text:
IATA : CT
ICAO : CAT
Call Sign : Mandarin
Facts about Civil Air Transport
CIVIL AIR TRANSPORT CAT CIA BAGGAGE STICKER S VIETNAMPlease waitImage not available * Zoom * Enlarge
separate operation from Civil Air Transport and the follow-on Air America.) By 1950, following the defeat of Chiang's forces and their retreat to Taiwan, the airline faced financial difficulties.
Civil Air Transport (CAT) (民航空運公司) was a Chinese airline, later owned by the CIA, that supported United States covert operation throughout East and Southeast Asia.
* Civil Air Transport/Air America Collection * A Brief History of Civil Air Transport/Air America Login A Brief History of
Civil Air Transport's (CAT) C-46s and C-54 on the ramp at Songshan Airport, Taipei = Repository - *
Declassified: Civil Air Transport B-908 Crash Investigation Report - Posted on March 30th, 2010 Administrator No comments
of the board of the Civil Air Transport (CAT) company in China, co-founded with Chennault.111ocn070147475sw070147475:lccn-n83-53032Falsebook19830.67British Aerospace (Firm)111ocn066465209sw066465209:lccn-n83-53032Falsebook19721.00Leary, William M111ocn049954462sw049954462:lccn-n83-53032Falseseri0.
Civil Air Transport wood display model plane has a dimension of 18" span; 12" length; perfect for your collection.
The Civil Air Transport Board was formed in 2005 to address the major concerns of member companies operating in civil air transport market leads for the society in these areas
The civil air transport industry is a technology- and capital-intensive industry providing services crucial to the conduct of international trade.
CIVIL AIR TRANSPORT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLES'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA AND THE GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL The Government of the People's Republic of China, and the
to the legendary Air America, Civil Air Transport has a rich and fascinating history.
Civil Air Transport (CAT) was a CIA-owned airline that supported United States covert operations throughout East Asia|East and Southeast Asia.
progress made civil air transport a crucial part of the transport mix. It was a constant challenge for the workers who had more to do as passenger numbers increased.
visit the Civil Air Transport page of Perry Sloan's "AirTimes" site. You may use our images (marked BL or DZ) on another website.
formed Civil Air Transport (CAT) in 1947. CAT operated a fleet of aircraft in support of the Chinese Nationalists.
Civil Air Transport (CAT) (??????) was a Chinese airline, later owned by the CIA, that supported United States covert operation throughout East and Southeast Asia.


text:
Tiny, energy efficient MCU+DSP based on fifth generation ZSP architecture for IoT, Connectivity, Voice, Speech recognition, Sensor control, Audio or any control/dsp applications.
OTP IP
USB 3.1 SuperSpeed+ (Gen2) Dual-Role Device Controller (USB-IF Certified)
APB4 Multiplexer
Abraham Sofaer Joins Rambus Board of Directors
George P. Shultz Distinguished Scholar and Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution brings knowledge and experience to the Rambus Board
Los Altos, CA - May 03, 2005 – Rambus Inc. (Nasdaq:RMBS), one of the world's premier technology licensing companies specializing in high-speed chip interfaces, today announced that former U.S. District Judge Abraham Sofaer has joined its board of directors, effective May 4, 2005. Mr. Sofaer has been the George P. Shultz Distinguished Scholar and Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University since 1994 and is also a professor of law, by courtesy, at Stanford University Law School.
Mr. Sofaer has a long and distinguished career in the legal profession and international law. Prior to assuming his current roles, he served in private practice as a partner at Hughes, Hubbard & Reed in Washington, DC and as the chief legal adviser to the U.S. Department of State. From 1979 to 1985, Mr. Sofaer served as a U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of New York. Prior to that, Mr. Sofaer was a professor at the Columbia University School of Law, and from 1967 to 1969 was an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York.
"Abe brings an extremely impressive background and a wealth of knowledge to our board," said Geoff Tate, chairman of the Rambus board of directors. "His multiple past roles in the U.S. legal system and government and his current role on the boards of two companies with strong IP positions provide us highly useful perspectives and a wealth of experience. We very much look forward to working with Abe as we move forward with our strategic business objectives."
Mr. Sofaer graduated magna cum laude with a B.A. in history from Yeshiva College and received his law degree from the New York University School of Law, where he was editor-in-chief of the NYU Law Review before beginning clerkships with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and with Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. in the U.S. Supreme Court. Mr. Sofaer currently serves on two other public boards and is on the international advisory committee for Chugai Pharmaceuticals, a large Japanese pharmaceutical company that is a subsidiary of Roche
About Rambus Inc.
Rambus is one of the world's premier technology licensing companies specializing in the invention and design of high-speed chip interfaces. Since its founding in 1990, the company's innovations, breakthrough technologies and integration expertise have helped industry-leading chip and system companies solve their most challenging and complex I/O problems and bring their products to market. Rambus's interface solutions can be found in numerous computing, consumer, and communications products and applications. Rambus is headquartered in Los Altos, California, with regional offices in Chapel Hill, North Carolina; Bangalore, India; Taipei, Taiwan; and Tokyo, Japan. Additional information is available at www.rambus.com.
Contact Rambus Inc.
Fill out this form for contacting a Rambus Inc. representative.
Rambus Inc. Hot IP
16G Multi-protocol SerDes PHY
PCIe 4.0 SerDes PHY
HBM Gen2 PHY
DPA Resistant Software Library
GDDR6 PHY
See Rambus Inc. IP >>
Dr. Necip Sayiner Joins Rambus Board of Directors
Meera Rao Joins Rambus Board of Directors
Erwan Menard, Director of Infrastructure and Applications Modernization Solutions at Google Cloud, Joins Kalray Board of Directors
Rambus Appoints Sanjay Saraf to Board of Directors
ARM CEO Simon Segars Joins SoftBank Group Board of Directors
See Rambus Inc. Latest News >>

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Discover more about SPF (SenderPolicy Framework) - how you can enable it and how it could help you to protect your mailboxes.
Sender Policy Framework, or SPF, is a verification system, that is employed to stop the so-called e-mail spoofing where an e-mail message is sent from one e-mail address, but to seem as being sent from a different one, usually with the idea to fraud the recipient in some way. If SPF protection is activated for a domain, a special record is generated for it in the Domain Name System and all DNS servers around the world get it. The record features all of the email servers that are permitted to send valid messages from an email address within the domain. When a message is sent, the first DNS server it encounters verifies the SPF record and in case the sending server is authorized, the message is sent to the targeted destination. In case, however, the sending server doesn't exist in the SPF record for the specified domain, the email message will not be sent and it will be discarded. If you employ this solution, it'll prevent third parties from sending spam emails that appear to have been sent by you.
SPF protection can be enabled for any domain name hosted in a shared web hosting account on our cloud hosting platform with just a few mouse-clicks. The feature is available in the Emails section of our hi-tech Hepsia Control Panel and what is needed to enable it is to select one of your domains from the drop-down list and then type in the hostnames and the IPv4 or IPv6 addresses of the mail servers which will be authorized to send email messages from your email addresses. As an added option you can also restrict the messages to be sent from your domain name only if it includes our MX records, i.e. if our servers handle the email addresses for it, not some third-party provider. This feature gives you the highest standard of safety, but it is not applicable when only your website is on our servers while your email addresses for the domain name are handled in another place. In either case, the SPF protection service will keep your email addresses protected from being used for spam and/or scam purposes.
When you have a semi-dedicated server account from us, you are able to secure your email addresses by enabling the SPF protection service for any domain name hosted in the account with only a few clicks. This can be done from the Emails section of our Hepsia Control Panel that is provided with the semi-dedicated accounts and even when you have no previous practical experience with such things, you won't have any kind of problems to enable the security. The only things that you'll need to do will be to choose a domain name from a drop-down menu and then type in the mail server hostname and IPv4 or IPv6 address. Once the updated record propagates, messages from your email addresses will be mailed globally only if they're sent from that particular server. If your emails are handled by us and not by some third-party supplier, you will also be able to activate an option for email messages to be sent only if the domain name features our MX records and the latter would be the safest option. When you have any questions regarding thisfunction, you can get in touch with our tech support team 24/7.


text:
Once Upon a Time's Colin O'Donoghue Joins Nat Geo's Right Stuff in Recast
TVLine — Rebecca Iannucci
After spending several years as a captain, Colin O'Donoghue is becoming a lieutenant.
The Once Upon a Time veteran will co-star in The Right Stuff, National Geographic's upcoming NASA drama, our sister site Deadline reports.
The series, adapted from Tom Wolfe's 1979 book, tells the story of NASA's Project Mercury, which ignited a space race with the Soviets and made instant celebrities of the Mercury Seven, a group of the military's test pilots.
O'Donoghue will play Lt. Gordon Cooper, the youngest of the Mercury Seven, who was recruited to everyone's surprise. He takes over the role from Game of Thrones alum Joe Dempsie, who, per Deadline, had to depart the project due to issues with his visa.
The Right Stuff also stars Suits' Patrick J. Adams and Murphy Brown's Jake McDorman, who will respectively play Maj. John Glenn and Alan Shepard, two archrivals jockeying to be the first man in space. Aaron Staton (Mad Men), James Lafferty (One Tree Hill), Micah Stock (Bonding) and Michael Trotter (Underground) round out the main cast.
The drama will mark O'Donoghue's first major TV role since wrapping Once Upon a Time, where he played Hook for six seasons. Since the show ended in 2018, he has lent his voice to Netflix's Trollhunters: Tales of Arcadia, and he'll appear in an episode of the streamer's anthology Dolly Parton's Heartstrings later this year.
The Right Stuff will debut on Nat Geo in 2020. Your thoughts on O'Donoghue's casting? Drop 'em in a comment below.


PLASTIC HANGER CODE KNR40 TARIFF CODE 3926909.
US Port Examiner is the free source of US Custom details provider. Visitor can get full access of US Importers ARCADIA GROUP and full product description of shipping product details as mentioned here PLASTIC HANGER CODE KNR40 TARIFF CODE 3926909., Mainly Exporter of US Import is MAINETTI HK LIMITED and Notify to DAMCO CUSTOMS SERVICES INC for all custom shipping.


