OLD AGE PENSION CLAIMS.

Greymouth Evening Star, Volume XXXI, 19 November 1901, Page 4

OLD AGE PENSION CLAIMS.

A Caution to Fabricators. The following judgments were delivered in the Westport Magistrate's Court on Thursday, the 7th inst, by Mr B. S. Hawkins S.M. on the charges Police v. George and William White, for unlawfully and wilfully making false statements with intent to obtain larger pensions than they were entitled to : POLICE V. G. WHITE. In these prosecutions it is right tbat it should be stated that both defendants had the fullest opportunity to reconsider the statements made in their several declarations in respect to which these prosecutions have tali en place, and if they had, when on oath before me admitted the truth, it is certain that these prosecutions would never have taken place. Counsel appeared to me to shut out from my mind their examinations before me on those occasions, and I have excluded them from my consideration, dealing only with the evidence before me on the hearing of the charges. But I cannot altogether, in considering the appeal to leniency, shut out the fact that those opportunities were given and rejected by them.

In the case of George White I find that the excess of income over the limit of £34 is £SB 4s 7d. That is after placing tha working account all that can be strictly placed to it, and even if I allow all the amounts for groceries, butcher's meat, etc., to go to the working account and debiting nothing to household consumption of defendant, his wife and children, I find there is still an excess of £ls over the statutory limit. I am strongly appealed to say that the misstatement made by defondant in his dec'aration was not wilful. The time and labor expended in Court over tho defendant's accounts aro urged as a defence in themselves to the charge. I cannol tako this view. I think it is the intention of the Act that an applicant should make a full and complete disclosure of his incomo and property. In this case the defendant made a 'nilreturn and ho persisted in it till tho in quiries of the police showed every item ohis receipts. Ido not think it is competent for him to take refuge behind his ignorance of accounts. Because an applicant for a pension carrying on works which brought him in £3OO in one year choses to keep no accounts, imagines that ho has made no income, that is no justification for a 'nil' return. Moreover, the first attempt at defence was that he was not the solo contractor and that ' Big Mac ' was his partner in the Karamea contraot and shared tho profits. That defenco completely broke down on ' Big Mac's ' evidence. The defence then resorted to tho accounts as his second line of defence. But the first dofenco was indicative of a cortain dishonesty of mind which affects tho second.

Under tho conditions disclosed by tho evidonco to mako a nil declaration is wiffully to make a misstatement. It is impossible to fail to notice the attitude attributed to him by his brother William over tho application by tho latter for his pension wbero tho same reckless way of regarding the obligation to disclose tho possession of propftrtyis as remarkable as in his own case.

It is urgod that tho uso to which the

two pensions were pu; was sa praiseworthy as to bo a cloak for the offence. That is a eugges ion that strikes at the root of morality, honesty and good faith. It is to say ' I may rob the Htate provided I apply the monov to pious uses ' The application of the money from the moment pensions were obtained shows the object of obtaining them and explains George White's desire to get them for him>clf and his brother. When, however, I am asked to take into consideration the general good character for honesty and the misfortunes of the defendant I am sensible of very different impressions. 1 must not, however, in the public interest allow myself to treat the charge as trivial. I am convinced both applicants for pensions and those who take the declarations and those who corroborate them need a pretty sharp reminder that they are not matters to be transacted

with levity and indifference. But I think that this purpose will be sufficiently attained if I inflict a light fine on the defendant.

He will be convicted and fined £5 and costs £l6 19; in default imprisonment for one calendar nvnth. POLICE V. WILLIAM WHITE. In this case there is no question whatever that the defendant was aware when he made the declaration that he was the owner of the property. But I am satisfied that he is really a man of very small intelligence and that he was certainly under the influence of his brother and blindly allowed others to prove his declaration for him. All that does not justify his act. He knew the property was his and should have refused to make a declaration which omitted all mention of it. I find that he was the owner in fee simple of a house and land valued at £25 a year annual rental, and at a value on 8 years' purchase of £2OO. He therefore by his misstatement, which I hold wilful, obtained a pension of £lB a year, when he was only entitled to £B. I convict him and fine him £3 and costs 15s; in default 14 days' imprisonment, and cancel his pension. The costs in Gecrge White's case amounted to £l6 19s and in "William White's to 15s.