CITY POLICE COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19623, 29 October 1925, Page 15

CITY POLICE COURT.

Wednesday, October 28. (Before Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M.) MAINTENANCE. William B. Johnston was charged with arrears of maintenance to the extent of £4O 10a.— Defendant said he was a labourer, working at. Balclutha, earning 13s Per day. He said he would endeavour to pay, but at present could make no offer. Proceedings were adjourned , till December 2, a condition being that £8 be paid before October 31, and regular payments kept up thereAlbert Haslam Armstrong, for whom Mr C. J. L. White appeared, was charged with disobedience of a maintenance order, the arrears totalling £65 103. Mr White said that defendant had been sent out to New Zealand by the British Medical Board, from which’ body he was receiving a pension for disabilities received during active service. He had come out with the full consent of his wife. —In his evidence Armstrong said he had made every endeavour to make up the arrears, but .after serving a sentence of three months in the Dunedin Gaol he found on his return home that his clothes had been mislaid and removed. He had therefore been compelled to buy a new outfit. He eaid also that he had had to leave his previous boardinghouse on account of an increase in the terms. Ho was now receiving £4 per week, out of which sum h© paid 32s 6d weekly for nis board. - “The cause of all your trouble is your own carelessness in allowing arrears to accumulate,” eaid his Worship in adjourning the case till December 2, after he had received a promise from defendant to pay 50s mamtenancc and 10s per week off arrears. The adjournment was granted to give defendant an opportunity to prove his honesty of purpose. An application for remission of arrears was refused. UNEMPLOYMENT AT HOME. TO THE EDITOR. Sib —Wtli reference to a paragraph in your 'issue of October 23, evidently taken from a Wanganui paper, the statement of a Wanganui business man that farmers cannot get labour in Great Britain is untrue. Threefourths of the unemployed at Home are factory hands, miners, dock workers, who receive the dole. The larm hands are not included in the unemployment insurance benefit. I had experience in finding work two years ago. and it is not by any means an easy task scouring the countryside in search of it. In towns and cities, the men cannot get the dole if they have been offered work and refused it. The system is to be deplored, but what would our business friend in Wanganui do were ho in Mr Baldwin’s place at Downing street? It is easy to criticise. Heavy taxation prevents some from employing more labour or increasing their business. —I am, etc,, Old Countryman. Glenora, October 24. KAWARAU SCHEME. TO THE EDITOR. Sxe, —I have been much interested in the different reports that have lately appeared in connection with the Kawarau scheme. Now that the dam is to be completed by Christmas, it would be nice to know what has become of all the pessimists. Where are the people who said that no dam could be constructed to hold Lake Wakatipu back? It is significant to notice also that those who said the river could not be mined on account of the silt are also silent, now that the dam is almost completed.—l am, etc.. Advance Kawarau. SOLDIERS’ WAR DISABILITY. TO THE EDITOR. Sib, —Thanks are duo to Mr Laing for, his letter, whch very clearly states the manner in which an ex-soldier may register his claim for a pension. Ho says that: “If the War Pensions Board decides that the evidence does not warrant the assumption that his trouble is attributable to war service, the ex-soldier can lodge an appeal to the War Pensions Appeal Board,” ana, further on, “that the Appellant, before this board is given every opportunity to prove his claim.” From this I gather that the soldier has the opportunity to prove his case before the War Pensions Appeal Board if the War Pensions Board considers he has not proved it in his original claim. • , The extract from tho Hon. Downio Stewart’s address, which I quoted in my first letter was: “A soldier’s disability shall be deemed to bo due to war service unless the contrary is proved.” In one case the onus is on the soldier to prove his case; in tho other I presume the department is to prove the soldier’s disability is not duo to war service—two totally different procedures. I would like to know which is right? I wonder why Mr Stewart is silent regarding my first letter —I am, etc.. Interested. flf our correspondent were to communicate with Mr Downie Stewart, doubtless a reply would bo received to the communication, It is not customary for Ministers of tho Crown to reply to correspondence in th© press.—Ed. O. D.T.]