MT. PLEASANT � A unique music event will be held at Mt. Pleasant First Free Will Baptist Church at 6:30 p.m. Sunday featuring internationally acclaimed Nashville singers/songwriters Lewis & Lewis.
Their songs have been recorded by a diverse list of both gospel and secular artists including the Happy Goodman Family, Grand Ole Opry star Connie Smith and Acadamy Award nominee, actress Bette Midler.
Their music-video �Down to the farm� continues to be the most watched religious video on YouTube with more than three million viewers. Two of their compositions �I�m a Winner Either Way� and �Walking back Down,� are nearing classic status.
They were the first to record �God Walks the Dark Hills,� which for more than a generation has been one of the most loved songs in gospel music.
The duo has been called everything from �a breath of fresh air� to �an inspirational hoot.� They call themselves a novel alternative to traditional gospel singers.
The community is invited to join them for this event.


text:
Man Pleads Not Guilty to Assaulting Elderly Woman
Man Accused of Killing Murrieta Senior Arraigned
Biden Continues Southland Fundraising Swing
7 Arrested In Connection To Illegal Street Race In Coachella
MS-13 Crackdown Defendant Pleads Not Guilty to Federal Racketeering Charges
Schwarzenegger Hired to Promote Electric Vehicles in California
Actor and former California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has a new role in a series of…
L.A. Sports Council: Athletic Industry Generated $6.3 Billion in 2018
More than $6.3 billion was generated by the region's sports industry in 2018, according to…
Homeless Man Arrested in Flag Burning Incident at CHP Memorial In Industry
A 41-year-old homeless man was arrested Sunday for allegedly burning an American flag left at…
Big Rig Overturns in Industry, Several Lanes Eastbound Pomona Freeway Closed
An accident involving an overturned semi truck and at least three other vehicles Friday morning…
Former Industry Station Captain Named L.A. County Undersheriff
Contributing Editor / March 18, 2019
A new second in command took over Monday at the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department,…
Woman With Brain Injury Goes Missing Near Industry
Contributing Editor / February 23, 2019
A 59-year-old woman with a traumatic brain injury was missing Saturday in the unincorporated West…
Pharma Industry Commits $750,000 To Support L.A. County Bioscience Sector
A pharmaceutical industry group committed Tuesday to spend $750,000 over three years to support Los…
Pedestrian Killed in City of Industry ID'd
Contributing Editor / February 4, 2019
The coroner's office Monday released the name of a 39-year-old Valinda man who was fatally…
Valinda Man Struck, Killed While Walking in Industry Street
A 39-year-old Valinda man was fatally struck by a car while walking in a street…
State Controller: Lack of Oversight Continues to Plague City of Industry
Contributing Editor / January 23, 2019
Three years after auditors determined the City of Industry's accounting controls were "effectively non-existent," State…
UCLA Releases Study on Nail Salon Industry Labor Conditions
Contributing Editor / November 27, 2018
A new report from the UCLA Labor Center and the California Healthy Nail Salon Collaborative…
Deputy-Involved Shooting in Industry Under Investigation
Contributing Editor / November 2, 2018
An investigation was underway Friday into a deputy-involved shooting in Industry that left a suspect…
Firefighters Remain Overnight At Pallet Yard in Industry After 3-Alarm Fire
Contributing Editor / October 28, 2018
Firefighters are expected to remain overnight after a three-alarm fire damaged a pallet yard in…
LAX Debuts New Signage for Rideshare Apps Aiming to Be Industry Standard
Contributing Editor / September 21, 2018
Los Angeles International Airport announced Friday that visitors will now have more help finding app-based…
Mental Competency Exam Ordered for Man Charged in Burbank Attack 300 views
Woman, Baby Seriously Injured in Rear-End Collision on 57 Freeway in San Dimas 300 views


In this recipe, you'll learn how to make pizza that has a crispy (not soggy) crust. I learned this by a "happy mistake". I could have called this recipe "Whatever Veges You Have in the Frig Pizza" because that is basically what I did! The best part of this recipe is the simplicity of it.
For those who follow my blog and Facebook page, I've been writing about cooking five pounds of meat at a time, in the Instant Pot, and freezing it for individual meals. Here's an example of what you can do for a quick and easy meal.
-Preheat oven according to manufacture directions and recommended temperature of pre-made pizza crust.
-Remove the precooked beef from the freezer and heat it.
-Spread beef on top of pizza crust.
-Chop vegetables and drain any excess water. Spread vegetables on top of beef.
-Sprinkle spices on top of vegetables.
-Top with cheese. Note: I used shredded Velveeta on half of the pizza because hubby is allergic to all cheeses, except for American.
-Bake according to manufacture directions and recommended temperature and time of pre-made pizza crust.
I used my home canned pizza sauce but you can use your favorite store bought brand.
Did you notice that I didn't say to put the sauce on the pizza? That's my "happy mistake" and secret! Once, I made pizza and forgot to put the pizza sauce on it. So we just heated the sauce and dipped it in the pizza sauce as we were eating it. It was crunchy and we loved it! We have eaten it this way ever since.
Note: I used precooked ground turkey but this recipe has directions for cooking raw meat. If you are using precooked (thawed) meat, add it last, after pressure has gone down and when you are adding spice packet, tomato based canned items, and other ingredients at end of recipe.
Note: If you can't find these three types of beans, use pinto beans.
Seal zipper (remove excess air) and put spice packet in top of regular mouth pint jar. Screw on lid.
Print the following and give to "gift recipient" of Dinner in a Jar.
Place wire rack that came with Instant Pot in the bottom. Add 1 1/2 cups water to the bottom of Instant Pot.
Wash all beans and drain in colander. Pour 3 cups of water in stackable stainless steel steamer with lid (made for Instant Pot) and add beans. Place in bottom of Instant Pot.
Chop onion and break up meat into smaller pieces. Place onion and meat in stackable stainless steel steamer with lid (made for Instant Pot). Place in Instant Pot on top of beans.
Note: If you do not have stackable stainless steel steamer, follow these directions.
Wash all beans and drain in colander. Pour beans into 4 cup glass measuring cup. Add water until it is at 3 cups. Place chopped onion on top.
Place 4 cup measuring cup in bottom of Instant Pot.
Break up meat into smaller pieces. Place meat around the edges of 4 cup measuring cup.
Loosely add parchment paper on top of beans.
Set release valve in the "sealing" position. High Pressure for 30 minutes. Then natural pressure release.
After pressure has gone down, open lid, remove both stackable stainless steel steamers, water, and wire rack. Pour out water.
Put meat in Instant Pot and use slatted type spatula to chop into smaller pieces. Or if you are using precooked (thawed) meat, add it now.
Mix well. Set on Saute and cook until chili is hot.
*Nutritional Yeast Seasoning is a source of complete protein and vitamins, in particular B-complex vitamins. It contains folates, thiamine, riboflavin, selenium and zinc making it a great superfood.
It is the day after Christmas and you need to figure out what to do with all of that leftover turkey. My Turkey Salad recipe is especially delicious!
Mix well, refrigerate, and enjoy!
Click here to check out my previous post on using leftover turkey, for some scrumptious Turkey Tortilla Soup.
I can't remember how or when this became a tradition for Christmas Eve Dinner. Probably because I am always so busy cooking for Christmas Day. We have Baked Potatoe Cheese Soup and Spinach Salad with black cherries, apples, pecans, and raspberry dressing.
May you have a wonderful time with family and friends!
In a recent post, I gave instructions on cooking bulk chicken and freezing in bags for future use.
This quick and delicious meal is cooked with a bag of prefrozen chicken that has been thawed.
Place egg rolls in oven, following manufacturer's, and bake while you are cooking Chicken Vege Stir-Fry.
Pour two tablespoons olive oil in two different skillets.
In one skillet, add: 1 bag of pepper stir-fry, precooked chicken, minced garlic, and sugar snap peas.
In other skillet, add: one box (2 bags) P. F. Chang's Signature Rice.
Cook both until done, stirring frequently.


The National Chairman of the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC), Comrade Adams Oshiohmole yesterday urged Nigerians to be wary of the Peoples Democratic Party's presidential candidate, Atiku Abubakar and the vice presidential candidate Peter Obi, alleging that that if voted into power in the February election, both would trade off Nigeria.
Oshiomhole stated this while speaking at the flag off of the Governor Simon Lalong's reelection campaign in Plateau State.
He said that Lalong had ensured justice and fair play in his administration which he said guaranteed peace in the state compared to what obtained during the reign of his predecessor.


text:
& PERSONAL INJURY LAW
WHEN RESULTS COUNT
Years Experience,
+ Worker's Compensation cases
WORKERS COMPENSATION ATTORNEY, PHOENIX AZ,
FENDON & ASSOCIATES
Don Fendon, former chief and senior attorney of Fendon Law Group, has handled virtually every type of worker's compensation and Social Security Cases in Arizona. Moreover, he has been successful in doing it for over 46 years of practicing worker's compensation law in front of Administrative Law Judges at the Industrial Commission, Appeals with the Arizona Court of Appeals, State Supreme Court, Social Security Administration and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
We have referred many clients to doctors that treated them well and helped them recover from their injuries. The opinions they rendered not only benefited them but also were beneficial to help me settle their cases from an optimum standpoint.
DON'T STAND FOR UNFAIR TREATMENT
If you have experienced an injury at work or other and don't assume you deserve what's offered. Contact experienced Arizona injury attorney Don Fendon. You can't afford not to.
Who can I trust when I get injured on the job?
Don Antonio Fendon is board certified by the State of Arizona as an attorney specializing in Worker's Compensation cases since 1979.
What happens when I get injured on the job?
When injured, tell your supervisor as soon as possible after the accident occurs. Never minimize it because it may be worse than you think, especially with regard to back, neck, shoulder or knee injuries.
What happens if I am permanently disabled from an on the job injury?
Don Fendon has handled many such cases and always enhances permanent monthly awards and/or settlements.
