PENSION PROSECUTIONS.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXIV, Issue 229, 25 September 1903, Page 2

PENSION PROSECUTIONS.

AJAEG-ED WILFUL MISSTATEMENT

An imteres-ing case arising out of a claim for an old age pension was heard by Mr T. Hutchison, 6.M., to-day. The Auckland Deputy-Registrar of Pensions, Mr S. Ruddock, prosecuted a Panmure resident name- James Hogan for obta-in-ins: a pension on March 19th, 1901, by making a wilfully false statement, and on October 30th, 1902, attempting to secure a renewafl. of a pension by means of a wilfully false stat>en_o_-. Mr A. Blair prosecuted on behalf of the Crown Solicitor, and Mr J. Alexander defended. Mr Blair explalined that the, accused, in making the application for a pension, signed a sworn statement that lias wife .had. no property. The prosecution alleged, however, that Hogan. wife owned a section in Panmure with a capital value of £ 230, and a small firm of seven acres with a capital value of £180. He and his wife lived on their son's farm, rent free, and it was .stimated that the amnual rental value was £50. They had (Ihe income of five cows which were kept upon the farm. Evidence had been called at a previous hearing as to the property owned by Mrs Hogan, and further evidence of a .inula- nature was given by Constable Shearman, who told.Mr Alexander fiat he secured his information .roni the accused without any trouble. ,Mr Herbert W. Bra-bant, S.M., who heard the claimant's application for a pern-ion at Panmure, on April 26th, 1901, entered the witness-box, and produced his notes, showing that Hogan .told .Ire court at that time that ( he was kept by his daughter and son, and lived on the liatter'a property. Mr Alexander admtitted, on behalf of. his client, that the property existed and was owned as the prosecution alleged, but .said the mis-taJtement Was not wilful]. Hogan was an old man whose sight was failing, and 'the claim was filled in by his daughter. He did not know it was necessary to state that his wife owned any property, and at the hearing of the claim no questions were asked about it. The accused Hogan gave evidence bearing out his solicitor's statement. He was merely the caretaker of the farm for his son while the latter was away, he said. His daughter filled up the paper for him without asking any questions, but she knew her mother owned some property. He thought he was entitled to the pension if he owned no property himself. His Worship dismissed both informations, stating that although Hogan made a statutory declaration that his wife had no property, he retracted that when examined in the witness box upon the application for a renewal, and also told Constable Shearman about his wife's property. Therefore, it could not be said that he signed the declaration with a fraudulent purpose, and the evidence was not sufficient to sustain a criminal prosecution.