Cited by

See, e.g., id.; Hynes v. Whitehouse, 120 N.H. 417, 420 (1980); R.J.

The factual determination of authorization in the present case depends upon the credibility of witnesses and the weight given to their testimony, as well as the reasonable inferences drawn from all the evidence produced at trial, and we see no reason to hold otherwise than that the master’s findings are binding upon this court unless the record discloses insufficient evidence to support them.

It is not, by contrast, an accident or an act committed on the basis of a mistake of fact.

There are deficiencies presented by the record in this case; however, we will uphold a master’s findings if they can reasonably be made based upon all of the evidence.

Hynes v. Whitehouse, 120 N.H. 417, 421, 415 A.2d 876, 878 (1980); Town of Nottingham v. Lee Homes, Inc., 118 N.H. at 442, 388 A.2d at 942.

Upon our review of the record, we further hold that the trial court did not err as a matter of law and that there is sufficient evidence to support its findings.

5 times the value thereof; and shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.” In order to be liable for quintuple damages under RSA 539:1 (Supp. 1981), it must appear that the party’s trespass to timber was done knowingly and willfully, and not through accident or mistake.

Hynes v. Whitehouse, 120 N.H. 417, 421, 415 A.2d 876, 878 (1980); Merchants National Bank of Manchester v. Town of Exeter, 120 N.H. 157, 160, 412 A.2d 1016, 1017 (1980).

Although willfulness and knowledge are difficult to prove, reasonable inferences may be drawn from the evidence to support a finding of willfulness and knowledge.

Similarly in Hynes v. Whitehouse, 120 N.H. 417, 415 A.2d 876 (1980), we upheld an award of compensatory damages and noted several elements for which a plaintiff could receive compensatory damages.

We have stated that a master’s “findings and rulings will be upheld unless they are unsupported by the evidence or are erroneous as a matter of law.” Summit Electric, Inc. v. Pepin Bros. Constr., Inc., 121 N.H. 203, 206, 427 A.2d 505, 507 (1981); Hynes v. Whitehouse, 120 N.H. 417, 421, 415 A.2d 876, 878 (1980).

There is sufficient evidence in the record to support the master’s finding that the defendant participated in some aspects of the management of the Candlelite.

Merchants National Bank of Manchester v. Town of Exeter, 120 N.H. 157, 160, 412 A.2d 1016, 1017 (1980); Hynes v. Whitehouse, 120 N.H. 417, 420, 415 A.2d 876, 878 (1980).

“The standard of review in an appeal from a master’s recommendation is that the findings and rulings will be upheld unless they are unsupported by the evidence or are erroneous as a matter of law.” Summit Electric, Inc. v. Pepin Brothers Const., Inc., 121 N.H. 203, 206, 427 A.2d 505, 507 (1981) (citing Hynes v. Whitehouse, 120 N.H. 417, 421, 415 A.2d 876, 878 (1980) and Brown v. Mary Hitchcock Memorial Hosp., 117 N.H. 739, 742, 378 A.2d 1138, 1140 (1977)).

Summit Electric, Inc. v. Pepin Brothers Const., Inc., 121 N.H. 203, 206, 427 A.2d 505, 507 (1981); Hynes v. Whitehouse, 120 N.H. 417, 421, 415 A.2d 876, 878 (1980).

Accordingly, we agree with the court that there was insufficient evidence presented to the planning board for reasonable men to conclude *217 that the proposed subdivision would adversely harm the environment.

Hynes v. Whitehouse, 120 N.H. 417, 421, 415 A.2d 876, 878 (1980); Brown v. Mary Hitchcock Memorial Hosp., 117 N.H. 739, 742, 378 A.2d 1138, 1140 (1977).

We uphold the master’s findings because they are not erroneous as a matter of law.

Hynes v. Whitehouse, 120 N.H. 417, 415 A.2d 876 (1980); Ballou v. Ballou, 118 N.H. 463, 465-66, 387 A.2d 1169, 1170 (1978).

Hynes v. Whitehouse, 120 N.H. 417, 415 A.2d 876 (1980); Gulf Oil Corp. v. Rybicki supra.