Case Name: HUGHES, Petitioner, v. EMPLOYMENT DIVISION et al, Respondents
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1978-05-30
Citations: 34 Or. App. 689
Docket Number: No. 78-AB-130, CA 10159
Parties: HUGHES, Petitioner, v. EMPLOYMENT DIVISION et al, Respondents.
Judges: Before Schwab, Chief Judge, and Lee, Richardson and Joseph, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 34
Pages: 689–691

Head Matter:
Argued May 17,
affirmed May 30, 1978
HUGHES, Petitioner, v. EMPLOYMENT DIVISION et al, Respondents.
(No. 78-AB-130, CA 10159)
579 P2d 870
Marvin S. Nepom, Portland, argued the cause and filed the brief for petitioner.
W. Benney Won, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent Employment Division. On the brief were James A. Redden, Attorney General, and Al J. Laue, Solicitor General, Salem.
No appearance for respondent Nelson Construction.
Before Schwab, Chief Judge, and Lee, Richardson and Joseph, Judges.
PER CURIAM.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Claimant appeals from the decision of the Employment Appeals Board which denied him unemployment benefits on the ground that claimant was not actively seeking work within the meaning of ORS 657.155 and that claimant wilfully made false statements within the meaning of ORS 657.215 and is therefore liable for repayment under ORS 657.310. He contends that the referee abused his discretion in granting a continuance to the Employment Division when at the time originally set for hearing it did not have certain witnesses available and asked for and received a continuance over claimant's objection. We cannot affirmatively state that the referee abused his discretion.
The defendant's other contention is that the Appeals Board erred in finding that claimant made false statements and was not actively seeking work during the time in question. There was evidence to support the Board's finding and we are therefore bound by it.
Affirmed.