THE AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL. 



713 



condition more surely tlian any other 

 plan. Mr. Allen Pringle has recently 

 defined what we want to bring about, 

 very happily, as follows : " The 

 quiescent condition bees assume por- 

 tions of the time in healthy winter quar- 

 ters. (The italics are mine.) Given 

 the "healthy winter quarters," with 

 plenty of stores in them, and the work 

 is done. Then we may cry " Eureka 1" 

 Nothing will remain for us and our 

 bees to do. hut " rest and be thankful." 

 Guelph, Ont. 



For tue American Bee Journal. 



The Sheep-Bees Lawsuit. 



C. A. HATCH. 



The " complaint " in the above suit 

 reads as follows : 



State of Wisconsin— Kichland County. 



A. J. PowEKS, Plaintiff, 



.f 



Circuit Court. 



S. I. Freeborn. De/endant, 



The complaint of the above-named 

 plaintiff, A. J. Powers, by Brooks & 

 Dutcher, his attorneys, respectfully 

 shows to this Court and for cause 

 of action alleges — 



That he is the owner in fee and in 

 the sole possession and occupancy of 

 and ever has been since the first day 

 of May, 1881, of the south }4 of the 

 southwest }4. and all that portion of 

 the northwest J4 of the southwest of 

 section 9, that lies east of Willow 

 Creek, and the southeast }4 of the 

 southeast M of section 3, all of which 

 land is in Township No. 10, north of 

 Range 2 east, in the County of Rich- 

 land, State of Wisconsin. And the 

 plaintiff so being the owner and in the 

 possession of said land has, during all 

 that time owned and kept a flock of 

 blooded sheep thereon of an average 

 of 125 in number, and kept said 

 sheep for the purpose of sale at any 

 and all times, and said sheep being of 

 the value of |2,.500 ; and during all 

 that time has pastured said flock of 

 sheep upon said lands above described. 



That the grass which was grown 

 upon the said lands upon which said 

 sheep were pastured during the sum- 

 mer and autumn months of each year 

 was almost wholly white clover, and 

 during the greater portion of said 

 times was covered with blossoms ; and 

 that the plaintiff was compelled to 

 pasture said sheep upon said lands, it 

 being the -only suitable pasture in 

 which he could keep them during the 

 summer and autumn months of each 

 of said years to-wit : The summers of 

 1881, 1882, 1883 and 1884. 



That during all the time the plaintiff 

 so owned and occupied said land and 

 so pastured his said sheep thereon as 

 above set forth, the said defendant 

 upon lands adjoining and adjacent 

 thereto kept several colonies of bees 

 numbering in all from 200 to 300. 



The plaintiff further alleges that by 

 reason of the defendant keeping all 

 of said bees so near said premises of 

 the said plaintiff' they entered in such 

 vast numbers upon the said premises 

 of said plaintiff, and his said pasture 

 where said sheep were kept, that said 



sheep were driven therefrom thereby, 

 and were forced to leave their feed 

 and go into the barn or elsewhere to 

 avoi(l said bees, and there remain 

 until said bees left the pasture for the 

 day ; and the said sheep were thus 

 deprived of their proper food and 

 became poor, unhealthy, and unfit for 

 market. 



The plaintiff further alleges that by 

 reason of said sheep being driven 

 from their food as before stated, by 

 said bees, became poor, weak and 

 feeble, and that the plaintiff was put 

 to great trouble and expense in taking 

 care of said sheep in furnishing extra 

 feed and grain to keep them alive, 

 and that the said sheep became so 

 weak and feeble by reason thereof 

 that many of them could not be 

 recruited, and died during the winter 

 to-wit : In the winter of 1882 and 

 18S3, 3.5 sheep died ; in the winter of 

 1883 and 1884, 7 sheep died. 



That said sheep in a good healthy 

 condition were worth at least §12 per 

 head. 



The plaintiff further alleges that 

 said defendant wrongfully and un- 

 lawfully so kept said bees, and know- 

 ingly and unlawfully suffered bees to 

 go upon the premises of the plaintiff, 

 as aforesaid, and to drive said sheep 

 from their food and pasture almost 

 daily during the summer and fall 

 months of said years of 1881, 1882, 1883 

 and 1S84 ; and that the defendant well 

 knew all the facts and circumstances 

 connected therewith. 



The plaintiff further alleges that by 

 reason of the wrongful acts of the 

 defendant above set forth, and by 

 reason of the said bees driving said 

 sheep from their said pasture during 

 all the said time, and the trespass of 

 said bees thereon, to-wit : upon the 

 said lands of said plaintiff and the 

 wrongs and injuries above set forth 

 and occasioned thereby, that he has 

 been injured and damaged to the 

 amount and value of $500. 



Wherefore the plaintiff demands 

 the judgment of the court against the 

 defendant for the said sum of $500 

 damages besides his costs and dis- 

 bursements in this action. 



Brooks & Dutcher, 



Plaintiff^ s Attorneys. 



Opinion of the Court — Judge Cleinentson. 



The Plaintiff, by attorneys, claimed 

 that bees may trespass as well as 

 other animals ; 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 other 

 nuisances are, etc. 



The Court— Is your claim for literal 

 trespass or for a nuisance V 



Plaintiff — It is a trespass that be- 

 comes a nuisance because of the vast 

 numbers of bees kept. 



The Court — Have you any authority 

 upon this matter V 



Plaintiff— We have none. 



The Court — If you proceed upon the 

 theory of nuisance, will you please 

 tell where the nuisance exists — will 

 you locate it i* 



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 com- 

 ing 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 recog- 

 nized 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 anything 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 nuisance, so the nature of the 

 damages may be determined. 



Plaintiff—The theory of the prosecu- 

 tion 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 methods of bee-culture the 

 multitude kept in one place vastly 

 exceeds those formerly 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 trespass. 

 Now if a man has a hive of bees and 

 it is trespass for them to go upon 

 others' property, he would be liable to 

 suit for trespass wherever a bee went. 

 It would fiU 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 prosecuted. 

 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 field. If we proceed,^ it 

 would be difticult to determine 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 complaint, the objection 

 must be sustained, and the plaintiff 

 may appeal from the ruling thereon. 



The defendant objected as sug- 

 gested, and the objection was sus- 

 tained by the Court, and the plaintiff 

 excepted. 



Richland Centre, p Wis., Oct. 31. 