The Attorneys
You Want On Your Side
Experience You Need. Result You Want.
Don Fendon's resources and extensive knowledge of the Arizona legal system have allowed him to get the best possible results for his clients.
Benefits of
SUCCESSFUL CASES
Represented a flight attendant who retired after receiving a significant permanent award from her employer and worker's compensation insurance carrier representing the employer
Obtained a significant and permanent award for client that was initially getting nothing from her employer.
Obtained full medical benefits for a client that was receiving nothing prior to representing him.
Meet the Attorney
Don A Fendon
You Can't Get an Arizona's Injury Lawyer's Help Until You Reach Out
DON FENDON'S CLIENTS OFFER TESTIMONIALS
Don Fendon's reputation as one of the best injury lawyers in Arizona and known as "The Godfather of Injury Law" thanks to his successes in court and the recommendations he receives from former clients who have benefited from his expertise.
"VERY COMPASSIONATE AND CARING"
Very Compassionate and Caring. I met Don in 2010 after having a injury on the job. He invited me down to the office where we sat for more than a hour. He advised me what to do at that time, telling me
"NOTHING LESS THAN TERRIFIC"
So fortunate to have found Don Fendon . Don Fendon has been nothing less than terrific! I could not ask for more from an attorney : he is honest, willing to listen, professional and has done everything to help me.
Dana, September 2017


text:
Contents Grounded
Is Grounded On Game Pass?
What's New In Grounded 1.0?
Grounded Creature Cards Guide: Locations and Tips
A Grounded Pets Guide to Taming and Housing
How to Get Clean Water in Grounded
How to Heal in Grounded
How to Upgrade Weapons in Grounded
How to Enable Creative Mode
How to Turn Off the Haze Gas in Grounded
How To Get To The Upper Yard In Grounded
Grounded BBQ Spill and Charcoal Hot Springs Guide
How to Reach the Sandbox in Grounded
Grounded 4 Leaf Clover Site Guide: Location, Loot & Tips
Best Weapons in Grounded
Best Armor in Grounded
Main Story Quests
The Mysterious Machine
How to Access the Oak Lab
Where to Find Hedge Lab
How to Complete Hedge Lab
How to Find the Pond Lab
How to Complete the Pond Lab
How to Find the Haze Lab
How to Complete the Haze Lab
How to Find Black Anthill Lab
Locked Chests
How to Find the Minotaur Maze Treasure Chest
How to get Grounded's Melted Moat Key to Open the Sandbox Chest
How to Find the Mossy Key for Sunken Treasure Chest
Artificer - Grub Goggles
Non-Repeatable Quests
Explorer - Stepping Stone Summit
Explorer - Trowel Gulch
Explorer - Red Anthill
Explorer - Toad Swamp
Explorer - Great Oak Beacon
Explorer - Plank Cliff
Explorer - Fallen Oak Branch
Explorer - Bird Bath Bluff
Explorer - Rake Rock Point
Explorer - Weed Killer Peak
Explorer - Sand Castle Tower
Chipsleuth - Grave Robbery BURG.L Chip
How to Craft a Pebblet Axe
How to Craft a Pebblet Hammer
How to Craft a Pebblet Spear
How to Craft a Torch
How to Make a Repair Tool
How to Make an Acorn Shovel
How to Make a Fiber Bandage
How to Make a Bratburst
Storage and Utilities
How to Build a Lean-To
How to Craft a Workbench
How to Craft a Storage Basket
How to Build a Storage Chest
How to Build a Spinning Wheel
How to Make a Smithing Station
How to Make a Smoothie Station
How to Make a Gill Tube
How to Make a Gas Mask
How to Get Grass Planks
How to Get Clay
How to Get Weed Stems
Grounded: Toenail Locations Guide
Grounded: Moth Locations and Strategy Guide
Grounded: Black Widow Locations
Food & Smoothies
All Smoothies & What They Do in Grounded
All Mutations Effects
Recommended Mutations
MIX.R Raids
MIX.Rs
Where to Find All MIX.Rs
Super MIX.Rs
Where to Find All Super MIX.Rs
Milk Molars
All Normal and Mega Milk Molar Upgrades
Where to Find All Milk Molars
Where to Find All Mega Milk Molars
Guide » MIX.R Raids » Super MIX.Rs » Where to Find All Super MIX.Rs
MIX.R Raids Super MIX.Rs
Scott Peers
Where to Find All MIX.Rs All Normal and Mega Milk Molar Upgrades
This page details where you can find all Super MIX.R Raids in Grounded. There are currently 3 Super MIX.R Raids, all of which are located in the Upper Yard. You'll find one just southeast of the large car tyre, one under the lawnmower, and one in the Moldorc Highlands. If you're looking for the locations of the 5 regular MIX.R Raids, see our page on those here.
All Super MIX.R Locations in Grounded¶
The first thing you should know about the Super MIX.R Raids is that they're much tougher than the 5 regular ones, which are linked to above. You'll need to upgrade your armor and weapons as much as possible, construct substantial defences around the MIX.Rs, and ideally attempt to complete them with allies. However, don't worry too much if you're playing the game solo, you'll just need to prepare a bit more to make sure that you're strong enough to face the waves of enemies. You'll be facing some of the most powerful bugs in the game during these raids, including the Fire Solider Ant, Roly Poly, Green Shield Bug, Tick, and Tiger Mosquito.
How to Defend Against Super MIX.R Raids¶
If you're at a stage in the game where you're thinking about attempting these Super MIX.R Raids, you've probably already completed one of the regular MIX.Rs. The same basic principles apply: You will interact with the Super MIX.R and it will start to spin. The spinning speed will gradually increase as more and more enemies swarm the area and attempt to destroy the MIX.R. You will need to defend the MIX.R until the MIX.R Overdrive bar (top left of the screen) is filled, but if the health of the machine (top right of the screen) is entirely depleted, you will fail and you'll need to use a Repair Tool on it before you can try again.
You won't necessarily be attacked by a greater number of enemies during the Super MIX.R Raids, but the numbers will still generally increase over time. The real issue here is that you'll have multiple tough bugs attacking you at once, such as the Roly Poly and Green Shield Bug. It will probably take you much longer to kill these than it did for the bugs you faced during the regular MIX.R Raids, so it's important that you have stronger defences surrounding the Super MIX.R. If a bug breaks through as you're trying to kill waves of them, they can destroy the machine in a matter of seconds.
You'll need to make good use of the most powerful types of walls such as the Mushroom Wall or Ash Wall. It's worth taking the time to farm the materials for these items before you attempt the Super MIX.Rs, but if this is taking longer than you want to wait, you can try reinforcing them by creating multiple layers of walls with Stem Wall or Sturdy Wall panels. To further fortify your structures, you can make use of Spike Strips by placing them at the base of your walls. These will injure whatever creature gets caught in them, but keep in mind that each time the spikes inflict damage, their durability is reduced, so they will eventually be destroyed if a creature is caught in them enough times.
Ultimately, the power of upgrading your gear can't be underestimated here. You will often benefit more from a fully upgraded (to level 9) Tier II Medium Armor set than you will from a Tier III Heavy Armor set that hasn't been upgraded at all. Keep this in mind if you're working towards making yourself tougher. The main thing you may want to consider is the set bonus for each armor set, then upgrade whichever armor set that your playstyle will benefit from most. See our page on Best Armor in Grounded for a full list of these.
Upper Grasslands - Southeast of Car Tyre¶
The first Super MIX.R Raid that you're likely to encounter is located just southeast of the large car tyre, as shown in the screenshot below. This is in an area where there's a bank of mud on either side of the Super MIX.R, which you can construct defensive walls around. It's worth considering the addition of Spike Strips being placed at the base of wall panels in the deepest part of the ditch, especially since most of the attackers will come from either side of the depression in the mud, rather than from above. At this stage you may even have access to the Pebblet Turret or Explosive Bur Trap, both of which can be effective when defending against multiple enemies at once.
You'll be facing the following types of enemies during this MIX.R Raid:
Fire Worker Ant
Fire Solider Ant
The Roly Poly bugs are the toughest to take down here, so you may benefit from using Gas Arrows to apply damage over time while you work on other enemies. You'll need to avoid being in the gas cloud yourself though, as you can take damage from it if you're too close. The fire ants will inflict massive damage if you don't thin their numbers, so it's a good idea to kill them first since they take a lot less time to eat through their relatively small health. The Ant-Nihilator mutation may be useful to that end, and don't forget the Guard Dog mutation which will increase your damage against all creatures during these raids.
(1 of 2) The location of the Super MIX.R just southeast of the large car tyre.
The location of the Super MIX.R just southeast of the large car tyre. (left), There are two mud wall ridges on either side of this Super MIX.R, which you can use to frame your defensive structures. (right)
Upper Grasslands - Underneath Lawnmower¶
This MIX.R Raid is located to the northeast of the previous one. It's directly underneath the Lawnmower here, which can be a fairly dark place during the night. You'll benefit from attempting this raid in the day time for that reason, but you could always place some Sap Sconce on the walls if necessary. The Super MIX.R under the Lawnmower is already partially protected for this reason, so you don't have to worry about creatures coming from all directions. With that being said, you should still seek to construct walls all around the MIX.R, especially since the ants are capable of breaching even some of the smallest holes in your defences.
You'll be facing the same enemies here as you were in the last MIX.R Raid:
As with the other Super MIX.R, the same guidance applies for this combination of bugs: try to distract the Roly Poly bugs with something that will inflict damage over time on their substantial health bars, such as Gas Arrows, while you thin the numbers of fire ants if they begin to overwhelm. The Roly Poly is weak to Busting damage, and especially if it comes from a Spicy, Fresh, or Salty source. They're resistant to Chopping, Stabbing, and Slashing, so try to avoid using these types of weapons if possible.
Tip: Roly Poly Weak Points
The Roly Poly bugs are weakest at their legs, so if you can find a way to attack these you can kill them more quickly. One way of doing this is to build some stairs outside of your defensive walls, forcing the Roly Poly to climb up and expose their legs. You can then hit them or shoot at them when you see an opening.
