LAWS KELATING TO BEES. 297 LAWS RELATING TO BEES. 



wild animals, belonging to no one so long 

 as they are in their wild state, and property 

 in them is acquired by occupancy, hiving 

 and reclaiming only, and are not the subject 

 of larceny unless they are in the owner's 

 custody, as in a hive or bee-house, or other- 

 wise confined and within control of the 

 possessor or owner. 



FINDING BEE-TRBES. 



The Supreme Court of New York in the 

 case of Goodwin vs. Merrill said : "A man's 

 finding bees in a tree standing on another 

 man's land gives him no right, either to the 

 tree or bees; and a swarm of bees going 

 from a hive, if they can be followed and 

 known, are not lost to the owner, but may 

 be reclaimed." 



RECLAIMED BEES. 



If bees temporarily escape from the hive 

 of their owner, who keeps them in sight 

 and marks the tree into which they enter, 

 and is otherwise able to identify them, they 

 belong to him and not to the owner of the 

 soil. In such a case the property draws aft- 

 er it possession sufficient to enable the own- 

 er of the bees to maintain trespass and re- 

 cover damages against a third person who 

 fells the tree, destroys the bees, and takes 

 the honey, notwithstanding the owner of 

 bees himself is liable to trespass for enter- 

 ing on the land of anotlier for similar pur- 

 pose without authority. 



LICENSE. 



Where one discovers bees in a tree, obtains 

 a license from the owner of the soil to take 

 them, and thereupon marks the tree with 

 his own initials, he gains no property till he 

 takes possession of the bees, that is to say, 

 he must take them out of the tree. 



WHEN BEES ARE OR ARE NOT A NUISANCE. 



Strictly speaking, a trade or occupation, a 

 business or industry lawful in itself, and 

 which becomes a nuisance because of its lo- 

 cation, or the manner in which it is conduct- 

 ed, or the character of the animals or thing 

 is not a nuisance per se, though it may be a 

 prima-facie nuisance. 



Whether bees are a nuisance or not depends 

 on the evidence submitted to the court, and 

 in a broad way it may be stated that bees 

 are a nuisance when the plaintiff can claim 

 damages for injury either for himself or his 

 business. 



WHERE BEES MAY BE KKPT. 



This has been very clearly decided by the 

 courts. In case of Olmsted vs. Rich, before 

 the Supreme Court of New York, the evi- 



dence showed that the plaintiff and defend- 

 ant were neighbors, the latter keeping a 

 large number of hives of bees in a lot imme- 

 diately adjoining the plaintiff's dwelling, 

 and at certain seasons they were a source of 

 great annoyance to him and his family, and 

 also that they could be removed without 

 material difficulty to a place on the defend- 

 ant's premises where they would not disturb 

 the neighbors. The action was in the na- 

 ture of an injunction to prevent defendants 

 from maintaining their apiary at the place 

 above named. The court held that the case 

 was a proper one for a permanent injunc- 

 tion. In such action the issue was not as to 

 defendant's motive in keeping bees, nor 

 whether he had any knowledge of any vi- 

 cious propensities of the bees, but simply 

 whether the condition of things as then and 

 previously existing constituted a nuisance. 

 The court held affirmatively, and the bees 

 were ordered removed in order to abate the 

 nuisance. 



WHEN NOT A NUISANCE. 



The most celebrated case of this kind on 

 record is that of Clark vs. City of Arkadel- 

 phia, Arkansas (52 Ark. 23). The evidence 

 in this case showed that Clark, who had kept 

 bees in that city for a number of years, was 

 not in political harmony with those in 

 power, and the latter sought to punish him 

 and get rid of his presence by prohibiting 

 the keeping of bees within the corporate 

 limits of the city. Clark was ordered to 

 move his bees, but refused to do so, and liis 

 arrest and conviction by the city court un- 

 der the ordinance followed. He appealed 

 to the Circuit Court, the latter dismissing 

 the prosecution, and the State appealed to 

 the Supreme Court wherein it is held that, 

 " Although bees may become a nuisance in 

 a city, an ordinance which makes the own- 

 ing, keeping, or raising of them within the 

 city limits a nuisance, whether it is in fact 

 so or not, is too broad and is not valid.'' 



BEES MAY BE KEPT IN CITIES. 



In April, 1901, the council of the city of 

 Rochester, N. Y., passed an ordinance pro- 

 hibiting the keeping of bees within the city 

 1 inits. W. R. Taunton, who refused to re- 

 move his apiary, was arrested and brought 

 before a police court. The judge set aside the 

 ordinance and the defendant was discharged. 

 The latter was defended by the counsel of 

 the National Bee-keepers' Association. 



In the Butchers' Union Co. vs. Crescent 

 City Co. (Ill U. S. 746), Justice Fields says: 

 "The common businesses and callings of 



