1902 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE. 



100 colonies. He had been advised by ex- 

 perienced friends in his vicinity to use a 

 frame the Langstroth size, but about half 

 an inch deeper, as this depth would give 

 better results. Well, this made me think 

 of the bitter battles they fought in Germanj' 

 before the standard frame was adopted, 

 some twenty years ago. The hives in use 

 there ranged between nine and ten inches 

 in width. Those defending the nine-inch 

 hive claimed great superiority over the ten- 

 inch hive. The nine-inch hive was better 

 adapted to the nature of the bee; all colo- 

 nies found in hollow trees were said to have 

 chosen a nine -inch cavity. Many other 

 claims were made. The defenders of the 

 ten-inch hive brought forth equally weightj^ 

 reasons that ten-inch was the proper and 

 most profitable width. The casual observ- 

 er thought they were splitting hairs, fight- 

 ing over an unimportant matter. It is so, 

 with such a slight difference in the depth 

 of a Langstroth frame of standard width. 

 So far as practical results are concerned 

 there is no difference whether the frame is 

 9 inches deep or 9>3 inches. In by far the 

 most cases it will be found an advantage to 

 use a standard frame, and that frame in 

 America is the Langstroth as made by the 

 different manufacturers in our land. Even 

 our friend Doolittle, who so long defended 

 the Gallup frame as the best, has come out 

 late years and says the Langstroth is just 

 as good for practical results. By all means 

 adopt the standard frame. We who went 

 into bees before we knew what was going 

 on in our country, and made our own hives 

 of an odd pattern, and now have hundreds 

 of them, can see the size of our mistake, 

 and would give a great deal to have a change 

 made, if it were not connected with so much 

 work, etc. 



Naples, N. Y., Jan. 31. 



THE BEE IN LAW. 



Keeping of Bees ; Damages — When and When Not 

 Recoverable. — Article 6. 



BY R. D. FISHER. 



1. Definition. — ^Damages are the indemni- 

 ty, recoverable by a person who has sus- 

 tained an injury, either in his person, prop- 

 erty, or relative rights, through the act or 

 default of another. 



2. General Principles. — Whenever an in- 

 jury is done to a right, actual perceptible 

 damage is not indispensable as the founda- 

 tion of an action; but it is sufficient to show 

 the violation of the right, and the law will 

 presume some damage. 



But no damages are recoverable for a 

 mere inconvenience attending the existence 

 of a public benefit; or for any lawful act 

 lawfully done, which, if causing damage, 

 is darnnuin absque injuria; or for any act 

 causing no legal injury, which is injuria 

 sine damno; or for an injury caused whollj- 

 or in part by the complaining party's own 

 wrongful act, default, or negligence. 



3. Nominal Damages. — Proof of the vio- 

 lation of any legal right entitles the injur- 

 ed party to some damages. If no actual 

 damages appear, nominal damages are 

 given for the technical injury. 



4. Substantial Damages.— -WhevG actual 

 injurj' and the violation of a right are 

 proved, substantial damages may be award- 

 ed as compensation to the injured party, 

 and in certain cases as punishment to the 

 wrong-doer. In arriving at the proper 

 amount of damages the courts follow de- 

 fined rules. 



5. Remoteness. — Immediate or consequen- 

 tial damages may be considered. No one 

 is held responsible for all the consequences 

 of his acts or defaults, but only for those 

 which the law considers the natural conse- 

 quences. These are either the direct con- 

 sequences or they are indirect. For all di- 

 rect consequences, whether they are such 

 as inevitably ensue, or such as have natu- 

 rally ensued in the particular case, the 

 person guilty of the cause is held absolute- 

 ly liable. Such damages as the cause pro- 

 duced naturally but indirectly are called 

 consequential. 



In case of tort not involving malice, dam- 

 ages ma}' be recovered, not merely for the 

 direct consequences, but for such indirect 

 results as might reasonably' be expected to 

 ensue by a person of ordinary intelligence, 

 or for all the natural consequences of the 

 wrongful act. 



6. Personal Property; Trespass. — For as- 

 liortation or destruction of his personal 

 property, so that the owner is wholly de- 

 prived of it, he is entitled to recover its 

 value at the time of the trespass. This is 

 the measure of damages for the entire loss 

 of the property. For an injury to it there 

 is a right to a proportionate recovery. 



The measure of damages for the conver- 

 sion of property is the value of the property 

 at the time and place of conversion. The 

 element of damage to be considered in case 

 of injury to the person is, the plaintiit's 

 time of loss from business or employment; 

 his loss of capacity to perform the kind of 

 labor for which he' is fitted; expenses for 

 medical services, nursing, and mental and 

 physical pain. The same rule will apply 

 to injuries to animals. 



We have set out the above principles of 

 damagesforthepurposeof discovering, if pos- 

 sible, under what branch or branches dam- 

 ages may be recovered for injury or losses in 

 consequence of keeping bees. In a previ- 

 ous article we reviewed the causes of dam- 

 ages growing out of the nuisances commit- 

 ted by bees. In this article we desire to 

 review the rules regarding the bee as a 

 trespasser. One who feels aggrieved by 

 reason of trespassing bees may bring an 

 action against the owner for damages, and 

 may recover upon proper proof and identifi- 

 cation of the trespassers for their original 

 act of destruction; and successive actions 

 may be brought to recover for damages for 

 the continuation of their wrongful trespass- 

 ing; but in all these cases damages are es- 



