PENSION CLAIM.

Press, Volume LXIII, Issue 19156, 12 November 1927, Page 5

PENSION CLAIM.

♦ APPLICATION REFUSED. DISABILITY NOT DUE TO WAR SERVICE. [THE PRESS Special Serrice.] WELLINGTON, November 11. i In the House of Representatives today the IMenco Committee reported against a neurasthenic petitioner's claim to further aid on the ground j that his trouble was not a result of war service. Sympathetic members urged that the Defence Committee, which turned down his petition, should have given favourable consideration to his claim | Mr H. M. Campbell (Hawkc's Bay) J said the petitioner's case was a hard one, and he regretted that the commit- j tee had not been able to give it fair j treatment. j Mr Nash (Palinerston North) also regretted that the committee had not J brought in a favourable recommenda- ] tion. He had known the man in his j own towr, and could say that his 'ease was a very sad one. indeed. He wis now reduced to seeking charitable aid. His case was peculiar in that one day he would be in perfect health, and the nest day lie would be able to do no work at all. Mr Rolle&ton (Minister for Defence) said the Defence Committee did not, as had been stated, act on the Departmental report. The case had been verv thoroughly gone into, and the medical evidenco fully sifted* It was shown that the disability was not attributable to war service. The Defence Committee was always ready to giv© every consideration to such petitioners. He knew the man's case was a very hard one. but the committee could come to no other decision than had been come to. If, however, at any timoi the man could get better evidenco he could communicate with the Department with a view to getting his case hear 1 again. Sir Maui Pomare said that during the time he had been on the Defence Committee petitioners always had obr tained a very sympathetic hearing. The men were given every chance to establish their claims. Mr J. A. Lee (Auckland East) said the Pensions Board was a good Board, but it had to tuun down many cases, and every chance was given petitioners. There was one case in -which 54 medical men had testified against the case of a man, yet the Board had reconsidered it.. He did not succeed. "I. don't know whether he is stil Ipetitioning." said Mr Lee. Mr W. S. Glenn (Rangitikei), , a member of the Committee, said lie had never seen one case in which there was i doubt in which the Committee had not | given the petitioner the benefit of the j doubt. Several other members spoke, and Mr V. H. Potter (Roskill), chairman of the Committee, said every consideration had been given in the present case, in which the man was suffering from neurasthenia. The medical evidence was that he was suffering at times from a slight disability. Ho was now working. The Appeal Board, on medical evidence, decided that he should not receive a further pension, and they had their reasons. The disability was not created by war service. The Committee very often did not wish to give reasons for turning down petitioners. There had been a recent case in which they made no comment. The man had been a deserter. They did not mention that because' it would have been a stigma bi* the petitioner: