WAR PENSIONS

New Zealand Times, Volume XLVII, Issue 10957, 20 July 1921, Page 3

WAR PENSIONS

THE WIFE’S POSITION IS SHEi ENTITLED TO A SEPARATE ALLOWANCE £ CASE BEFORE FULL COURT. Yesterday the Full Court, consisting of Mr Justice Sim, Mr Justice Hosking, Mr Justice Stringer, Mr Justice Reed, and Mr Justice Adams, was engaged in hearing a case under the War Pensions Act. Application was made by Dorothy Wheeler, wife of Charles Bertie t aughan Wheeler, shipping.clerk. Auckland, for an order of mandamus requiring the War Pensions Board to reconsider his application for a pension in respect of her husband’s war disablement. It was stated that the case ' was brought at the instigation of the Returned Soldiers’ Association to clear away the ambiguity of the War Pensions Act. At the hearing Messrs P. Leri ana W. Perry represented the appellant, and the Solicitor-General (Mr W. C. MacGregor) appeared for the respondent, the board. The statement of claim set out. that Chairles Wheeler, lately a member of the New Zealand Expeditionary Force, is in receipt •of a pen sum in respect of partial disablement, and when his wife lodged a cloirri. with the hoard for a separate pension the board replied that it did not consider that she was entitled to such a pension, as her hus-. band was well able to support her. Counsel for the contended that the board had acted on a wrong principle in deciding that the wife was not entitled to receiyg a., separate pension. ,

THE QUESTION TO BE DETERMINED.

Addressing tile court, Mr Levi said the question to be determined wae, to put it shortly : Where a disabled soldier has been granted a pension, is his wife also entitled to receive a pension—a separate pension ? It appeared,' from the policy respecting total disablement, I that there was, to be separate provision for the soldier, his wife, and each dependent. The matrimonial circumstances of the soldier were not to be considered alone in. the matter of his pension rights. His family was to be individually provided for, up to a certain amount. First of all, as to the pension to be given to the husband, that should be governed by the natural, probable duration of the disability. He agreed that if a meifiber of the family died the portion of the aggregate pension allotted to that member would tepse. ' ’ Mr Justice Reed remarked, the point that the effect of Mr Levi’s interpretation' of the Act might be a pension in excess of what the man could earn when not disabled. To, this Mr Levi replied’ that that objection was covered by the discretionary powers given the Pensions Board. He added that there was provision for the increase of a. pension in the case of increased disability.

Mr Justice Hosking said the idea seemed to be that an amount should be divided among the family on the basis of what the man should get to provide for his dependents. If the wife died she no longer had to be maintained, so that portion of the aggregate sum could he' deleted from the pension. In cases of desertion or death the wife might, .get nothing unless separate pensions were recognised. NOT THE PROPER COURSE? In the course of his argument, Mr MacGregor said the soldier in the case under consideration was better off than ever he had been before the war, and moreover, he had not suffered, any incapacity »in wage-earning. He argued that the proper remedy for a wrong decision, if it was a wrong decision, was not mandamus. No doubt the board was anxious to know the true position, . but there weak questions that the present case would not clear up. A course more satisfactory than that adopted would have been to -issue an originating summons.

Mr Leviysaid property could - not be considered’ when pensions were being computed. Even a millionaire would be entitled to his pension. Mr Justice Hosking: Yes, he might be a bankrupt to-morrow. Mr .MacGregor asserted that in the case in question no loss whatever was suffered bv the wife. The man had a leg wound, and the injured limb was now shorter than other, but, whereas he was earning £IBO before the war, he was now earning nearly double that sum. For a while he got a temporary pension, but now had a permanent pension of 25s £ week. If the board granted pensions t.o wives (half rates, as suggested) in such cases as the present, the cost might run into three-quarters of a million pounds. Mr Justice Hosking:' But you must remember that the pension to the eoldier might be reduced. Mr MacGregor contended that the determination of the board was final, and not a matter for the consideration of the court. Decision was reserved.