as far as she was concerned. Apparently defendant was receiving £1 and 15 shillings a week from the lodgers.
By the chairman (Mr G.E.C ooke Yarborough), Mr Marshall said that if defendant had stated the facts correctly he would have lost all benefit so far as his wife was concerned, and the disclosure of the fact that he had two lodgers would have made the Exchange officials more particular about whether he was genuinely seeking work, and not living upon the profit derived from his lodgers. Defendant had received benefit in respect of his wife to the extent of £26 19s 10d and there was not the slightest doubt that amount would not have been paid if the application form had been up correctly.
George Hy. Banks, manager of the Mexborough Employment Exchange, corroborated Mr. Marshall’s, statement.
Mr. D. Dunn, who appeared for defendent, asked witness if, assuming one lodger was humanly paying 15s. a week, out of which there could be no profit, the wife would be entitled to any allowance, and witness replied that the case would be treated on its merits
Mr. Dunn described the case as unique. The original tenant was one of the present lodgers, who became ill and was unable to pay his rent. Consequently the colliery company asked defendant to become tenant as he was employed at the colliery. This man, who was relative of defendant, was supposed to pay 15s. a week, but more often than not he paid only 7/6, while the other man paid £1. However he owed defendant, money for board and lodgings. Therefore it was obvious that defendant made no profit. During the time he was receiving unemployment benefit the total weekly income of defendant’s household was £3 3s 6d, out of which he had to keep a wife and six children and the lodgers. Defendant was under the impression that he had no need to disclose the fact that he had lodgers as he was not making a profit from them.
Defendant gave evidence. He was now working and earning £2 1.5s. a week. He did not regard the people living in the house as lodgers as none of the furniture belonged to him, and they were not paying 25s. a week, which was the amount that lodgers paid.
The Chairman said defendant had deliberately defrauded the Country of £27 19s. 10d. by making statements knowing them to be false. He had admitted that he knew he would lose benefit in respect of his wife if he divulged that she took in boarders.
“There are a good many like you doing this sort of thing and defrauding the country. Some of them have been sent to prison, but having regard to the fact that you have such a large family we will not send you to prison. You will have to repay the amount of £10 in instalments of 2/6 a week, and the alternative is six months’ imprisonment.”