(1 of 2) The location of the Super MIX.R underneath the Lawnmower, in the northeast part of the Upper Yard.
The location of the Super MIX.R underneath the Lawnmower, in the northeast part of the Upper Yard. (left), It's fairly dark beneath the Lawnmower, so we recommend trying this one during the day. You can also use part of the lawnmower to form your defences. (right)
Moldorc Highlands - Next to Berry Tree¶
The Moldorc Highlands Super MIX.R is located just next to the berry tree, as shown in the screenshot below. You can access this area from the Upper Yard by heading south from the Lawnmower. This is the last Super MIX.R that we recommend you attempt. It has a tough combination of enemies with the following:
Tiger Mosquito
Green Shield Bug
This is a rough combination of enemies to defend against. You shouldn't underestimate the power of a group of Tick bugs: they can inflict a lot of damage on you and your structures if you're not careful, and they can jump over some defences. They are however weak to the Spike Strips, so be sure to use these at the base of your walls wherever possible. The Tick is resistant to Busting, Fresh, and Salty damage, but they're weak to Spicy.
The Ticks are the least of your worries during this MIX.R Raid. After a brief initial wave of them, you'll soon be attacked by a bunch of Tiger Mosquito. These can inflict massive amounts of damage from the air, so you'll need to make sure that you've build sturdy defences which cover the top of the MIX.R with multiple layers. The chances of the Tiger Mosquito breaking through one layer is high for the duration of this raid. They are weak to Chopping and Slashing, with a particular weakness to Fresh damage, but they're resistant to Busting.
Tip: Melee Damage on Tiger Mosquitos
Although it may be easier to attack the Tiger Mosquito from range, you'll kill them more quickly if you attack them in melee with a chopping or slashing weapon. To get close to them, you can create a platform above the MIX.R and use it to protect yourself from creatures below, while slashing at the Tiger Mosquitos whenever they dive down at you. Placing spikes around the sides of a platform can also damage them as they dive, but you'll need to be careful not to get caught in these yourself.
Not only will you have to deal with the annoying Tick and dangerous Tiger Mosquito during this raid, but the final type of enemy to arrive will be the Green Shield Bug. These are incredibly tough bugs who are resistant to gas damage, resistant to Spicy, but weak to Fresh and Stabbing. You can get close with a stabbing weapon such as the Tiger Mosquito Rapier initially, but you may soon need to step back away from the gas cloud. A Gas Mask can be useful here, but it will soon be destroyed if you stay within the cloud for too long. The Rapier has the added benefit of healing you slightly with each hit, but this is unlikely to be enough for the whole duration of the fight. The best way to deal with these bugs is a combination of playstyles which includes running in and out of melee, and using ranged damage intermittently.
(1 of 2) The location of the Super MIX.R in the Moldorc Highlands.
The location of the Super MIX.R in the Moldorc Highlands. (left), This MIX.R is tucked into a corner near the berry tree. (right)
Microsoft Game Studios
PC, Steam, XB One, XB X|S
Grounded is a survival game published by Oblivion Entertainment. It has been in early access since July 2020, and was fully released on September 27th, 2022.
In this guide, you'll find information on all essential aspects of the game:
An indepth walkthrough of the main quests, including where to find and complete all the Labs and locate the super chips.
A detailed map of The Yard, including the Upper Yard area - you'll find markers for areas of interest, labs, resources, Milk Molars, and more.
A complete Grounded database containing all resources, creatures, tools, and more.
How to craft essential tools, armor and machinery.
A List of all Mutations and how to unlock them.
Where to find rare and important resources.


text:
Home/Sabbath School/Sabbath School 2014/SSL 2014 – 2nd Quarter/19 – The Scene of the Sixth Plague
19 – The Scene of the Sixth PlagueMichael M.2016-11-27T17:36:36-08:00
Sabbath, May 10, 2014
"Though enemies may thrust them into prison, yet dungeon walls cannot cut off the communication between their souls and Christ. One who sees their every weakness, who is acquainted with every trial, is above all earthly powers; and angels will come to them in lonely cells, bringing light and peace from heaven. The prison will be as a palace; for the rich in faith dwell there, and the gloomy walls will be lighted up with heavenly light as when Paul and Silas prayed and sang praises at midnight in the Philippian dungeon." –The Great Controversy, p. 627.
Initial effects of the sixth plague
1. What will happen when the sixth angel empties his cup? What power is represented by the Euphrates River?
Revelation 16:12 And the sixth angel poured out his vial upon the great river Euphrates; and the water thereof was dried up, that the way of the kings of the east might be prepared.
"What is the River Euphrates, upon which this vial is poured out? One view is that it is the literal River Euphrates in Asia. Another is that it is a symbol of the nation occupying the territory through which that river flows
[Turkey]. The latter opinion is preferable for many reasons….
"In this latter text [Revelation 16:12], all must concede that the Euphrates symbolizes the Turkish power." –The Prophecies of Daniel and the Revelation, pp. 691, 693.
2. In this context, is the Euphrates to be considered as the literal river or as figurative? What do "waters" represent when the word is used symbolically?
Revelation 17:15 And he saith unto me, The waters which thou sawest, where the whore sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues.
"With these objections existing against considering the Euphrates a literal river, it must be understood figuratively as symbolizing the power holding possession of the territory watered by that river when it is observed as beginning to dry up. All agree that that power was Turkey. Hence we may look for the fulfillment of the specifications of this prophecy to affect definitely the Turkish nation….
"The Euphrates symbolizes the Turkish power;…
"The drying up of the river in this sense would be the diminution of the Turkish nation, the gradual shrinking of its borders. This is what has actually happened….
"For centuries the territories of Palestine and the Euphrates valley have been under the control of Mohammedan rulers, who were amenable to the Turkish nation. Logically, then, the Turk will come to his end before the kings of the earth debouch their armies in that territory. The end of the Turk opens the way for the battle of Armageddon." –The Prophecies of Daniel and the Revelation, pp. 692, 693, 698.
Evil spirits in action
3. What other entities are in action on the world stage during the sixth plague?
Revelation 16:13 And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs come out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet.
"John in the Revelation writes of the unity of those living on the earth to make void the law of God. 'These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast. These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for He is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with Him are called, and chosen, and faithful.' Revelation 17:13, 14. 'And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs come out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet' (chap. 16:13)." –Selected Messages, book 3, p. 423.
4. For what deceptive purpose and terrible persecution do they go out to the kings of the whole earth?
Revelation 16:14 For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty.
"The sources from which these spirits issue, denote that they will work among three great religious divisions of mankind, represented by the dragon, the beast, and the false prophet, or paganism, Roman Catholicism, and apostate Protestantism." –The Prophecies of Daniel and the Revelation, p. 700.
"The spirits of devils will go forth to the kings of the earth and to the whole world, to fasten them in deception, and urge them on to unite with Satan in his last struggle against the government of heaven. By these agencies, rulers and subjects will be alike deceived. Persons will arise pretending to be Christ Himself, and claiming the title and worship which belong to the world's Redeemer. They will perform wonderful miracles of healing and will profess to have revelations from heaven contradicting the testimony of the Scriptures." –The Great Controversy, p. 624.
God's intervention for His people
5. Where will the forces of evil meet to complete their destructive work?
Joel 3:2 I will also gather all nations, and will bring them down into the valley of Jehoshaphat, and will plead with them there for my people and for my heritage Israel, whom they have scattered among the nations, and parted my land.
Joel 3:9-12 Proclaim ye this among the Gentiles; Prepare war, wake up the mighty men, let all the men of war draw near; let them come up: Beat your plowshares into swords, and your pruninghooks into spears: let the weak say, I am strong. Assemble yourselves, and come, all ye heathen, and gather yourselves together round about: thither cause thy mighty ones to come down, O Lord. Let the heathen be wakened, and come up to the valley of Jehoshaphat: for there will I sit to judge all the heathen round about.
"The powers of evil will not yield up the conflict without a struggle. But Providence has a part to act in the battle of Armageddon. When the earth is lighted with the glory of the angel of Revelation eighteen, the religious elements, good and evil, will awake from slumber, and the armies of the living God will take the field." –Maranatha, p. 257.
"John also was a witness of the terrible scenes that will take place as signs of Christ's coming. He saw armies mustering for battle, and people's hearts failing them for fear." –Christ Triumphant, p. 316.
6. Will the Lord permit the wicked to carry out their destructive plans to oppose and destroy the truth and His people? What is prophesied concerning this terrible moment?
Joel 3:12, last part … There will I sit to judge all the heathen round about.
Joel 3:14 Multitudes, multitudes in the valley of decision: for the day of the Lord is near in the valley of decision.
Revelation 16:15, first part Behold, I come as a thief.
"God's judgments will be visited upon those who are seeking to oppress and destroy His people. His long forbearance with the wicked emboldens men in transgression, but their punishment is nonetheless certain and terrible because it is long delayed. 'The Lord shall rise up as in Mount Perazim, He shall be wroth as in the valley of Gibeon, that He may do His work, His strange work; and bring to pass His act, His strange act.' Isaiah 28:21. To our merciful God the act of punishment is a strange act. 'As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked.' Ezekiel 33:11. The Lord is 'merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth,… forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin.' Yet He will 'by no means clear the guilty.' 'The Lord is slow to anger, and great in power, and will not at all acquit the wicked.' Exodus 34:6, 7; Nahum 1:3. By terrible things in righteousness He will vindicate the authority of His downtrodden law. The severity of the retribution awaiting the transgressor may be judged by the Lord's reluctance to execute justice." –The Great Controversy, p. 627.
7. Despite the complex situation, what blessing will God's children experience at that time?
Revelation 16:15, second part Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame.
"After John's description in Revelation 16 of that miracle-working power which was to gather the world to the last great conflict, the symbols are dropped and the trumpet voice once more gives a certain sound: 'Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame.' Revelation 16:15." –Last Day Events, p. 249; Manuscript Releases, vol. 14, pp. 96, 97.
Habakkuk 3:17-19; Psalm 121:1-8; Isaiah 33:14-16.
