Id. at 504-05, 363 A.2d at 198. Similarly in Hynes v. Whitehouse, 120 N.H. 417, 415 A.2d 876 (1980), we upheld an award of compensatory damages and noted several elements for which a plaintiff could receive compensatory damages. Id. at 421, 415 A.2d at 878.

Given the nature of the record in this case, findings of fact in favor of the defendant should be scrutinized with particular care. There are deficiencies presented by the record in this case; however, we will uphold a master's findings if they can reasonably be made based upon all of the evidence. Hynes v. Whitehouse, 120 N.H. 417, 421, 415 A.2d 876, 878 (1980). In the present case it is necessary to examine several interdependent findings by the master in order to evaluate his finding that the defendant did not exert undue influence over the plaintiff.

[3-5] In order to be liable for quintuple damages under RSA 539:1 (Supp. 1981), it must appear that the party's trespass to timber was done knowingly and willfully, and not through accident or mistake. Hynes v. Whitehouse, 120 N.H. 417, 420, 415 A.2d 876, 877 (1980). Although willfulness and knowledge are sometimes difficult to prove, the trier of fact may draw reasonable inferences from the evidence to support such a finding.

There is sufficient evidence in the record to support the master's finding that the defendant participated in some aspects of the management of the Candlelite. See Hynes v. Whitehouse, 120 N.H. 417, 421, 415 A.2d 876, 878 (1980). The agreement not to compete states that the defendant shall not "compete with the Buyers . . . either as owner . . . or otherwise."

A person cannot act willfully and unlawfully under Section 539:1 unless he acts knowingly and not through accident or mistake. See Hynes v. Whitehouse, 120 N.H. 417, 420, 415 A.2d 876 (1980). Thus, the Allens cannot be found liable under Count II unless the Moores prove that the Aliens knew that they had no right to cut down the Moores' trees.

The Defendants also seek compensatory damages for the cost of restoring portions of the Continental property that were either disturbed by Landry or that could cause erosion on the Continental property from runoff because of Landry's work on the Bel-Mor property. The Defendants cite Hynes v. Whitehouse, 120 N.H. 417 (1980) in support of their compensatory damages claim.Hynes relied on an older version of the timber trespass statute, RSA 539:1, which has since been repealed.

We have, however, usually interpreted the term to exclude an act committed under a mistaken belief of the operative facts. See, e.g., id.; Hynes v. Whitehouse, 120 N.H. 417, 420 (1980);R.J. Berke Co. v. J.P. Griffin, Inc., 116 N.H. 760, 764-65 (1976). Thus, for instance, in Ives v. Manchester Subaru, Inc., 126 N.H. 796, 801 (1985) (citation omitted), we stated, "A willful act is a voluntary act committed with an intent to cause its results. It is not, by contrast, an accident or an act committed on the basis of a mistake of fact.

We decline to do so. The factual determination of authorization in the present case depends upon the credibility of witnesses and the weight given to their testimony, as well as the reasonable inferences drawn from all the evidence produced at trial, and we see no reason to hold otherwise than that the master's findings are binding upon this court unless the record discloses insufficient evidence to support them. Hynes v. Whitehouse, 120 N.H. 417, 421, 415 A.2d 876, 878 (1980). Thus, the standard of review on appeal from a master's recommendation is not "`whether on the reported evidence, the members of this court would find as the master has found, but whether any reasonable man could so find.'" Brown v. Mary Hitchcock Memorial Hosp., 117 N.H. 739, 744, 378 A.2d 1138, 1141 (1977) (citation omitted).

BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 1434 (rev. 5th ed. 1979). It is not, by contrast, an accident or an act committed on the basis of a mistake of fact. See Hynes v. Whitehouse, 120 N.H. 417, 420, 415 A.2d 876, 877 (1980). Thus, "[a]n employer acts wilfully if, having the financial ability to pay wages which he knows he owes, fails to pay them.

We conclude that the master in this case had a reasonable basis for ruling that the defendants did not satisfy their burden of proving the elements of estoppel. See Hynes v. Whitehouse, 120 N.H. 417, 421, 415 A.2d 876, 878 (1980); Town of Nottingham v. Lee Homes, Inc., 118 N.H. at 442, 388 A.2d at 942. First, there is evidence indicating that material facts relating to the limited duration of the sign permit issued Mr. Tompkins were not concealed. Mr. Tompkins' permit expressly provides that it can be revoked at any time by the city.