Sarah
Hawkins Genealogy Site
Newspaper
Articles
Taunton Courier. Bristol and Exeter Journal, and Western Advertiser Wednesday 15 Jun 1910
Page 2 Column 5
OLD AGE PENSIONS.
CHARGE OF MISREPRESENTATION.
PITMINSTER MAN HEAVILY FINED.
At Taunton County Petty Sessions on Saturday, the Magistrates, Colonel Chisholm BATTEN (in the chair), Major W. ELTON, Mr. J. WHITE, and Mr. R. BRUFORD, were engaged for several hours hearing a case under the Old Age Pensions Act, in which an elderly man named Henry OATEN, of Poundisford, Pitminster, was charged with having on the 25th January last made a false declaration for the purpose of continuing an old age pension received by his wife, Mary Ann OATEN.
Mr. C. FITZROY, from the Custom House, London prosecuted on behalf of the Treasury, and Mr. C. P. CLARKE appeared for the defendant, who pleaded not guilty.
In his opening statement Mr. FITZROY said the proceedings were taken under Section 9 of the Old Age Pension Act, and the full penalty for making a false representation was six months' imprisonment or a fine of £25. Towards the end of 1908 Mrs. OATEN sent in a claim for a pension, stating that she had no means, but the husband disclosed at the time that he had £200 in the bank and owned five cottages, including two under one roof. His property and money gave him a total income of £46 4s, and half of that being his wife's means she was allowed a pension of 3s a week. Proceeding, Mr. FITZROY detailed the conversations that had taken place between the pension officer and the defendant on the occasions of his visits. The pension officer discovered that defendant rented ten acres of land, and when questioned as to why he had not stated that fact he replied that he made no profit on the land. The facts were duly reported to the Pensions Committee. Mrs. OATEN had drawn 57 weeks' pension at 3s, and was therefore indebted to the Crown to the extent of £8 11s.
Harold Alfred PICKSON, pension officer, stationed at Taunton, stated that on the 26th October, 1908, he called to see Mr. and Mrs. OATEN, taking the latter's claim with him. He handed them a list of questions, which was usual in such cases, and as Mrs. OATEN had no means he proceeded to interrogate the defendant.
Mr. CLARKE (interrupting): The charge in this case is for an offence alleged to have been committed on the 25th January. What might have been said in 1908 cannot be any evidence. My friend knows perfectly well his difficulty. He knows he cannot proceed in this matter unless the charge is taken out within six months.
Mr. FITZROY: There are four leading cases in which it says that preceding transactions are permissible.
Witness, continuing, stated that defendant said he had £200 in the bank, while rents from cottages amounted to £41 per year. Defendant said he had no land or other property. A pension was therefore granted his wife, which she received from January, 1909. On the 25th January, 1910, witness called to see defendant and his wife, when he drew their attention to the responsibility they were incurring by continuing a pension which they were not entitled to. He asked defendant if there was any change in his income since he had seen him last, and he replied in the negative. Witness, however, ultimately elicited the information that he was deriving 1s 6d per week from a cottage he had not mentioned before. His only excuse was that the house was empty then. Witness said: “Will you let me see your bank book?” and he produced it. An additional entry of £50 was made on the 1st January, and witness asked him where he obtained the money. Defendant replied that he rented 10 acres of land, and he had obtained the money from the sale of some stock. Witness found that he had made a profit of £20 on the land, and defendant replied that he did not know anything about it. There was a credit balance on the bank book of £227 12s. Defendant asked whether there would be any trouble about it, and witness said “In my opinion your wife is not entitled to a pension.” The matter was brought before the local Committee, who disallowed the pension.
Cross-examined by Mr. CLARKE: If the husband and wife had an income of £63 per year it would disqualify them. Defendant should have told him in October, 1908 that he rented land and had a sixth cottage. The man had not given every information in his power.
Thomas BRIGHT, assistant-overseer, of Pitminster, produced the rate books for the parish, but
Mr. C. P. CLARKE objected, submitting that a rate book was no evidence of ownership of property. It was only evidence if the overseers wanted to recover a rate. He was obliged to make all these objections because that was a Crown prosecution, and he was defending a poor man.
