Annual Meeting - 1960

1. The formation of a body to be known as The Thorndike Pond Association.
2. That said body be authorized to hire counsel for a thorough and business-like investigation of the water rights issue,

• A precise description of the flowage rights held by the present Peterborough wills, Inc., (wholly-owned subsidiary of Hargo Woolen Kills, Inc. of Keene)
• Any precedents established by a NH. Court in which a land­owner was able to overcome or mitigate a bad water situation.
• The possibility of purchasing the water-rights, and our own obligations regarding the waterway in event of purchase.
• The possibility of Thorndike land-owners reimbursing the mill for electric power it must buy if the Pond is not drawn until after Labor Day.
• A study of the usage of our water at the mill to determine the extent of wastage (known to be considerable) and to work out means by which the opening of the dam might be coordinated more accurately with actual mill demand. The possibility of our installing our own dam operator is also to be considered.
• Any and all legal methods by which we as land-owners can bring about more favorable control of the dam, including resource, where applicable, to such state bodies as Health Dept, Fish & Game, Tax Commission, Water .Resources Board, and officials con­cerned with conservation.

• Frederick T. Ernst - President
• Fred W. Hust Jr – Vice-President.
• Robert P. Hadley – Treasure
• Jane K. Ernst - Clerk

1. Deed searches delving into antiquity can become very expensive, and unless the information proves to be vital, it is probably unnecessary for us to locate the very first deed involving Thorndike flowage rights. Whenever it occurred, we know it preceded 1838, for a dam of some kind existed in the present location on this date. Actually, two dams were in existence in l838, the other one most probably down below on the outlet stream.
2.  In 1885, the main dam was either replaced completely or built higher, for new flowage rights were then deeded to the existing mill (Phoenix) by a large Dublin and Jaffrey land-owner named Abbott.   Mention of the other dam has ceased by this time, so it is presumed to have been destroyed or neglected.
3. Mr. Abbott, who owned all of Thorndike's Dublin shore-line plus a good stretch of the west shore in Jaffrey, raised cattle and used the environs of the Pond for grazing. As might be expected, his interest in the water of the Pond was the exact reverse of ours. He naturally wanted the water kept low to maintain his best grazing area, for sporadically inundated land was of doubtful value to him, albeit the coming and going of the "tide" did produce an excellent type of feed grass. At any rate, he stipulated in the 1885 deed that the water was not to be raised higher than the altitude of an iron bolt in a rock near the dam. A search is being made for this bolt (or its hole) in event that its presence may be important.
4. The legal precedent by a N.H. court hoped for in our outline to Mr., John Goodnow not only exists but in a most helpful and un-appealable form. The case of Chapman (shorefront landowner) vs. Newmarket Mfg. Co. (flowage rights owner) came before the N.H. Supreme Court in 1908. It is a complicated case to describe, but in brief, Mr. Chapman's accus­ation held that the mill had "unreasonably used the water.... by impro­perly managing the dam." The mill contended that "because its deeds of flowage rights are absolute in form, the right conveyed is without limitation, so far as the servient estate (Chapman) is concerned." The Court subsequently ruled in favor of Mr. Chapman, making the follow­ing pronouncement, among others: "There is no presumed grant of the right to exercise the easement (i.e. the flowage rights) in an unn­ecessary and unreasonable manner. The right of the easement owner (the mill) and the right of the landowner are not absolute, irrelative, and uncontrolled, but are so limited, each by the other, that there may be a due and reasonable enjoyment of both. The right is not to be exercised arbitrarily whenever the one entitled to exercise it thinks proper or sees fit, but only when there is a reasonable necess­ity for its exercise." These words by the Supreme Court of N.H. are law in final form, subject perhaps to interpretation, but not to app­eal. In short, we have in our possession some mighty powerful ammun­ition should the issue ever come to the point of contest. In fact, it now seems almost sure that we would come out ahead should it become necessary for us to take the issue to court.
5. Mr. Goodnow and the writer feel at this time that a solution to the water problem is highly probable short of a legal contest. His plan is to assemble as much background information and ammunition as poss­ible for presentation to Mr. Erskine along with the several remedial proposals already outlined above. If all goes well, an equitable arrangement should result; if, on the other hand, the mill wants to stand stubbornly on its "rights," presumably to avoid a precedent which might start trouble at other ponds, then we will not hesitate to put our case in final form for the courts. The writer will keep Assoc­iation members informed of developments from time to time in the coming months.
6. Regarding the question of forming a non-profit corporation. Mr. Goodnow does not feel this to be really necessary unless the Assoc­iation is to own property such as water rights or real estate. Should such a situation ever appear imminent, incorporation could be effected in a matter of a week or ten days, so it is Mr. Goodnow's advice to wait awhile and see what develops.