PENSIONER CHARGED

Te Awamutu Courier, Volume 72, Issue 6239, 7 June 1946, Page 4

PENSIONER CHARGED

BREACH OF WAR PENSIONS ACT COMMENT BY MAGISTRATE A plea cf guilty and an election to be dealt with summarily was entered by C. W. Verner through his counsel, Mr B. Malone, when charged before Mr S. L. Paterson, S.M., in Te Awamutu on Wednesday, with making a false statement to mislead Gordon Alexander McGregor, Registrar of War Pensions at Hamilton, by falsely stating that the income of himself, wile and children, for the year ending 30th March, 1945, was nil, whereas, in fact, he was employed on wages at the Commercial Hotel, Te Awamutu, and had been so employed on wages since 18th November, 1944, the said facts first coming to the knowledge of the said officer by whom the proceedings were instituted, within 12 months of these proceedings, to wit, 11th March, 1946. Sergeant A. Bisset read a statement made by Verner to Detective Taylor, of Hamilton, in which it was stated that defendant was 63 years of age, married, with six children, and was employed in a Hotel at Te Awamutu. He was a war pensioner of 1914-18, being a main body man, and he had served throughout that w|ar. In 1941 he received a war veteran’s allowance of £7 10s a month and his wife received a similar amount. He found that insufficient to live on and in 1944 took light work in a hotel. Later the allowance was increased to £8 14s Id. He had not saved any money. To Mr Malone the Sergeant said that the defendant had not been before the Court before and he was not addicted to liquor. He was regarded as an excellent worker and the family was also very favourably known. Continuing, Sergeant Bisset said Verner was still working at the hotel earning £5 odd a week. He was getting on in years and was not in good health. Since he had worked at the hotel he had earned £377 17s Id, but the Registrar of Pensions assessed the wages at £248 Is Bd. He was prepared to pay back that amount in small sums monthly. Mr Malone said there was not very much to be said by way of excuse. After referring to defendant’s war services Mr Malone went on to say that the defendant had been discharged in June 1919. He was employed at Tokanui as an attendant for 20 years, when his health broke down. He then applied for a war pensions allowance, which in October was increased to £8 13s 4d a month, plus a similar amount for his wife. He first took the job in the hotel to relieve someone, but owing to war conditions he stayed on. He handed his money over his wife and it was not wasted in any way. Mr Malone said he recognised the seriousness of the case but he asked for consideration of his client because of his age, his war service and his poor state of health. It was with diffidened that he asked for the suppression of defendants name, not so much for his sake but for the sake of the family. Mr Malone said he hoped the Magistrate would see his way possible to give defendant a chance. The The Registrar was prepared to accept £2 a month in re-payment or in such sums as the Court directed. Mr Malone closed by making a strong plea for leniency. The Magistrate said the defendant could consider himself fortunate in that the authorities had only charged him with one offence, whereas they could have made twelve charges. Such offences were serious because they struck at the whole pensions i system, and. if pensioners, were allowed to do as defendant had done it would cast an intolerable burden on the community. It would mean that the authorities would be more reluctant to grant pensions than they were at present, and they would insist on a means test as well as a more strict report by the police. There was very little excuse for defendant. He and his wife were drawing? a pension of £l6 a month, while he drew £22 a month in wages, or £9 10s a week between them. The three children who were earning, could and should contribute more to the home. Had defendant been a younger man he would have been sent to prison, but because of his age and ill-health, he would be placed on probation. The Magistrate would not fix the amount in which the money would have to be refunded, leaving that to the discretion of the probation officer. Members of the family who had received some benefit by defendant’s action would have to dip their hands into their pockets and help repay the money. There would be no order for the suppression of the name as that was part of the punishment. The Magistrate placed defendant on probation for three years on the statutory conditions and on the special condition that the sum. of £248 Is 8d be repaid in such sums as the probation officer decided.