Mr. E. T. ALMS (magistrates' clerk): I will take a note of it.
Mr. CLARKE: I ask for a ruling on this point as to whether it is permissible. I am entitled to a ruling now.
In answer to Mr. ALMS, the witness BRIGHT said he did not know that defendant was the actual owner of the property, but he was stated to be in the rate-book.
Mr. FITZROY (to witness): Is he given as the owner of any land?
Witness: Yes, of an orchard of one acre 22p., including the gardens of the cottages.
Mr. FITZROY: Is he given as the occupier of any land?
Witness: Yes, of eleven acres 10p
By Mr. CLARKE: He had known Mr. OATEN for 35 years and had always found him honourable in his dealings.
Francis Charles BOSTOCK, manager of the Taunton branch of Messrs. FOX, FOWLER, & Co.'s Bank, produced a copy of the amounts standing to the credit of the defendant from January 1st, 1908, to January 1st, 1910. The sum to his credit on the latter date was £237 12s, whilst £50 was paid in on that day.
By Mr. CLARKE: The amount standing on deposit varied from time to time. Defendant was receiving about £6 a year interest.
Mr. CLARKE submitted that he had no case to answer. The charge against defendant was that he knowingly made a false statement as to his income. There was no evidence before the Bench as to what his income was, and it was the duty of the prosecution to prove it. It was stated that he was the owner of six cottages, but again there was no evidence to prove it. The question was not as to whether a man with £200 was entitled to a pension or not. He (Mr. CLARKE) was there to answer a crime, an attempt to defraud the Government. That was not a civil court, and he contended that it was for the prosecution to prove their case.
Mr. FITZROY: The man has admitted it.
Mr. CLARKE: If you were suing for the recovery of the money it would be a different matter, but this is not a civil case.
The magistrates retired for consultation, and on their return Col. Chisholm BATTEN said they were of opinion that there was a case to answer.
Mr. CLARKE, addressing the Bench, said that no application had been made by the defendant since the first application, and to his mind the prosecution by an authority like the Crown ought never to have been undertaken, because the man had given every possible information. It was a prosecution for which there was no foundation, and there were hundreds of prosecutions which might have been undertaken with justice, but as long as the statute provided that there should be a limit to the income a prosecution of that sort ought not to have been undertaken as the man had been perfectly honest from beginning to end.
Defendant stated on oath that he was 70 years of age, and had lived in Pitminster all his life. The gross income from the cottages was £46 a year. He had answered every question asked by the Pension Officer, and had concealed nothing.
Mr. FITZROY: Do you consider your wife is entitled to an old age pension?
Defendant: Yes; she is 75 years of age, and would not have been allowed one if not entitled.
Mr. FITZROY: If that's your opinion, why did she not appeal to the Local Government Board?
Defendant: You cannot expect a poor man to appeal to the Local Government Board.
In reply to further questions defendant said he had five cottages and not six. It was true that in 1909, he had £200 10s 1d in the bank, but he was not aware the sum amounted to £237 in 1910. He admitted he did not mention the 10 acres, but he took the income into account at the time.
Mr. FITZROY: You said, in writing, to the Pension Officer, “My odd earnings would not total during the year more than £13 10s, including firing.”
Witness, after some hesitation, acknowledge that he had written to that effect. He sold some cottages recently for £70C, but the money had been used to pay off a mortgage. He had not lent any money to his son, who was a builder.
By Mr. CLARKE: He had not the slightest intention of acting in a dishonest manner, and had given the Pension Officer all the information he required.
Mr. FITZROY: Why did you not mention the 10 acres of land then? A claimant's husband like this is bound to disclose all his means, so that the Pensions Committee can judge whether his wife is entitled to a pension or not.
Mr. CLARKE: It is not a case of a man applying for a pension. The suggestion is that he has fraudulently made a statement with a view of obtaining a pension for his wife. I say he has fulfilled all the obligations.
The Bench retired, and on returning the Chairman said they found defendant guilty of false representation and he would have to pay £5 and costs, or in default one month's imprisonment.