Ridgway v Lockwood [1938] HCA 52

732 HIGH COURT

[HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.

RIDGWAY oie ie snes, Se Derrenpant (JupGMENT Deptor),

AND

LOGE WOOD' 2") © PLarntirF (JUDGMENT CREDITOR), 5

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA.

H.C. or A. High Court—Appeal—Supreme Court of State—Judgment in action for more th

1938. £300—Subsequent order against defendant as fraudulent debtor for 5 Ww of judgment debt by instalments—Appeat from order—Judiciary Act 1903-1937 MELBOURNE. d

e, (No. 6 of 1903—No. 6 of 1937), sec. 35 (1) (a) (1)—Imprisonment of Oct. 17. Debtors Act 1928 (Viet.) (No. 3700), secs. 4, 5, 11,

Eee cs. An order made by a judge of the Supreme Court under the 11 and MeRiernin of Fraudulent Debtors Act 1928 (Vict.) that a judgment debtor pay a ju

of payment of any one instalment the whole to become due, and in the ative ordering imprisonment is not a judgment of the Supreme Court of aS which "is given or pronounced for or in respect of any sum or matter at amounting to or of the value of three hundred pounds" within the of sec. 35 (1) (a) (1) of the Judiciary Act 1903-1937 so as to give an app of right to the High Court. 7

Observations on the effect of sees. 4, 5 and 11 of the Imprisonment of lent Debtors Act 1928 (Vict.).

Appeal from the decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria (Full Lockwood v. Ridgway, (1938) V.L.R. 122, dismissed for want of prose

Morton.

Raymond Lockwood brought an action in the Supreme Court Victoria against Samuel James Leopold Ridgway for the recc of money lent by the plaintiff to the defendant. The action \

60 C.L.R.] OF AUSTRALIA.

tried before Martin J., who entered judgment for the plaintiff for H. ©. or A.

£1,102 17s. 6d. with costs. The judgment being wholly unsatisfied, the plaintiff proceeded against the defendant under the Imprison- ment of Fraudulent Debtors Act 1928 (Vict.). Martin J. found (in the terms of sec. 5 (3) (b) of the Act) that the defendant had " wil- fully contracted the liability which was the subject of the judgment without having at the same time a reasonable expectation of being able to discharge the same" and ordered that unless the defendant paid the amount of the judgment by instalments of £25 a month (in default of payment of any one instalment the whole of the balance to become due and payable) he should be committed to prison for a term of six months or until he had satisfied the judgment or should be otherwise discharged by due course of law. The Full Court of the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal by the defendant from that order: Lockwood v. Ridgway (1).