Subject: more ctri background<br/>
Date: Jul 10, 2003 @ 16:15<br/>
Author: m donner (&quot;m donner&quot; &lt;maxivan82@...&gt;)<br/>
Prev&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Topic&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="10944.htm">Next</a>&emsp;[<a href="topic10936.htm">All</a> Posts]<br/>
<a href="10935.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Time&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="10938.htm">Next</a><br/>
<br/><br/>
<div id="ygrps-yiv-2055217926"><a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://tinyurl.com/gjlz">http://tinyurl.com/gjlz</a><br/>
fresh news account based on old boundary book traces ctri ruckus all the way <br/>
back to pequot war of 1638<br/>
so my earlier characterization of it as a tercentenary renewal was actually <br/>
65 years understated<br/>
<br/>
& a recent topozone search turned up 7 intermediate border markers including <br/>
5 roadstones within the 1840 bounds that define the primary dispute area<br/>
namely the 6 miles of state line between hopkinton & north stonington<br/>
<br/>
& since intermediate marks tend to reduce the breadth of the area of <br/>
potential disagreement<br/>
it seems at first sight that the 22 acres in dispute could be substantially <br/>
reduced or completely eliminated if these auxiliary points are allowed<br/>
<br/>
but they raise many questions i cant answer<br/>
<br/>
my guess is they are authentic bilateral installations<br/>
& of post 1840 but pre 1935 vintage<br/>
so unlikely to be disallowed<br/>
<br/>
at the same time<br/>
i have also seen late 20th century roadstones on ctri<br/>
which are probably bilateral replacements of earlier damaged bilateral <br/>
intermediate markers<br/>
so stone dates alone dont necessarily suffice to determine their validity<br/>
<br/>
but it is my belief that the unratified survey of 1935 thru 1941 is marked <br/>
only by humble copper discs & no standing stones at all<br/>
<br/>
the standing stones would have followed its ratification rather than <br/>
preceded it<br/>
<br/>
so the more i look at this whole mess<br/>
the more the present dispute seems like just a bunch of naive <br/>
misunderstandings about common border law by public officials on both sides<br/>
<br/>
gis tech is not going to override the locations of historic compact & <br/>
intermediate markers<br/>
<br/>
but from where else than such a blunder could those 22 acres have come<br/>
<br/>
so maybe i should just ask the officials which of all these markers they are <br/>
using for their tax maps<br/>
& go take a look for myself<br/>
<br/>
_________________________________________________________________<br/>
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*  <br/>
<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail">http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail</a></div>