"Did He [the Lord] forget Joseph surrounded by idolaters in Egypt? Did He forget Elijah when the oath of Jezebel threatened him with the fate of the prophets of Baal? Did He forget Jeremiah in the dark and dismal pit of his prison house? Did He forget the three worthies in the fiery furnace? or Daniel in the den of lions?…
"Only those who have been diligent students of the Scriptures and who have received the love of the truth will be shielded from the powerful delusion that takes the world captive. By the Bible testimony these will detect the deceiver in his disguise. To all the testing time will come. By the sifting of temptation the genuine Christian will be revealed. Are the people of God now so firmly established upon His word that they would not yield to the evidence of their senses? Would they, in such a crisis, cling to the Bible and the Bible only? Satan will, if possible, prevent them from obtaining a preparation to stand in that day." –The Great Controversy, pp. 626, 625.


text:
Blagbrough v. Forest
Town of Goshen v. Casagrande
Resolution of this case requires that we interpret the record from the 1891 town meeting to determine whether…
Stankiewicz v. Manchester
The trial court determined that the MCO, and not the CBA, governed this matter because: (1) contrary to the…
Full title:BLAGBROUGH FAMILY REALTY TRUST v. A T FOREST PRODUCTS, INC. a
Court:Supreme Court of New Hampshire Hillsborough-southern judicial district
Date published: Feb 28, 2007
155 N.H. 29 (N.H. 2007)
917 A.2d 1221
2007 N.H. LEXIS 25
Supreme Court of New Hampshire Hillsborough-southern judicial district
relying on maps and stone walls lining both sides of the road to uphold a finding of highway by prescription
Summary of this case from Town of Dunbarton v. Guiney
See 1 Summary
No. 2005-669
November 8, 2006, Argued . February 28, 2007, Opinion Issued
Cleveland, Waters and Bass, P.A., of Concord (William B. Pribis on the brief and orally), for the plaintiff.
Wiggin & Nourie, P.A., of Manchester (Patricia M. Panciocco and Gregory E. Michael on the brief, and Mr. Michael orally), for defendant A & T Forest Products, Inc.
Fernald, Taft, Falby & Little, P.A., of Peterborough (Silas Little on the brief and orally), for defendant Town of Wilton.
DUGGAN, J. BRODERICK, C.J., and DALIANIS and GALWAY, JJ., concurred.
DUGGAN, J. The plaintiff, Blagbrough Family Realty Trust (Blagbrough), and defendant A & T Forest Products (A & T) cross-appeal an opinion and order of the Trial Court ( Lynn, C.J.), on two consolidated cases: (1) an appeal from a decision of the Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) of the Town of Wilton (Town) granting a building permit to A & T; and (2) a petition to quiet title. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
Litigation involving the parties and the land here at issue was the subject of two previous opinions of this court. See Blagbrough Family Realty Trust v. Town of Wilton, 153 N.H. 234, 893 A.2d 679 (2006); Blagbrough v. Town of Wilton, 145 N.H. 118, 755 A.2d 1141 (2000). Here we recite the facts pertinent to this appeal as found by the trial court.
Blagbrough owns real property located at 293 Burton Highway in Wilton, which is identified on the Town's tax map as Lot A-22. A & T owns an adjoining parcel, identified on the Town's tax map as Lot A-21, and had obtained approval to subdivide it into two lots: Lots A-21-1 and A-21-2. Both Lot A-22 and Lot A-21 are bounded to the north by Old Peterborough Road and were at one time under the common ownership of John and Anne Dimeling. A & T also owns another parcel identified as Lot A-30, which is situated north of Old Peterborough Road.
A & T acquired Lots A-21 and A-30 on February 20, 2001, by warranty deed from heirs of the Dimelings. Blagbrough acquired Lot A-22 from the Dimelings by warranty deed dated September 16, 1963. The deed for the Blagbrough parcel contains a typed paragraph indicating that the conveyance included a canal easement with certain flowage rights therein. However, a line was drawn through the canal easement paragraph and a handwritten notation was inserted. It reads, "Above paragraph deleted -- pertinent to land retained by Dimelings. " The deed also grants Blagbrough an easement to use and access a well located on land which was, at the time, retained by the Dimelings (now Lot A-21-1). The well provided water for the house on the Blagbrough's parcel, but the trial court found that the well has not been used as a source of drinking water since 1985.
On September 29, 2003, the Town's board of selectmen (the selectmen) voted to authorize a building permit for A & T to construct a single family home on Lot A-30. Blagbrough appealed the selectmen's decision to the ZBA. The ZBA upheld the selectmen's decision and later denied Blagbrough's motion for rehearing. Blagbrough then appealed to the superior court.
Blagbrough also brought a petition to quiet title in superior court, seeking a declaration that it: (1) had acquired a portion of Lot A-21-1 through adverse possession; (2) had certain rights to the canal easement (described above); (3) had acquired a portion of Old Peterborough Road through adverse possession; and (4) was entitled to damages for interference with the well and canal easements that allegedly occurred when A & T removed timber and hauled it across Lot A-21-1. In response to a motion filed by Blagbrough, the ZBA appeal was consolidated with the quiet title petition, and both matters became the subject of a two-day bench trial and a subsequent hearing on damages.
When all was said and done, the trial court ruled that: (1) Blagbrough had acquired a portion of Lot A-21-1 by adverse possession; (2) Blagbrough had certain rights in the canal easement; (3) Blagbrough had not acquired any portion of Old Peterborough Road through adverse possession; (4) the decision of the ZBA was neither unlawful nor unreasonable; (5) A & T was required to replace a portion of the pipe running from the well on Lot A-21 to the Blagbrough property; and (6) A & T was required to repair some damage to the canal. Blagbrough then appealed and A & T cross-appealed, placing these rulings in dispute.
II. Adverse Possession: Lot A-21-1
The trial court found that, according to the pertinent deeds, the boundary between Lots A-22 and A-21-1 is "a straight course running between two granite bounds, one located on the northern side of the Burton Highway and the other located on the southern side of the so-called 'Old Peterborough Road. '" Neither side challenges this finding. Accordingly, we assume its correctness and use it as a reference point for our consideration of Blagbrough's adverse possession claim.
The foundation of a small boathouse is slightly to the west of the boundary line. Crediting the testimony of Corinne Blagbrough, Kenton Blagbrough (Corinne Blagbrough's son), and Howard Preston, the trial court found that the Blagbrough family engaged in activities in an area immediately around the boathouse and that these activities were sufficient to satisfy the criteria for adverse possession. However, the trial court also ruled that the extent to which the Blagbroughs engaged in activity on land to the west of the boathouse was unclear and could not satisfy the criteria for adverse possession. It therefore concluded that Blagbrough had acquired title by adverse possession to a portion of Lot A-21-1 which was east ( i.e., in the direction of Lot A-22) of the western-most point of the boathouse.
On appeal, Blagbrough argues that the trial court's ruling is inconsistent with the evidence because the evidence demonstrated that Blagbrough acquired title by adverse possession to a significantly broader swath of Lot A-21-1, extending all the way to a stone wall located approximately 150 feet west of the boathouse. A & T cross-appeals, arguing that the evidence does not support a conclusion that Blagbrough acquired title by adverse possession to any portion of Lot A-21-1.
We review a trial court's application of law to facts de novo. Tech-Built 153 v. Va. Surety Co., 153 N.H. 371, 373, 898 A.2d 1007 (2006). We accord deference to a trial court's findings of historical fact, where those findings are supported by evidence in the record. Elwood v. Bolte, 119 N.H. 508, 510, 403 A.2d 869 (1979).
In order to obtain title by adverse possession, the adverse possessor must prove, by a balance of probabilities, twenty years of adverse, continuous, and uninterrupted use of the land claimed so as to give notice to the owner that an adverse claim is being made. Flanagan v. Prudhomme, 138 N.H. 561, 571-72, 644 A.2d 51 (1994). In addition, adverse use is trespassory in nature, and the adverse possessor's use of the land must be exclusive. See Kellison v. McIsaac, 131 N.H. 675, 679, 559 A.2d 834 (1989); Seward v. Loranger, 130 N.H. 570, 576-77, 547 A.2d 207 (1988). The success or failure of a party claiming adverse possession is not determined by the subjective intent or the motives of the adverse possessor. Kellison, 131 N.H. at 680. Rather the acts of the adverse possessor's entry onto and possession of the land should, regardless of the basis of the occupancy, alert the true owner of the cause of action. Id. In evaluating the merits of an adverse possession claim, courts are to construe "[e]vidence of adverse possession of land . . . strictly. " Bellows v. Jewell, 60 N.H. 420, 422 (1880) (citations omitted).
The trial court found that members of the Blagbrough family: (1) tore down the boathouse in approximately 1964 or 1965 because it was dilapidated; (2) routinely entered the parcel for walks and other recreational activities; (3) permitted their children to play on the parcel; (4) used the parcel as a source of Christmas trees; and (5) cut grass, removed trees, and planted some flowers on the parcel. Accordingly, the question here is whether these activities are sufficient to support a conclusion that Blagbrough obtained title by adverse possession to a portion of Lot A-21-1. We hold that they are not.
