However, prior to oral argument this motion was withdrawn with prejudice and is not before us. [1, 2] According to the provisions of RSA 541:13 the burden rests on the appealing parties to show, by a clear preponderance of the evidence, that the determinations of the PELRB complained of are unjust or unreasonable. Otherwise, except for errors of law, we cannot set aside the PELRB's decision. Hanaway v. State, 116 N.H. 124, 352 A.2d 715 (1976); Hampton Nat'l Bank v. State, 114 N.H. 38, 314 A.2d 668 (1974). The PELRB was recently established (Laws 1975, ch. 490) as the agency responsible for applying the provisions of the Public Employee Labor Relations Act, RSA ch. 273-A (Supp.

The Bedford Bank also argues that the board erred in granting the application to the Amherst Bank Trust. The standard of review over the decisions of the Board of Trust Company Incorporation is set out in RSA 541:13. The board's order must be sustained unless the clear preponderance of the evidence establishes that the order is unjust or unreasonable. Hanaway v. State, 116 N.H. 124, 352 A.2d 715 (1976); Sugar River Sav. Bank v. State, 115 N.H. 145, 335 A.2d 663 (1975). The board's findings of fact on questions properly before the board are prima facie lawful and reasonable. RSA 541:13; Hampton Nat'l Bank v. State, 114 N.H. 38, 314 A.2d 668 (1974).

The Board may also in the interest of bank safety, which as pointed out in the Missouri case law was the primary purpose of the 1941 banking amendments, require additional capitalization. Under a New Hampshire statute (N.H. RSA 392:25) substantially the same as ours, the New Hampshire Supreme Court in Hanaway v. State, 352 A.2d 715, 716 (1976) held: "Under the statute the board could reasonably require greater capital where doubt existed regarding the profitability of the proposed trust company." So also the Missouri Banking Board has like power.