LEASE OR BONUS.

Auckland Star, Volume L, Issue 265, 7 November 1919, Page 6

LEASE OR BONUS.

— i A DISPUTED JOINT. A ease at the Magistrate's Court, before Mr. E. C. Cutten, S.M., gives further illustration of the scarcity of houses in Auckland. The plaintiff, Dr. A. P Coker (Mr. Mackesy), sued A. P Wickens (Mr. J. J. Sullivan) to recover the sum of £75. The claim was in respect to a house in Dominion Road rented by defendant from W. R. Lawry of Helensville. Plaintiff alleged he paid defendant £75 for the transfer of the lease of this property. It was further alleged that defendant had not a lease of the premises, and therefore plaintiff sought for the return of the £75 he had paid.

Alfred Philip Coker, medical practitioner, stated that he came to Auckland last February from Gisborne. An sent him to Mr. Wickens about °the house. Defendant told him he had a lease, which he offered to transfer for £75. Wickens told him the lease was being drawn up. Later he said the lease had not been completed in his name, and suggested that plaintiff had better have it made direct to himself. Defendant then took witness to Mr. Bryden, agent for the landlord, who communicated with Mr. Lawry, and finally witness was told he could have the lease. He paid f25 deposit in Mr. Bryden's office. Witness understood that he was getting the lease of a property which had been promised to Mr. Wickens. Witness took possession of the house about the end of May after paying the other £50 to defendant. Witness wanted the house fixed up, and wrote to the landlord, Mr. Lawry, who came down, and witness then found there had never been a promise of a lease from the owner to Mr. Wickenf.

In cross-examination Dr. Coker stated he first saw Mr. Reed, land agent, who told Mm about Mr. Wickens' -place. Witness could not recall that the nature of the tenancy was mentioned at that time Mr. Sullivan, in opening for the defence, contended that all the documentary evidence indicated that the £75 was really paid as a bonus for vacating the premises, and not for transfer of a lease.

Evidence was given by defendant supporting hia counsel's contention that the £75 was a bonus. Defendant produced the receipt for the £25 paid. This stated it was a deposit on the grant of a lease from Mr. Lawry to Dr. Coker, in terms of agreement, the other £50 to be paid when the lease waa signed. An addition to the receipt read as follows: "If the house is hot vacated on or before April 15 the deposit to be returned to Dr. Coker. with the balance of any other money paid previously to that date." Further hearing was adjourned until next Tuesday.