The law requires more than occasional, trespassory maintenance in order to perfect adverse title; the use must be sufficiently notorious to justify a presumption that the owner was notified of it. Pease v. Whitney, 78 N.H. 201, 204, 98 A. 62 (1916). The act of tearing down the boathouse, although not insignificant, was a one-time occurrence that the trial court found took place one or two years after the Blagbroughs acquired the parcel. That act, alone, therefore cannot be considered more than an occasional trespass. See id. Apparently recognizing this point, both the trial court and the parties properly focused more upon the Blagbroughs' other activities on the subject parcel in considering the adverse possession claim. With respect to these activities, although testimony did indicate that the Blagbrough family engaged in some of them "routinely," those activities are not sufficiently notorious or exclusive to satisfy the criteria for adverse possession. Compare Alukonis v. Kashulines, 97 N.H. 298, 299, 86 A.2d 327 (1952) (stating that forty years of continuous and uninterrupted use of disputed strip to cut hay, garden, and grow crops, combined with fact that strip visually blended in with possessor's lot due to rudimentary boundary monuments in his favor, constituted adverse possession), with Flanagan, 138 N.H. at 572 (noting occasional playing of children on tract constituted minimal use not exclusive or sufficiently adverse); Hemon v. Rowe Chevrolet Co., 108 N.H. 11, 16-17, 226 A.2d 792 (1967) (stating that plaintiff's setting off disputed boundary strip with row of spruce trees, which grew from small to large over the twenty-year prescriptive period, was not open and notorious use giving notice of adverse claim); Cushing v. Miller, 62 N.H. 517, 525 (1883) (stating that occasional cutting of timber on wild lot not sufficiently adverse), overruled on other grounds by Dame v. Fernald, 86 N.H. 468, 471, 171 A. 369 (1934). Accordingly, even accepting the facts as found by the trial court, we conclude that Blagbrough has not met its burden of establishing that it acquired title to any portion of Lot A-21-1 by adverse possession. The trial court's conclusion to the contrary is therefore reversed.
III. The Canal Easement
As described above, a portion of the deed from the Dimelings to Blagbrough conveyed a canal easement, granting rights in a canal that traversed Lots A-21 and A-22. Some of the language concerning the canal easement -- particularly the flowage rights therein -- had been crossed out. The trial court ruled that this "removal of the so-called canal easement language [from the deed conveying Lot A-22 from the Dimelings to Blagbrough] was a mistake and does not have the effect of extinguishing Blagbrough's right to flow, use and maintain the portion of the canal located on the Blagbrough property." On appeal, A & T argues that: (1) removal of the canal easement language from the deed was not a mistake; and (2) easement rights in the old canal merged under the common ownership of the Dimelings, and cannot spring back.
With respect to the first argument, we have held that "[a] plain error in a deed will be rejected and the deed construed reasonably to conform to the intent of the parties." Reney v. Hebert, 109 N.H. 74, 75, 242 A.2d 72 (1968). The trial court found that "there is no dispute that a portion of the canal lays within the Blagbrough property." The trial court then held that since "the Dimelings actually did include a portion of the canal in their grant to Blagbrough, the crossed-out and penned-in language contained in the deed cannot be construed as reflective of an intent not to convey a portion of the canal easement to Blagbrough." We agree.
As the trial court reasoned, the most "sensible construction [of the deed] is that the deletion of the easement was based on the grantors' erroneous belief that the property conveyed to Blagbrough did not include any portion of the canal." After all, the crossed-out language of the deed pertains to flowage rights in the canal and the handwritten portion evinces a belief that no portion of the canal had been transferred. It follows that if the Dimelings had realized that they were still conveying a portion of the canal to Blagbrough, they would have retained specific language in the deed pertaining to the use of, or flowage rights related to, the portion of the canal that was conveyed. No such language appears in the deed. Accordingly, we reject A & T's first argument.
As its fallback position, A & T contends that the canal easement was extinguished by operation of the doctrine of merger. Our rules affirmatively require the moving party to demonstrate where each question presented on appeal was raised below. See Sup. Ct. R. 16(3)(b); Bean v. Red Oak Prop. Mgmt., 151 N.H. 248, 250, 855 A.2d 564 (2004). A & T has pointed to no part of the record indicating that it raised its merger argument before the trial court and we find no specific reference to merger in the transcript. See Sup. Ct. R. 16(3)(d) (moving party's brief shall contain statement of facts material to consideration of questions presented "with appropriate references to the appendix or to the record"); Sup. Ct. R. 13(2) ("The moving party shall be responsible for ensuring that all or such portions of the record relevant and necessary for the court to decide the questions of law presented by the case are in fact provided to the supreme court."). Nor did the trial court discuss the merger argument in its decision. Where a party fails to demonstrate that it raised an issue before the trial court, the issue is not preserved for our review. Bean, 151 N.H. at 250; see also Broughton v. Proulx, 152 N.H. 549, 555, 880 A.2d 388 (2005). Accordingly, we will not address the merger issue for the first time on appeal.
IV. Adverse Possession: Old Peterborough Road
Blagbrough asserts that it has acquired title by adverse possession to a portion of Old Peterborough Road which abuts the northern boundary of Lot A-22. The trial court rejected this argument, concluding that: (1) Old Peterborough Road was a public highway; (2) Blagbrough had failed to establish that Old Peterborough Road had been discontinued; and (3) therefore Blagbrough could not acquire any rights in it by adverse possession. We agree with the trial court.
A. Establishment of Public Highway
Pursuant to RSA 229:1 (1993), a public road could be created by prescription if it had "been used . . . for public travel . . . for 20 years prior to January 1, 1968 . . . ." See Mahoney v. Town of Canterbury, 150 N.H. 148, 150, 834 A.2d 227 (2003). Whether a highway is created by prescription is a finding of fact. Id. Findings of fact by a trial court are binding upon us unless they are not supported by the evidence or are erroneous as a matter of law. Id.
Here, the trial court found that Old Peterborough Road, sometimes called Old County Road or Stiles Road, had been used for public travel since at least the early 1800s. In support of this finding, the trial court noted that Old Peterborough Road was: (1) referenced on the Wilton Town Plan of 1805; (2) included in the Carrigain Map of 1816; and (3) referenced in the layout petition for the Burton Highway filed with the Court of Common Pleas in 1840. We have held, based upon a different road's inclusion in the same Carrigain map, that "the inclusion of a road on a map is competent evidence to support the inference of use of the road . . . ." Williams v. Babcock, 116 N.H. 819, 822, 368 A.2d 1166 (1976). Moreover, during a view, the trial court observed stone walls lining both sides of Old Peterborough Road. Where a wall has been erected on either or both sides of a road, its "evidentiary value is important. " Hoban v. Bucklin, 88 N.H. 73, 80, 184 A. 362 (1936). Further, the trial court expressly found that Blagbrough had not come forward with any evidence that use of the road was permissive. See Mahoney, 150 N.H. at 151. In Mahoney, we held that similar evidence supported a finding that a public highway by prescription had been established under RSA 229:1. Id. at 151-52. Similarly, here we uphold the trial court's determination that Old Peterborough Road was a public highway.
B. Discontinuance
Blagbrough argues that even if Old Peterborough Road was established as a public highway, it was discontinued. Once it is shown that a road is a public highway, the highway is presumed to exist until it is discontinued, and discontinuance is not favored in the law. Davenhall v. Cameron, 116 N.H. 695, 696-97, 366 A.2d 499 (1976). "Discontinuance is a fact that must be proved and the burden is upon the party who asserts discontinuance to prove it by clear and satisfactory evidence. Because public roads are discontinued by town vote, and such actions are recorded . . ., the best evidence of discontinuance is the official record. " Id. (citations omitted); see also RSA 231:43 (Supp. 2006) (discussing discontinuance).
Blagbrough advances several arguments for discontinuance in its brief. First, citing State v. Canterbury, 40 N.H. 307, 312-13 (1860), Blagbrough argues:
The Burton Highway Petition did reference the Old Peterborough Road. However, the Petition spoke of laying out a road (the Burton Highway) to "the Old Road" but then in an entirely different direction. Thus, although it references Old Peterborough Road, the Burton Highway Petition did not have the effect of confirming its existence. Instead, it had the effect of discontinuing Old Peterborough Road.
(Citations omitted. ) The trial court rejected Blagbrough's argument "that the road depicted or referenced in the various maps and other documents introduced by A & T and the Town is some road or roads other than the same Old Peterborough Road described in the Blagbrough deed and the drawing recorded with that deed in the registry. "
We find Blagbrough's argument unavailing. The Burton Highway Petition describes the layout of the Burton Highway as running past markers such as sticks, stones, stakes, birch trees, unidentified types of trees, and beech trees, among many other types of markers. Blagbrough has not directed us to any exhibit admitted by the trial court that clearly delineates all of these markers and supports its position. Indeed, in the exhibits admitted by the trial court and provided to us in connection with this appeal, we find no maps that identify these particular trees, stones, and stakes. While a Burton Highway layout plan is contained in A & T's appendix, Blagbrough does not rely upon it in its brief as a point of reference for its argument. Without such maps, which Blagbrough (as the party appealing this issue) was responsible for providing us, see Sup. Ct. R. 13(2), 16(3)(d), we have no way of evaluating the precise trajectory of the Burton Highway or the implications of that trajectory on Old Peterborough Road. Furthermore, the Burton Highway Petition describes a layout of the Burton Highway -- it does not describe a layout of the Old Peterborough Road. Therefore, and given the strong presumption against discontinuance, we find the Burton Highway Petition's vague references to Old Peterborough Road, without more, do not compel a finding that Old Peterborough Road was discontinued.
Blagbrough also argues that the trial court erred in concluding that discontinuance had not been established because it did not give enough weight to: (1) the testimony of Kenton Blagbrough; (2) the testimony of the Town's former road agent; and (3) certain maps offered into evidence which supported its position.
The resolution of conflicts in the evidence and determination of issues of fact are functions of the trier of fact. Because the proper standard of review with respect to the weight of evidence is not whether this court would have found differently but whether a reasonable person could find as did the trial court, we will not disturb the decision of the finder of fact unless it is clearly erroneous. The trial court, acting as the finder of fact, is not required to explain away all inconsistencies in the evidence presented at trial.
Barrows v. Boles, 141 N.H. 382, 396-97, 687 A.2d 979 (1996) (brackets, citations, and quotations omitted); see also Rancourt v. Town of Barnstead, 129 N.H. 45, 50, 523 A.2d 55 (1986) ("The credibility and weight to be given to a witness' testimony is a question of fact for the trial court. If the findings can reasonably be made on all the evidence, they must stand."). Our review of the record reflects that the trial court's factual determinations are adequately supported by the testimony and other evidence presented at trial. Further, in light of the strong presumption against discontinuance, the fact that some maps may have been inconsistent with others in their labeling of Old Peterborough Road is not dispositive.
