m 



GLEAMkNGS l^ likk CULTUiiK. 



mentioned. May be we shall never succeed 

 in making it practicable ; still it seems to 

 me as if we ought to. The cover to your 

 hive is substantially the same as Ileddon's. 

 Your method of making a slatted honey- 

 board, I think, is more expensive than to 

 cut suitable perforations in the board— at 

 least so far as expense is concerned. Even 

 if we don't adopt these various devices, I 

 think it is an excellent plan to take a look 

 at them, and consider well what is being 

 done. 



THE SHEEP-BEES LAWSUIT. 



all's well that END.S WELL. 



E extract the following from the 

 A. B. J. of Nov. 4 : 



The sheep-bees lawsuit was "called " at 

 the Circuit Court in Richland Centre, Wis., 

 on Wednesday, Oct. 28, 1885. It was dis- 

 missed by Judge Clementson, who decided that 

 there " was no cause of action," and the jury was 

 discharged. It may be argued before the Supreme 

 Court, and should that Court determine that there 

 is a " case," then it may come to trial on the ruling- 

 of the Supreme Court. The Bee-Keepers" Union 

 made such a stir, and showed such fighting enthusi- 

 asm in the matter, that the Judge made a thorough 

 examination of the laws of the State and concluded 

 that there existed no laws or rulings upon which he 

 Could instruct the jury. 



We think that the bee-keepers of America have 

 cause for pride in the success that has, -so far, at- 

 tended their efforts in this matter. 



We shall watch the matter closely, and check- 

 mate any move that may be made by the complain- 

 ant, and now, at the close of the first combat, let us 

 all jubilate. 



Since this matter is so happily disposed of, 

 we presume the bee-friends of tlie world at 

 large may now take a long breath, and settle 

 down easy— at least so far as any trouble on 

 this score is concerned. Instead of lying 

 awake nights, deciding as to whether^or not 

 they shall give up the business, Ave presume 

 they will get all ready for next season's oper- 

 ations, with a broad smile on their counte- 

 nances, not unlike the friend below. 



"(J()-()-D M-O-R-N-I-N-G." 



Below is an extract taken from a proof- 

 sheet kindly sent us by the editor of the 

 A. li. J.: 



OpinioM iiftlie Cnvrl-.JiKlur CUmnitsnti. 



The Plaintiff, liy attorneys, clainu-il ttuit bees may 

 trespass as well as otiicr aniiimls; that the bees 

 of defendant came upon the premises of plaintiff 

 and drove the sheep from the pasture; that 

 it became a nuisance that should be abated, as oth- 

 er nuisances are, etc. 



The Court— Is your claim for literal trespass or 

 for nuisance? 



Plaintiff— It is a trespass that becomes a nuisance 

 because of the vast number of bees kept. 



The Court— Have you any authority on this mat- 

 ter? 



Plaintiff— We have none. 



The Court— If you proceed upon the theory of 

 nuisance, will you please tell where the nuisance 

 exists— will j'ou locate it? 



Plaintiff— The bees were kept upon defendant's 

 premises, and by him upon a farm joining plaintiff's 

 premises, and they became a nuisance by coming 

 upon the plaintiff's premises in vast numbers. 

 This nuisance should be abated, as a bad stench 

 should. 



The Court— The stench is essentially bad, and may 

 become a nuisance by being blown by the wind— it 

 depends where it is located. Bees are recognized 

 as useful. If you proceed upon this theory it will 

 establish a new line of liability, and it is advisable 

 at the outset to find its exact course. 



Plaintiff-It is the maxim of law, that one person 

 shall keep his own property so it shall not injure 

 others. We claim that the defendant kept bees 

 that injured the plaintiff's sheep— drove them from 

 the pasture so they became weak and feeble, many 

 of them dying during the following winter. 



The Court— You do not allege that the bees stung 

 the sheep, nor do you allege that they took any 

 thing from the clover of value to the sheep— you 

 simply assert that the sheep were driven from the 

 pasture by the bees. We must understand whether 

 you proceed upon the theory of trespass or of nui- 

 sance, so the nature of the damages may be deter- 

 mined. 



Plaintiff— The theory of the pi-osecution is that of 

 trespass. The presence of the bees upon the 

 plaintiff's premises was voluntary. The nuisance 

 lay in their vast numbers. By the new meth- 

 ods of bee culture the multitude kept in one 

 place vastly exceeds those foi-merly kept. The bees 

 are moved from place to place in quest of pasturage. 



The Court— A man may pass over his neighbor's 

 farm a dozen times, and he does not bring suit for 

 traspass. Now if a man has a hive of bees, and It is 

 ti-espass for them to go upon others' property, he 

 would be liable to suit for trespass wherever a bee 

 went. It ivuuld fill the courts'. Every bee-keeper 

 would have a " peck of trouble!" It would seem 

 that if the sheep were driven from the pasture in 

 the summer they might have been fed up in the 

 fall to recruit them for the winter. I can see that, 

 upon your theory, even flies would in certain cases 

 become a nuisance for which a man might be pros- 

 ecuted. Suppose the owner of a cane or sugar 

 mill should locate it near a neighbor's property, 

 and vast swarms of flies came to feed on the sweets, 

 they might be a nuisance to stock in an adjoining 

 Held. If we proceed, it Mould be difficult to deter- 

 mine the extent of damages. 



This case involves new points in law upon which 

 there are no rulings of the Supreme Court. We 

 have no law upon which to instruct a jury. I 

 have made some Inquiries to satisfy myself. As we 

 must look to the Supreme Court for rules of law, it 

 is better that this case be sent there at once. If the 

 defense objects to any evidence under this com- 

 plaint, the objection must be sustained, and the 

 plaintiff may appeal on the ruling thereon. 



The defendant objected as suggested, and the ob- 

 jection was sustained by the Court, and the plaint- 

 iff' accepted. 



HOW FAR WILL A QUEEN ELY TO 

 MEET THE DRONE? 



ANOTHEH EXCSliDINGLY VALU.4BLE CONTRIBUTION 



TO OUH UEE-HTEKATUHE, FRO.M FKIEND 



MAKCH. 



DON T think that fact has been established yet; 

 r if it has, I have never seen it in print. I be- 

 lieve I established the fact, without the shadow 

 of a doubt, that worker-bees would, in a scarci- 

 ty of honey, fly fi or 7 miles, or even more, for 

 forage. See my articles in Gleanings for 1882, 

 April No., page 181; again, Dec. No., page ."«89. I 

 now have discovered how far a queen can fly, or, 

 rather, how far one has flown; or, I should say, 

 how far apart two hives can stand, and one furnish 

 queen and the other drones, and the queen become 

 fertile. Perhaps it would be interesting to some of 

 the readers of Gleanings to hear my experience 

 iu queen-rearing. 



