378 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE. 



May 1 



timated only to the date of the bringing of 

 each suit [loi N. V., 9S). 



CAPACITY TO TRESPASS. 



Courts judicially know that bees can not 

 be stabled as other animals are ; that to do 

 so would destroy their value as property. 

 If the owners of houses, grocers, and fruit- 

 dealers and fruit-raisers were not careless 

 in leaving attractions for them, bees would 

 commit no trespass. They would go to pas- 

 ture among forests, fields, and amid flow- 

 ers. But the grocers, fruit dealers, and 

 fruit-raisers say they are not required to 

 screen against bees if domesticated and re- 

 garded as property, that the law should 

 protect them from the ravages of trespass- 

 ing bees the same as from any other tres- 

 passing animals. This is true only in so 

 far as identification can be made positive. 

 The instinct of bees is well understood, but 

 their identification is difficult. The rela- 

 tion between fruit-growers and bee-keepers 

 is said to be somewhat strained. The for- 

 mer claim it to be fair to compel the bee- 

 keeper to feed his bees at home in seasons 

 when they would otherwise prove a nui- 

 sance and damaging trespassers to his 

 neighboringfruit-grower. Whether it would 

 or would not be possible to keep bees at 

 home by feeding them heavily is an open 

 question. But this plan would entail a 

 heavy tax upon the bee-keeper. Would it 

 be just to make the beekeeper pay this 

 when, quite likely, the cracked and rotting 

 fruit which the bee would take from the 

 neighbor's orchard has been produced, at 

 least has set, because of the labors in pol- 

 lination of these same bees? W^hen bees 

 find a fair supply of nectar in the flowers 

 within reach of the hive they prefer that to 

 fruit, and few bees then attack fruit. But 

 it is not at all sure that liberal feeding will 

 keep all of the bees at home, or nearly all 

 of them, from trying to get fruit sugar or 

 juices. 



The next suggestion is that of moving 

 awaj' if the cost would be less than feeding. 

 But can the bee-keeper get away from the 

 fruit-grower? If the extensive fruit-grower 

 can sue and collect damages for injuries to 

 the fruit on his 1000 trees, the owner of one 

 tree, and 1000 owners of trees within flying 

 distance of an apiarj' can also collect. If 

 an abundant bee-pasture happens to exist a 

 few miles away, the solution is easy and 

 moving is practical. But this is usually of 

 short duration ; civilization and improve- 

 ments, farms and fruit-gardens, soon fol- 

 low, and the cry is again, " Move on! " On 

 the other hand, it is claimed that the dam- 

 ages to fruit alleged to be due to bees is too 

 remote and uncertain ; and, as already 

 stated, the benefits from pollination are 

 equal to the damages. Few if any cases 

 have reached the higher courts, and the 

 judgments in the lower courts are largely 

 based upon actual damages proved, and 

 identification of the trespassing bees. 



INJURY TO PERSON OR PROPERTY. 



A small son of an Indiana farmer left the 

 team he was driving, near some bee-hives, 



while he chased a squirrel. The horses 

 backed the wagon into the hives, and the 

 animals were so badly stung that they 

 died. The boy was also stung so badly 

 that he lost the sight of one eye. It was 

 held that the boy's contributing negligence 

 occasioned the injury and resulting dam- 

 ages, and no recovery could he had. 



An Iowa farmer maintained a hitching- 

 rack at the roadside in front of his resi- 

 dence. Near by, but within his inclose, he 

 kept a number of stands of bees. A neigh- 

 bor voluntarily hitched his horses to the 

 rack. A swarm of bees settled upon the 

 animals, causing them to break the tethers 

 and run away. In their flight they collid- 

 ed with a team and vehicle going in an op- 

 posite direction, and both teams and vehi- 

 cles were damaged. It was held that the 

 hitching of the horses near the bees was a 

 voluntary act, and the attack by the bees 

 was too remote to justify a recovery from 

 the bee-keeper for the joint damages suffer- 

 ed by the owners of the wrecked outfits. 



In the case of Earl vs. Van Alstine (<? 

 Barbour, 6^0), the New York Supreme 

 Court held that the owner of bees is not lia- 

 ble, at all events, for any accidental injury 

 they may do ; that one who owns or keeps 

 an animal of any kind becomes liable for 

 any injury the animal may do, only on the 

 ground of some actual or presumed negli- 

 gence on his. part. It was alleged in this 

 case that defendant owned and wrongfully 

 kept fifteen hives of bees in his yard ad- 

 joining the public highway, and that the 

 plaintiff's horses, while traveling along- the 

 public highway, and passing the place 

 where the bees were kept, were attacked 

 and stung so severely that one died and the 

 other was greatly injured. A judgment of 

 $71 was appealed from, and the court, in 

 reversing this judgment, said: "In an ac- 

 tion against the owner of bees for an injury 

 done by them to the plaintiff's horses while 

 traveling along the highway where the bees 

 were kept, it appears that the bees had 

 been kept in the same situation for nine 

 years, and there was no proof of any inju- 

 ry ever having been done by them, but, on 

 the contrary, neighbors testified that they 

 had been in the habit of passing and re- 

 passing the place frequently, without hav- 

 ing been molested. This rebutted the idea 

 of any notice to the bee-keeper, either from 

 the nature of the bees or otherwise, that it 

 would be dangerous to keep them in that 

 situation, and hence he could not be made 

 liable." 



If damages be done by any domestic ani- 

 mal kept for use or cotivcnience, the owner 

 is not liable to an action, without notice 

 (/,- John, Rep., 339). The utility of the 

 bees no one will question, and hence there 

 is nothing to call for the application of 

 very stringent rules in their case. How- 

 ever, the question whether or not the keep- 

 ing of bees near a highway subjects their 

 owner to a responsibility which would not 

 otherwise rest upon him has not, to our 

 knowledge, been passed upon. 