C. Adverse Possession vis-a-vis a Public Highway
One cannot acquire rights in a public highway by adverse possession. RSA 236:30 (1993). We have upheld the trial court's determinations that: (1) Old Peterborough Road is a public highway, within the meaning of RSA 229:1; and (2) it was not established that Old Peterborough Road had been discontinued. Accordingly, even assuming arguendo that Blagbrough had successfully established the elements of adverse possession, its claim vis-a-vis Old Peterborough Road fails.
V.The ZBA Ruling
The ZBA ruling at issue relates to Lot A-30, a 12.8-acre parcel located north of the Blagbrough property and bounded on the south by Old Peterborough Road. On September 29, 2003, the Town's selectmen, after review and comment by the planning board and town counsel, voted to authorize a building permit pursuant to RSA 674:41, I(c) (Supp. 2002) (amended 2004) for A & T to engage in construction on Lot A-30. Blagbrough appealed the selectmen's decision to the ZBA, which agreed with the selectmen. Blagbrough then appealed the ZBA's decision to the superior court, which affirmed the ZBA.
Here, Blagbrough argues that the trial court erred by: (1) making certain pretrial rulings relating to a protective order sought by the Town; (2) concluding that Old Peterborough Road is a public highway; (3) ruling that Lot A-30 was grandfathered within the meaning of the zoning ordinance; and (4) misinterpreting RSA 674:41, I(c). We consider each argument in turn.
Our review of zoning board decisions is limited. Harrington v. Town of Warner, 152 N.H. 74, 77, 872 A.2d 990 (2005). We will uphold the trial court's decision unless the evidence does not support it or it is legally erroneous. Chester Rod & Gun Club v. Town of Chester, 152 N.H. 577, 580, 883 A.2d 1034 (2005). For its part, the trial court must treat all factual findings of the ZBA as prima facie lawful and reasonable. RSA 677:6 (1996). It may set aside a ZBA decision if it finds by the balance of probabilities, based upon the evidence before it, that the ZBA's decision was unreasonable. Town of Chester, 152 N.H. at 580.
A. The Protective Order and Related Issues
We begin by placing Blagbrough's challenge to the trial court's pretrial rulings in context. On June 2, 2004, Blagbrough moved to consolidate the petition to quiet title and the ZBA appeal, arguing, among other things, that "the issues and evidence presented [in both cases] . . . are likely to be duplicative . . . ." On July 8, 2004, the Trial Court ( Hicks, J.) granted the motion to consolidate. Later, on or about September 15, 2004, Blagbrough propounded interrogatories to the Town, seeking discoverable information related to the ZBA appeal. In response, the Town moved for a protective order, arguing that the superior court should rule on issues connected to the ZBA appeal based only upon information contained in the certified record of the ZBA proceedings, and therefore further discovery on the ZBA matter was not necessary. The Trial Court ( Lynn, C.J.) granted the Town's motion. At trial, the court permitted counsel for the Town to cross-examine witnesses and to introduce or rely upon evidence not found in the certified record of the ZBA proceedings. On appeal, Blagbrough argues that "once the Trial Court disallowed any discovery on the plaintiff's RSA 677:4 appeal, it was bound to prohibit the Town from participating substantively in the evidentiary aspects of the December 21 and 22, 2004 hearing in this matter. "
The trial court has broad discretion in managing and supervising pretrial discovery and in ruling on the conduct of a trial. Murray v. Developmental Servs. of Sullivan County, 149 N.H. 264, 268, 818 A.2d 302 (2003). We review a trial court's rulings on the management of discovery and the scope of cross-examination under an unsustainable exercise of discretion standard. See State v. Barnes, 150 N.H. 715, 719, 849 A.2d 152 (2004) (discovery); State v. Wellington, 150 N.H. 782, 788, 846 A.2d 1171 (2004) (cross-examination). To establish that the trial court erred under this standard, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the trial court's ruling was clearly untenable or unreasonable to the prejudice of its case. See id.
Especially since it was Blagbrough that sought to consolidate these two cases, we do not find that the trial court's rulings were untenable or unreasonable to the prejudice of Blagbrough's case. It is within the trial court's discretion to allow further evidence in a ZBA appeal. Peter Christian's v. Town of Hanover, 132 N.H. 677, 683, 569 A.2d 758 (1990). In granting the Town's motion for a protective order, the trial court apparently concluded that it understood the materials upon which the ZBA relied and that further evidence would not aid in its decision or be necessary to complete the record; therefore, additional discovery on issues pertaining to the ZBA appeal would not be necessary. See Estabrooks v. Town of Jefferson, 134 N.H. 367, 369, 592 A.2d 1154 (1991) (explaining the admission of additional evidence by the superior court in a ZBA appeal). Later, at trial, when Blagbrough elicited testimony from witnesses concerning issues germane to the ZBA appeal, the Town was entitled to cross-examine those witnesses through questioning and the use of exhibits. Appeal of Sutton, 141 N.H. 348, 351, 684 A.2d 1346 (1996) ("In any proceeding, cross-examination, almost by definition, is a review of direct examination in order to determine the veracity, accuracy and depth of knowledge of the witness." (quotation omitted)). To hold otherwise would result in one litigant being able to embark on a wide-ranging evidentiary inquiry, while the other (who opposed consolidation presumably to avoid precisely the type of predicament at issue here) is forced to stand by silently. Accordingly, we reject Blagbrough's first assignment of error on the ZBA appeal.
B. Old Peterborough Road
Blagbrough's second argument is that the trial court erred in concluding that Old Peterborough Road is a public highway. For the reasons articulated earlier in this opinion, we reject this argument.
C. Grandfathering of Lot A-30
Lot A-30 is located in an area of the Town zoned as a watershed district. Section 14.3.2 of the Wilton Zoning Ordinance requires each lot in the Watershed District to have a minimum of 300 feet of frontage on a class V or better road. It is undisputed that Lot A-30 does not have 300 feet of frontage. In affirming the selectmen's decision to grant the building permit, the ZBA concluded, and the trial court agreed, that section 17.2 of the ordinance excused A & T from having to comply with section 14.3.2. Blagbrough contends that both the ZBA and the trial court misinterpreted section 17.2 and that therefore, absent a variance, A & T could not obtain a building permit on a lot that did not satisfy the ordinance's frontage requirements.
The interpretation of a zoning ordinance is a question of law, which we review de novo. Town of Warner, 152 N.H. at 79. Because the traditional rules of statutory construction generally govern our review, we construe the words and phrases of an ordinance according to the common and approved usage of the language. Id. When the language of an ordinance is plain and unambiguous, we need not look beyond the ordinance itself for further indications of legislative intent. Id. Moreover, we will not guess what the drafters of the ordinance might have intended, or add words that they did not see fit to include. Id.
Section 17.2 of the ordinance provides in pertinent part:
[A] lot of record at the time of the effective date of this Ordinance [which] has less area and/or frontage than herein required in the District in which it is located . . . may be used for a single family dwelling if permitted in that district subject to New Hampshire water supply and pollution control division approval and subject to all district regulations applicable to lots within the district wherein the lot is located with the exception of lot size and/or frontage.
In order for section 17.2 to apply, the subject lot must be a "lot of record" at the time of the effective date of the ordinance. Section 3.1.19 of the ordinance defines a "lot of record" as "[l]and designated as a separate and distinct parcel in a legally-recorded deed filed in the record of Hillsborough County, New Hampshire. " While acknowledging that Lot A-30 and Lot A-21 had been in common ownership under the Dimelings, the trial court ruled that Lot A-30 was a "lot of record" within the meaning of section 17.2 because Lot A-30 was located on the opposite side of Old Peterborough Road from Lot A-21 and had been described separately from Lot A-21 in the deeds in the Dimeling chain.
Blagbrough contends that Lot A-30 does not satisfy the definition of "lot of record" both because there was no separate deed for Lot A-30 at the time of the Dimelings' ownership and because a requirement that the lot be "buildable" should be read into the definition of "lot of record. " Blagbrough also argues that the "Ordinance should not be interpreted to allow development in the Watershed District with no frontage whatsoever and the Trial Court erred when it allowed such interpretation. " We find these arguments unavailing.
First, the plain language of section 3.1.19 does not require a "lot of record" to be described in a separate deed. Rather, it simply requires that within any deed conveying the lot, the lot must be described separately. The trial court found that such a separate description was contained in the deeds in the Dimeling chain, and Blagbrough has pointed to no persuasive evidence which would undermine this finding.
Second, the word "buildable" does not appear anywhere in the definition of "lot of record. " We will not guess what the drafters of the ordinance might have intended, or add words that they did not see fit to include. Town of Warner, 152 N.H. at 79.
Third, we decline Blagbrough's invitation to hold that a lot with no frontage somehow materially differs from a lot with little frontage for purposes of section 17.2. The plain language of the ordinance applies anytime a lot has "less" frontage. Lot A-30 has less frontage than is required (it has none). Accordingly, section 17.2 applies and we reject Blagbrough's arguments concerning the trial court's interpretation of the ordinance. If the Town wishes to change the words or terms of its ordinance, it is of course free to do so.
D. RSA 674:41, I(c)
Blagbrough's final assignment of error pertaining to the ZBA appeal is that both the ZBA and the trial court misinterpreted RSA 674:41, I(c). Blagbrough contends that RSA 674:41, I(c) does not authorize selectmen to issue building permits to individual landowners.
RSA 674:41, I(c) provides, in pertinent part:
[N]o building shall be erected on any lot within any part of the municipality nor shall a building permit be issued for the erection of a building unless the street giving access to the lot upon which such building is proposed to be placed:
(c) Is a class VI highway, provided that:
(1) The local governing body after review and comment by the planning board has voted to authorize the issuance of building permits for the erection of buildings on said class VI highway or a portion thereof; and
(2) The municipality neither assumes responsibility for maintenance of said class VI highway nor liability for any damages resulting from the use thereof; and
(3) Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall produce evidence that notice of the limits of municipal responsibility and liability has been recorded in the county registry of deeds . . . .
