Allen v Roughley [1955] HCA 62

94 C.L.R.] OF AUSTRALIA. 97

impediment. But there is no reason to suppose, upon the evidence, H. ©. oF A. that, although the appellant is no longer able, satisfactorily, to spite perform the duties of an engineer, there are not open to him, not- ganar y withstanding his disability, avenues of employment which are just v.

as wide and just as remunerative as those to which his engineering ge ptt training would have led him. Indeed consideration of the evidence Retirement leads me to think that this is so and in the circumstances I am sees satisfied that the percentage of the appellant's incapacity for civil [No. 2). employment is less than thirty per cent. Accordingly the appeal ~~~

should be dismissed.

Order that the appeal be dismissed. Further order that the appellant pay to the respondent its costs of the proceedings but not including the costs of and incidental to the case stated for the opinion of the Full Court.

Solicitors for the appellant, Selwyn Gerity & Robinson. Solicitor for the respondents, H. EL. Renfree, Crown Solicitor for the Commonwealth of Australia.

RDB.

VOL. xcIv.—7

H. C. oF A.

1955. WwW

SypNey, Mar. 31, April 1; Nov. 28.

Dixon C.J., Witenes, agar, Kitto and

Taylor JJ. -

HIGH COURT [1955.

(HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.]

ALLEN AND ANOTHER 5 Z ; . APPELLANTS ; DEFENDANTS, AND ROUGHLEY AND OTHERS . ; ; . RESPONDENTS. PLAINTIFFS,

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES.

Ejectment—Proof of title—Claimant with incomplete documentary title—Possession

for less than twenty years—Presumptions arising from possession—Discon - tinuance in possession— Whether necessary to prove possession for at least twenty years against subsequent possessor—Rights arising from possession—Devisable— Real Property Limitation Act 1833 (Imp.), s. 34.

Trusts and Trustees—Trust property—Acceptance of trust—Vesting of trust property