664 IOWA DlOl'AirnvilONT OV AaKlOlH/rUUH 



Ono of the qnostions of groat iinportaiico at tl>is tiiuo is. can any city or 

 town oouncil coinpol a boo kooper to remove his apiary I'roin witiiin the 

 eorporate limits? It is impossible to t'ompletely answer this qnestion 

 bei'ause oL' the fact that wo had had very little law on this subjint and 

 there have been very few eases in which this question has risen, and in 

 those cases where the question has come up the courts have seldom sAiven 

 a direct opinion on the snbjet't. One engaged in the business of keeping 

 bees nuiy not rightfully keep his bees in a place upon his prtMuises so as 

 to annoy his neighbors. This rule was substantially laid down by the 

 New York Supreme Court in the early case of Ohnstcad vs. Kich. G N. Y. 

 Snpt., S2(), and many other courts have very closely followed this case 

 in the more recent decisions. The city councils of several cities have at 

 different times threatened to pass and have passed ordinances which uuide 

 the owning, keeping or raising of bees within the city's limits a nuisance 

 per se. Ordinances of this character have betMi held to be entirely too 

 broad hut the cases on record are very limited, .\bout the only case di- 

 rectly in point is the case of Vlark. vs. (Htj/ of Ai kadflpUia. Arkansas, re- 

 ported in the 52 Ark., 23, wherein that c(Hivt lield tlial: 



"Althougli bees may become a nuisaiu-o in ;i rHy, an onlinant't- whiili 

 makes the owning", keeping:, or raising (liein witliin the city liiuit.s a niil- 

 sauce wliether it is in fact so or not, is too broad and Is not valiil." 



The precedent established by the Arkansas court in this case is valua- 

 ble in that it is stimulating good law for the protection of tho boo 

 UiM^per and his property. 