In matters of statutory interpretation, we are the final arbiter of the legislature's intent as expressed in the words of the statute considered as a whole. Appeal of Town of Bethlehem, 154 N.H. , , 154 N.H. 314, 911 A.2d 1 (decided Nov. 2, 2006). When examining the language of a statute, we ascribe the plain and ordinary meaning to the words used. Id. We interpret legislative intent from the statute as written and will not consider what the legislature might have said or add words that the legislature did not include. Id.
We agree with the trial court's reasoning that there is
no merit in Blagbrough's suggestion that RSA 674:41, I(c) does not permit the local governing body to grant building permits on an individual, case by case basis, for properties that fall within the purview of the statute. The mere fact that the statute uses the plural terms "permits" and "buildings" does not compel the conclusion that the selectmen must grant such approval en gross, i.e., either on a road-wide or municipality-wide basis. On the contrary, the statute specifically indicates that approvals can be granted "for said class VI highway or a portion thereof. " (Emphasis added. ) These terms support the view that the statute contemplates a case by case determination by the selectmen as to whether to grant approval for building on a particular lot or lots.
Blagbrough disputes the trial court's reasoning by citing RSA 674:41, II, which provides:
Whenever the enforcement of the provisions of this section would entail practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship, and when the circumstances of the case do not require the building, structure or part thereof to be related to existing or proposed streets, the applicant for such permit may appeal from the decision of the administrative officer having charge of the issuance of permits to the zoning board of adjustment in any municipality which has adopted zoning regulations . . . .
Blagbrough argues that RSA 674:41, II requires individual lot owners to seek building permits from the local zoning board of adjustment.
We do not construe statutes in isolation; instead, we attempt to do so in harmony with the overall statutory scheme. Soraghan v. Mt. Cranmore Ski Resort, 152 N.H. 399, 405, 881 A.2d 693 (2005). When interpreting two statutes that deal with a similar subject matter, we construe them so that they do not contradict each other, and so that they will lead to reasonable results and effectuate the legislative purpose of the statutes. Id.
RSA 674:41, II provides a method for an applicant suffering from practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship -- the conditions needed to trigger that provision -- to appeal a decision of a local administrative officer. RSA 674:41, I(c) does not conflict with RSA 674:41, II. Rather, it simply sets forth the procedure to be followed by those applicants who cannot, choose not, or need not, demonstrate a practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship. Accordingly, discerning no error, we uphold the trial court's interpretation of the statutory scheme.
VI. Damages
Blagbrough's final two arguments are that the trial court erred in: (1) ruling that A & T was not required to comply with RSA 231:40-:42 when it placed a timber road over Lot A-21-1; and (2) fashioning the remedy for damage caused to its well easement. We first provide some factual background, and then analyze Blagbrough's contentions.
The well easement is described earlier in this opinion. It contains an approximately 900-foot water line that runs from the well head on A & T's property to the residence on Blagbrough's property. The trial court credited the testimony of Alan Stevens, the principal of A & T, that this water line was broken accidentally because it was entangled in the roots of a tree that was removed during the construction of a road across Lot A-21. The road across Lot A-21 was constructed to facilitate tree removal and to provide access to Lots A-21-1, A-21-2 and A-30.
A. RSA 231:40-:42
Blagbrough argues that RSA 231:40-:42 (1993) required A & T to petition the selectmen before it created a right-of-way to remove timber via the road. In short, Blagbrough's position seems to be that the well easement operated to give it standing to privately enforce the provisions of RSA 231:40-:42. The trial court ruled that the requirements of RSA 231:40-:42 were not triggered because those statutes "cannot be read to require defendant to obtain a right-of-way from the selectmen to remove timber from his own land merely because plaintiff may have an easement to obtain well water from defendant's property. "
RSA 231:40 provides:
Upon petition, when it becomes necessary for the convenient removal of lumber, wood or other material, to pass through the lands of a person other than the owner of the land from which such lumber, wood or other material is to be removed, the selectmen of the town within which said lands are situated, in their discretion, may lay out a right-of-way through the land of any person for the purposes aforesaid, and, upon notice to and hearing of the owner of the lands, shall determine the necessity for and assess the damages occasioned by the laying out of such right-of-way, and such damages shall be paid by the person applying for such right-of-way before the same shall be open for use. Any person aggrieved by the action hereunder of the selectmen shall have the same right of appeal as provided by this chapter.
RSA 231:41, in turn, sets forth the conditions under which such a right-of-way may be used and discontinued. RSA 231:42 then sets forth the notice and hearing requirements that must be followed before the selectmen may lay out such a right-of-way, discontinue it, or award damages arising out of its use.
We hold that RSA 231:40-:42 do not provide a basis upon which Blagbrough may prevail here. Although RSA 231:40 provides an appeal mechanism for a "person aggrieved" by a decision of a board of selectmen laying out such a right-of-way, we have been provided with no such decision by the selectmen in this case. To the extent that Blagbrough seeks damages based upon an asserted violation of RSA 231:40-:42, it has not directed us to any statutory or other legal authority establishing a private right of action to seek both a declaration that RSA 231:40-:42 have been violated and damages. Nor does Blagbrough make any argument as to why we should find an implicit, private right to seek such a declaration and damages. Where there is no explicit or implicit private right of action to seek a declaration of the statute's violation, we will conclude that the statute does not do so. Cross v. Brown, 148 N.H. 485, 487, 809 A.2d 785 (2002).
B. Nature of Relief Granted
Blagbrough's final argument is that the trial court erred in requiring A & T to repair the portion of the well line that traverses A & T's property rather than ordering A & T to pay $ 3,260 in damages, an amount representing the cost of repairing the entire well line. Blagbrough contends that the trial court's decision constituted an improper award of equitable relief where an adequate legal remedy existed.
The propriety of affording equitable relief rests in the sound discretion of the trial court to be exercised according to the circumstances and exigencies of the case. Gutbier v. Hannaford Bros. Co., 150 N.H. 540, 541, 842 A.2d 64 (2004). Because the separation between law and equity is not sharp, courts in New Hampshire have broad discretion in exercising equity jurisdiction. Thurston Enters., Inc. v. Baldi, 128 N.H. 760, 764, 519 A.2d 297 (1986). We will uphold a trial court's equitable order unless its decision constitutes an unsustainable exercise of discretion. Gutbier, 150 N.H. at 541-42.
Several circumstances undermine Blagbrough's challenge to the trial court's exercise of discretion. For example, the damaged portion of the well line was located on A & T's property and the well line had not been used as a source of drinking water for the residence on Blagbrough's property since 1985. Further, the trial court found that the "water line was very old and was not in particularly good condition at the time it was accidentally broken by defendant. " The trial court also found that "[t]he line consisted of lead piping, which is no longer in use, and was not buried deep enough under ground to conform with modern practice. " It also bears noting that during trial and at the hearing on damages, Blagbrough took the position that this was an equity case -- not a law suit for damages. Under these circumstances, we cannot conclude that the trial court unsustainably exercised its discretion in ordering A & T to replace the portion of the line lying on its property rather than paying the amount it would cost to replace the entire 900-foot line.
VII. A & T's Cross-Appeal
Finally, we observe that A & T raised four issues in the notice of its cross-appeal but essentially argued only two in its brief. In its brief, A & T argued that the trial court erred in awarding a portion of Lot A-21-1 to Blagbrough by operation of the doctrine of adverse possession and in ruling that the Dimelings made a mistake in striking the canal easement paragraph from the deed to the Blagbroughs, arguments we already have addressed. To the extent that A & T's notice of appeal raises issues not addressed in this opinion, we deem those issues waived. See Colla v. Town of Hanover, 153 N.H. 206, 210, 890 A.2d 916 (2006) ("We . . . deem an issue waived when it is raised in a notice of appeal, but is not briefed. ").
VIII. Conclusion
Because we hold that Blagbrough did not satisfy the criteria to acquire a portion of Lot A-21-1 by adverse possession, we remand to the trial court for the entry of an order consistent with that determination. In all other respects, we affirm.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part; and remanded.
BRODERICK, C.J., and DALIANIS and GALWAY, JJ., concurred.


Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Pentax K200D.
While you're there, true resolution is 10.2 mp and autofocus is 11-point phase.
This camera has extensive weather sealing and sensor cleaning. Even Wikipedia has that information!
Thanks for pointing that out, we'll fix that up!


Scope: A large collection of material collected by Nigel and Mary Hudleston reflecting their interest in folk songs, calendar customs, folklore and traditional drama and dance, including sound recordings, notes, newspaper cuttings, photographs, cine film and colour slides.
Nigel and Mary Hudleston collected original recordings of folk songs from Yorkshire and Ireland in the 1950s and 1960s: Songs of the Ridings – a collection of Yorkshire folk songs – was published in 2001 after Mary Hudleston's death. It is for their interest in Yorkshire songs that the Hudlestons are best known, and newspaper articles and a BBC Radio 4 programme have concentrated on this aspect of their work. However, the Hudleston Collection contains not just their field recordings and notes, but also newspaper cuttings, cine film, photographs, and almost 4,000 colour slides recording folklore, calendar customs, and traditional drama and dance. The Collection also includes 37 pottery figures depicting characters from folklore and calendar custom commissioned by the Hudlestons and created by Monica Devey.
Nigel Hudleston was born in 1915 into a landowning family and spent his childhood at Rillington, near Malton in North Yorkshire. He graduated with a B.A. from Trinity College Cambridge and inherited Cayton Hall, at South Stainley near Harrogate, in 1943. He moved in during the 1960s, after he married Mary (Robinson), the daughter of a Wharfedale farmer. Nigel Hudleston died in December 2006 at the age of 91.
In the 1940s, Mary Robinson (born in 1918) had set up a project to collect folk songs while she was working as an infant school teacher in Bradford. Nigel Hudleston was taken on as a male chaperon for her visits to record folk singers in pubs. For over 20 years, the couple travelled throughout Yorkshire and beyond, recording local folk songs and singers, but also collecting material relating to many other local customs and activities. Mary Hudleston died in 1986.
The collection was donated to the National Centre for English Cultural Tradition at the University of Sheffield in 2001, and transferred to the Special Collections Department in the University Library in 2008.