1901 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE. 



685 



ing all the best honey territory of the United 

 States. The statement that we gave in our 

 last issue I think, therefore, was as nearly 

 correct as it is possible to make it after mak- 

 ing every effort to get all the information pos- 

 sible. 



A CORRESPONDENT asks if we have ever 

 seen drone brood affected by the disease 

 known as foul brood. Personally I have al- 

 ways been under the impression that this 

 malady is no respecter of persons ; but just at 

 this moment I can not be positive that I have 

 ever seen a case of rotten drone brood. If 

 there are any of our subscribers who have 

 found combs of worker brood that were badly 

 diseased, and in the same frames patches of 

 drone brood perfectly healthy, will they please 

 let us hear about it ? I can not believe that 

 the microbes would destroy the larvae of one 

 sex and leave those of the other untouched. 

 If they do, then it must be because the drone 

 brood has slightly different food, rendering it 

 immune. 



In our last issue and this, the Rambler 

 seems to have struck some of his happiest 

 veins of writing. As I went through Cali- 

 fornia some of my friends would say, " Why, 

 that man Rambler is an ordinary-looking sort 

 of a duffer, isn't he? One would not think, 

 to see and talk with him, that he could get off 

 so much fun in his writings." At other places 

 I heard a remark something like this: " Why, 

 when I saw Rambler I expected to hear him 

 talk funny all the time; but he didn't. He 

 talks kind o' quiet, and is just as sober as an 

 old deacon." But J. H. Martin hardly ever 

 goes through any territory without being rec- 

 ognized at once. "Why, this is Rambler, 

 isn't it?" and Mr. Martin, who introduces 

 himself as Martin, very modestly pleads 

 guilty. ' 



THE TAUNTON BEECASE ; BEES VINDICATED 

 AND DEFENDANT DISCHARGED. 



The following note, just received from W. 

 F. Marks, a Director of the National Bee- 

 keepers' Association, will explain itself : 



Mr. E. R. Root : — The Rochester bee-keepers win ! 

 See inclosed clipping from a Rochester paper. 



I notice that you are publishing a series of articles 

 on " The Bee in l,aw." I hand you herewith a copy 

 of a New York case. As the court wrote an extended 

 opinion, citing many authorities, I consider it one of 

 the most satisfactory court opinions in a bee way on 

 record. W. F. Marks. 



Chapinville, N. Y., July 22. 



This is the clipping to which Mr. Marks 

 refers : 



The celebrated case of Mrs. Eliza Taunton, charged 

 with keeping bees within the city limits in violation 

 of a city ordinance, was called in police court yester- 

 day morning. The arrest was made May 28t"h, and 

 since that time the case has been called and adjourn- 

 ments granted until both sides finally announced 

 themselves ready for trial. Attorney Callahan pros- 

 ecuted the case, and Attorneys Dutcher and Barhite 

 acted for the defense. 



The case was argued at some length a week ago. 

 Attorney Barhite declared that the ordinance was un- 

 constitutional, as it tended to give administrative pow- 

 ers to private individuals in a case where the law did 

 not work with equality to all. It was held that the 

 council had no right to so delegate such pow^ers, there- 

 fore the ordinance was invalid. 



On the other hand, Attorney Callahan cited the 

 barbed-wire ordinance as a sample of what could be 

 done in the line of administration by consent. The 

 court requested the attorneys to file briefs, which was 

 done. 



Yesterday Attorney Barhite made a motion for the 

 discharge of Mrs. Taunton, and the motion was grant- 

 ed. The court agreed with the attorney that the council 

 had exceeded Us rights in granting administrative 

 powers to private citizens, and for this reason the or- 

 dinance was said to be invalid 



The ordinance says that no person shall keep bees 

 within the city limits, and at the same time provided 

 that if the consent of all the people within 100 feet of 

 the place where the bees are kept isobtained.it is 

 within the law to keep bees. This delegation of pow- 

 er on the part of the council was the part which Judge 

 Ernst thought made the ordinance void. 



Next follows the decision, which is very 

 full, and so valuable that I place it before our 

 readers in its entirety. I will have copies of 

 this struck off, and furnished to the General 

 Manager of the Association, who can use 

 them in other cases that may arise. 



SUPREME COURT, STATE OF NEW YORK — EARL VS. 

 VAN ALSTINE. 



One who owns or keeps an animal of any kind be- 

 comes liable for any injury the animal may do, only 

 on the ground of some actual or presumed negligence 

 on his part. 



It is essential to the proof of negligence, and suffi- 

 cient evidence thereof, that the owner be shown to 

 have had notice of the propensity of the animal to do 

 mischief. 



Proof that the animal is of a savage and ferocious 

 nature is equivalent to proof of express notice. In 

 such cases notice is presumed. 



The owner of dees is not liable, at all events, for any 

 accidental injury they may do. 



Where, in an action against the owner of bees for 

 an injury done by them to the plaintiff's horses while 

 traveling along the highway past the place where the 

 bees were kept, it appeared that the bees had been 

 kept in the same situation for eight or nine years, and 

 there was no proof of any injury ever having been 

 done by them, but, on the contrary, witnesses resid- 

 ing in the neighborhood testified that they had been 

 in the habit of passing and repassing the place fre- 

 quently, without having been molested. It was held 

 that this rebutted the idea of any notice to the defend- 

 ant, either from the nature of bees or otherwise, that 

 it would be dangerous to keep them in that situatit n, 

 and that he could not be made liable. 



This action was commenced in a justice's court. 

 The complainant alleged that the defendant was the 

 owner of 15 hives of bees, which he wrongfully kept in 

 his yard adjoining the public highway, and that the 

 plaintiff's horses, while traveling along the highway, 

 and passing the place where the bees were kept, were 

 attacked and stung so severely that one of them died 

 and the other was greatly injured, etc. The answer ■ 

 denied the charge contained in the complaint. 



Upon the trial, the keeping of the bees as alleged, 

 and the injury to the horses, were proved, and the 

 plaintiff recovered judgment for $70 2.5 and costs. 

 Upon appeal to the county court of Wayne County 

 this judgment was reversed, and the cause was brought 

 to this court by appeal from the judgment of the 

 county court. 



Bv the court, Selden, J. This case presents two 

 questions : 1. Is any one who keeps bees liable, at all 

 events, for the injuries they may do? and, 2. Did 

 the defendant keep these bees in an improper manner 

 or place, so as to render him liable on that account? 



It is insisted by the plaintiff that, while the propri- 

 etor of animals of a tame or domestic nature, domita- 

 natures, is liable for injuries done by them (aside from 

 trespasses upon the soil), only after notice of some 

 vicious habit or propensity of such animal : that one 

 who keeps animals fercr natures is responsible at all 

 events for any injuries they mav do ; and that, as bees 

 belong to the latter class, it follows, of course, that 

 the defendant is liable. 



In order to determine this question, upon which no 

 direct or controlling authority exists, that I have been 

 able to find, it becomes necessary to look into the 

 principles upon which one who owns or keepsanimals 

 is held liable for their vicious acts. It will be found, 

 on examination of the authorities upon the subject, 

 that this classification of animals by the common law^ 

 into a.niraa\s/erc€ naturce and domitcE naturae has ref- 



