Sarah
Hawkins Genealogy Site
Newspaper
Articles
The
Shepton Mallet Journal Friday 17 Jun 1910
Page 2 Column 2
OLD-AGE PENSION PROSECUTION.
Henry OATEN, of Pitminster, was charged at Taunton County Petty Session, on Saturday, with having knowingly made a false representation for the purpose of securing the continuance of an old-age pension, granted to his wife, Mary Ann OATEN, on the 25th January last, at Pitminster. The defendant, who was represented by Mr. C. P. CLARKE, of Taunton, pleaded not guilty. Mr. C. E. FITZ ROY, of the Solicitors' Department, Customs and Excise, who prosecuted, said that towards the end of 1908 Mrs. OATEN, wife of defendant, who lived at Poundisford, Pitminster, sent in a claim for an old-age pension. She had no means, but her husband disclosed that he had £200 in the bank and five cottages, two of these being under one roof. The total annual income was £46/4/-, and this being halved between husband and wife, Mrs. OATEN was entitled to a pension of 3/- a week, which was granted. In May and November the pension officer called and delivered fresh forms of claim, and on each occasion Mrs. OATEN signed the form, declaring that she was duly entitled to the pension, in the presence of her husband. On the 25th of January last the officer again called, and both Mr. and Mrs. OATEN were present in their cottage. The officer first of all warned both of them in the terms of Section 9 of the Old-age Pension Act about making a false statement. He asked Mr. OATEN if there were any change in his circumstances since he saw him last, and he replied “No, and I think I am entitled to an old-age pension, and my wife to more than 3/- a week.” He further said he owned the same number of cottages as before – two in The Hollow and two in Amberd Lane. The pension officer then, making quite a chance shot, asked “What about the one which stands by itself?” Defendant said “Which do you mean?” and the officer answered, “You know the one I mean.” Defendant then admitted that he had a cottage let to an old woman at 1/6 a week. He also said he had no other means of income. The officer asked for defendant's bank book, and from this he found that last year about £110 was deposited and £87/13/- withdrawn, while on January 3rd, 1910, £50 was paid in. The officer asked defendant where he got the £50, and defendant replied, “From the sale of stock.” He then admitted that he rented ten acres of land, but asserted that he made no profit out of it, and that that was the reason he did not include it in the return. The officer said the book showed that he made about £20 profit last year. The officer added that he would have to report the matter, and defendant said, “Will there be any trouble about it?” and the officer answered, “Well, I don't think Mrs. OATEN has ever been entitled to the pension, and when it is reported to the committee you will probably have to refund the money.” The claim was disallowed, and no appeal had been lodged. Mrs. OATEN had drawn 57 weeks, pension at 3/- a week, making a total sum of £8/14/-.
Other evidence having been taken, Mr. CLARKE submitted that he had no case to answer, contending that the prosecution had not proved the defendant's income.
The bench decided that the case must proceed.
Mr. CLARKE then argued that the charge had not been proved, and that defendant had given every possible information.
Defendant, himself, who said he was 70 years old, while his wife was 75, gave evidence on his own behalf, and denied that he had concealed anything.
The magistrates found defendant guilty, and fined him £5 and costs, or, in default, one month's imprisonment.