THE OLD AGE PENSIONS ACT.

Evening Star, Issue 12028, 28 October 1903, Page 4

THE OLD AGE PENSIONS ACT.

CHARGES OF FRAUD. the Police Court this morning, before M r C. 0. Graham, four cases under the Old Age Pensions Act against Ann Coonan were set down for hearing, but before proceeding with them Mr J. F. M. Fraser, who represented the department, asked that a civil cuss against the woman should be taken first, as it might probably decide the criminal cases. Mr A. (J. H.anion, who appeared for the defendant, agreed to this course, and the civil case was tlieu heard before Mr C. C Graham, S.M. Tho , ca: j e was oJifi in which the Registrar cf Old .Ago Pensions sued Ann Coonan, claiming £32, the excess over the amount to winch the defendant was by law entitled to. find a further sum of £52 by way of penalty, the said excess having been obtained by fraud.

Mr Fraser stated that the action was brought under section c. of tho Old Age Pensions Amendment Act of i 902, which pnn ided that w when it is found that any pension lias been paid in excess of the amount to which the pensioner is by law entitled, the excess amount may be recovered by tho Registrar as a debt due to tue Grown, and if, in the opinion of the magistrate, such excess was obtained bv fraud, then the pensioner is liable at the discretion of the magistrate to a further penalty not exceeding double the excess amount. So that where the amount had been wrongly paid to a pensioner, the Registrar might recover the amount due to the crown, and if fraud was used in obtaining teat excess amount the magistrate in his discretion could give judgment also for double the amount of the excess. The other section winch dealt with this case was to be found in the Act of 1898, section 47, which provides that every person who by means cf any wilfully false statement or representation obtains or attempts to obtain a pension certificate to which he is not entitled, or a pension of a larger amount than he Is justly entitled to, he is liable to six months-’ imprisonment.’ There did not appear to be a penalty attached to the infringement of that section o! 1893, because the section providing a penalty was repealed. The fact was lhai under the Act of 1898 the Court had no option but, to imprison, and as the Court might imprison for a period of more than pix months the pensioner was entitled to be tned by a jury. Therefore, be (Mr Fraser) thought that it was better to commence wita the civil case now before the Court, ihc defendant v/aa a married woman, and fie understood she was illiterate. She could not write, and Mr Hanlon informed him tnat sne was somewhat deaf. In 1899 she iVm gr imf d a pension. She drew it in IjOO, 1901 and ISOZ The okl forms that pensioners to fill up were not nearly os lull as tne new forms that the department had now very properly issued. In the old forms the words “property” and “accumulated property” were freely used, and there was no precise mention there of debt clue to the person or monev that the pensioner might have in the Post Office Savmo-s Hank. In the new forms all those questions were asked. The pensioner was asked if he or sne was the owner of money in any Dost wteK SaT “ gS i. bank - ° r in “J- other bink, rf the pensioner had anv money in any monetary institution, building society, eta He (counsei mentioned that tact because it was tne old forms ho intended to put in evidence before His Worship. What hare pcricd was that when the defendant got her first pension she bad £174 in the Post Office 1 Y nCn cirew hcr fourth ’7 thl c rd - 8211 - ;:n<i her tou. th, £lll. finder the Act this course ought to have been adopted : there should ha.o been a reduction of £SO from the total, and tnen a reduction of £1 for every intact of the balance, so that the snonld hare been deducted, the £4—l" cf b £32“ d Th 10 ’ Wld tha f ° nrth ,ul ‘ 01 There was no enntro-nro-c ( Cfraasel ) could pn vC tn.it she had received £52 in excess ; r he amount that she should have drawn. inot would practically he admitted. Tho wai'- tl( Tti l° V i Wcrshi P’ s determination re '- jj l ! ..| fh « bep n CTUiliy of fraud in connation with tne matter? In other words, fnV’tKn 3, misrepresentation made wdh H O P “ rp<, f t° f ttin S a pension i- i i n JGCt ?- f m : slcadin g UK Court, or J’timg away a large sum mu.ual y m old r.ge pensions, and ho (Mr Pn.scr) was aigraid that old pensioners f K J7ir aIJ - V lealiso the thcy P r ; m He n am o.one to (he conclusion that it was d o ne f mudulent]} . # thfin ifc to pri°s f on he C ° Urt to Comiuit the offender tr-S gar .]l H n all C j TGV '- •’■’(ipendiary ma.tisctin’ : ,e ;k r ir cd her was- A>-a +i 18 T’ertion put to ncr was. Are tlio questions in vour annli cation true? and her reply was «‘SI S” -Next she was asked if she had anv proStv and raid no. Usually witness asked .you property 0 f any description 9 ” p r i thafhS 0 She had «o income, hut tnat her husband earned £1 a week from the Inion Oompanv. A full nrnsior, fronted ei,„ A„ - 11111 pension was granted. a.so came up on May 8 5 Y \ l3O1 ’ “d on Ma7l6,’ gr?nter] d °" each ° CcasioU rcnewal/were To Mr Hanlon: Could not say that ) le had asked defendant definitely if she'had V . ,V (mthex real or intended) to think liiieSy : meant only real James Taylor deposed (o bavinc taken ded f Had known d£ fondant for thirty years. Remembered nre thing definite abort her making h»r declarations more than in the case of other pensioners. Witness put the ordinary turns, and defenaant told him that her hushand earned £1 per week. It was bis n. variable practice to ask applicants if tlmv haa any property and to tell them of Ui deductions to b9 made against any such. iiobert Hill, deputy-registrar 6f old ana pensions, Dunedin, described the malring of defendants first declaration. He nut the orcinary questions to her, filled in the dedaratiou, told h.er the facts in it,, and she fc ~To v en ,. he toDk mark. 1 f yi7 M i u 1 : ? e clul not whether or not this took place on May 9. f u ,. as ho coula see, defendant was in the offi-e Itincr ffiV’ aPerS l Were Without seung the papers, lie could not tell whether she Lad been there at all. He could only suear to the general question. He could not swear that he had asked defendant these questions or that she had said that die had no money. In June last defendant her Papers, and would not fill them up. She went away, and «aid she would come back. She did not do so mid witness sent his assistant twice, but the matter was never completed and in due course defendant was struck off the penmens roH. TV hen defendant came in ho started to ask her questions, and made one or two marks on the income and property statement, when defendant would go no further Defendant did tell him that she had any money in the Savmga Bank—he had no recollection 0 f j+ Re-examined: It was in the course of i general inquiry as to those who refused to sign tho new papers that he discovered that defendant had money m the P ost ba Tings Bank. Thomas Ikurvis aid that he renumbered pmg to defendant s house, and asked her £ed up he ° ffiCe 30(1 haTO her P a P«" ITiis concluded the plaintiffs case. Mr Hanlon, m opening the case for the defence, referred His Worship to section 6 of the Act or 1902, and pointed out that under it the Court had no jurisdiction to do more taan give judgment for the amount paid m excess. The section provided that where any amount was paid in excess to a pensioner it could be recovered by the registrar as a debt due to the Crown. It was admitted m this case that £32 had been paid in excess, and judgment might he given for that amount. It was clear that a magistrate sitting under the Magistrates’ Court Act could not inflict any penalty under section 47 of the Act of 1902. Here the position wfta that His Worship was ratting as a stipendiary magistrate Under tho Act of 1902k *ud he tad no jariadktion

