424 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTUEE. 



June 



If Brown tended to the bees to the best of his 

 ability, then they were Jones's bees that died, and 

 Jones will have to stand the loss. The following- 

 spring they will commence the season with] the 

 bees they had left from the previous year, if they 

 agree to keep on. 



Ohio. S. W. C. F. MUTH. 



Such a question is very dilHcult to solve, especial- 

 ly as no evidence is given as to the locality where 

 the bees are kept ; yet if there are, not far from the 

 apiary of Jones, some competent bee - keepers 

 whose winter losses were much smaller than those 

 experienced under the management of Brown, it 

 would seem that the increase of loss was due to his 

 carelessness or lack of experience, and that he 

 ought to stand at least half of the loss. 



Illinois. N. W. Dad.a.nt & Son. 



Unless gross carelessness on the part of the apia- 

 rist can be shown, the owner should stand the loss. 

 Bees are precarious property. If the owner him- 

 self, or any other man, had taken care of the bees 

 in this case, the result might have been the same. 

 Although my losses in winter are usually small- 

 less than 10%— I would not keep bees on shares for 

 any man on ordinary terms, and agree to stand 

 half the loss, or quarter of the loss, in wintering. 

 I should consider the risk too great. 



Illinois. N. C. J.A.Green. 



Jones, as a bee-keeper, undoubtedly knew the 

 liability to loss in wintering, yet he makes no pi-o- 

 visions to meet it in his contract. It is presumed 

 that Brown was under obligations to use reasona- 

 ble care on his part. Unless the loss was clearly 

 the result of gross neglect, unreasonable and inex- 

 cusable in Brown, I can not see why Jones should 

 have any claim upon him for the loss. But if 

 Brown permited this loss when he could have 

 averted it by care or labor on his part, he ought, in 

 justice, to have a share of it. 



Ohio. N. W. H.R. BOARDMAN. 



If I understand the matter. Brown would stand 

 all the loss if the bees were struck by lightning and 

 all burnt up. So Jones is not to share in any losses. 

 If, however. Brown is culpably careless, he must 

 pay for the resulting damage; not sharing the loss, 

 but paying all the damage. If the loss is partly 

 Jones's fault he should pay for that part of the dam- 

 age which results from his carelessness. It will 

 probably be a difficult matter at best to decide just 

 how far the loss has resulted from carelessness, 

 and I counsel that each man be willing to do a little 

 better than is right to his neighbor. 



Illinois. N. C.C.Miller. 



Not knowing more about the matter, it is impos- 

 sible to decide. I have an idea you are both to 

 blame for the loss. Brown may have taken away 

 too much honey and left the bees to starve in the 

 winter. In that case Brown should stand his own 

 half of the loss; then as Jones is the owner of the 

 bees, it is fair to suppose he had had more experi- 

 ence than Brown, and should have known the con- 

 dition of the bees in the fall, and advised Brown 

 what to do. If I had seen the bees in the spring 

 after the loss, I could then give an opinion; but 

 without any evidence whatever as to the cause of 

 the loss, I can not decide. 



Wisconsin. S. W. E. France. 



To decide this matter between Jones and Brown, 

 I guess we shall have to have them before us to 

 show or prove contract, for on the contract the 

 matter rests. Ordinarily, in such partnerships the 

 party owning the bees will have to take his chances 

 on hard winters and poor honey-seasons; but he 

 has a right to demand good and timely attention on 

 the part of bis tenant. If Brown properly cared 

 for the bees, and they perished through some pe- 

 culiarity of the season, Jones can not reasonably 

 claim their loss as a part of the expense. On the 

 other hand, were they lost through carelessness or 

 improper handling at the hands of Brown, Brown 

 should stand the loss resulting from his misman- 

 agement. 



Wisconsin. S. W. S. I. Freeborn. 



I should say that Jones was the loser, as no pro- 

 vision is made in the contract to cover such a loss. 

 Jones, it seems, is to furnish bees, and Brown to do 

 the work; and as there seems to be no willful neg- 

 lect or want of care on the part of Brown in car- 

 ing for the bees, Jones must stand the loss. I have 

 one apiary let out in this way for five years. At 

 the start I furnished 148 colonies, but I did not 

 agree to furnish more if they died, neither did my 

 man agree to keep the number good. In three 

 years the bees dwindled down to 28 colonies. I did 

 not ask the man to make the 148 good. I let him 

 the apiary with full confidence in his ability to 

 manage it. If he was not competent, I simply mis- 

 judged, and I must stand the loss; but bees some- 

 times die with the best of management. 



Vermont. N. W. A. E. Manum. 



As no contract was entered into about the losses, 

 it follows that neither can claim pay for loss of 

 any thing belonging to him, unless unquestionably 

 caused by the gross carelessness or criminality of 

 the other. This is a general rule covering all kinds 

 of property owned by either. It is implied, if not 

 expressed in all such contracts, that the apiarist 

 shall use due diligence and care with the other's 

 property; but the burden of proof is on the owner. 

 As there is a simple claim of carelessness on one 

 side and of denial on the other, it looks to me as 

 though Jones will have to stand the loss. My Iowa 

 apiary of about 150 colonies is rented on somewhat 

 similar terms, and we sustained quite a loss two 

 winters ago; but I never contemplated making any 

 claim for the same, except that new colonies next 

 year were all mine until the original number was 

 again secured. 



Cuba. O. O. POPPLETON. 



Well, well ! We are now in a responsible position, 

 but we will not shirk the responsibility. The ques- 

 tioner seems to admit, that, had Brown given prop- 

 er attention to the bees, the loss was to rest with 

 Jones, which is usually the case where bees are 

 taken on shares. Now, then, a question arises, and 

 a dispute between Brown and Jones, as to prop- 

 er attention being given the bees. Now, if Jones 

 has a claim against Brown because of malpractice, 

 as professor of apiculture, it seems to me that it 

 has nothing to do with the contract whatever. He 

 should sue him for damages; but it is a separate 

 deal altogether, as we see it. The division of the 

 honey should be made, and probably has been 

 made, and the question of the loss of the bees from 

 malpractice is a different thing. If the bees died 

 from starvation, I should think Jones would not 