to inflict a penalty. The next section said that, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Justice of the Peace Act, 1882, all proceedings under the principal Act should have been taken before a stipendiary magistrate alone, and the information must be laid within six months of the registrar finding out the facts on which he based his information. If, then, His Worship had jurisdiction in the Magistrate’s Court to inflict this penalty, there would be no need to put into section 7 the words' “ notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Justices of the Peace Act,” because under this Act two justices of the 1 peace could try the man. It was quite obvious that the section was divided up in such a way that in the first instance judgment could be given against the defendant for any amount of excess. Defendant admitted that she was liable, and practically consented to judgment for the amount of the excess. He contended, however, that after that proceedings would have to he, taken by the registrar under the Justices of the Peace Act, and such a coarse would not be justified in giving judgment for this penalty. The infliction of a penalty must be under the Justices of the Peace Act. 18S2, which gave special powers for that purpose. - His Worship: What you mean to say is that both criminal and civil cases cannot be mixed up in the same case? xor Hanlon: Yes. Counsel pointed oat, further, that if defendant did not pav the amount of a judgment for the refund of excess, a distress” warrant could be issued against her and the amount collected bv the bailiff, whereas a penalty could not he collected in this way. It would have to be levied by the police or made up for by hnpnsonmeut. There were two separate jurisdictions, and there were two separate ways of getting them. Mr Fraser said he admitted that the matter was a little confusing. Under section 47 of the Act of 1828 the sole penalty was imprisonment. Tire penalty under section 6 of 1892 was not the penalty under section 47; they were kept quite distinct. It was exactly the same as under the Customs Act-, where the penalty was double the duty, and was recoverable by action. In other words, there was no connection between sections 6 and 47 bevond the fact that a conviction under section’47 would nor be a bar to a penalty under section 6. His learned friend’s contention that thev should take judgment for the excess and then proceed criminally was, lie submitted, wrong. They could not do it. Thev could not frame an information under section 6. This was entirely a civil penalty. He suggested that this point be reserved, arid the case taken on its merits.

His Worship said that he did not think it was worth going into that point, as he was of opinion that the case on its merits was not sufficient- to justify him in convicting for fraud. From Mr Hilt’s evidence and from his own experience in the Pensions Court, it was dear to him that a mistaken dictiaction between “ property ” and “money” was common, and this fiad shown the necessity for the new forms. Neither Mr Carew nor Mr Hill conld be quite certain that these questions had been put to the defendant. The woman, he thought, should be given the benefit of the doubt. Judgment was then given for the £32 in excess, with costs (£2 12s). Mr Fraser then intimated that there was no good going on with the criminal cases, and withdrew them. Under this head the defendant was charged with, o n the 9th of May. 1899, obtaining a pension certificate for £lB by wilfully and falsely stating upon oath that she had no property whatever, whereas in truth she was then possessed of the sum of £174 13s 6d. She was further charged on two separate dates—namely, May 8, 1300, and May 7, 1901—with obtaining a larger pension than she wms entitled to, and also with, on May 15, 1902, obtaining a pennon certificate ’for £lB by wilfully and falsely stating that she had no property whatever, whereas in truth she was then possessed of the sum of £lll 4s 9d.