972 



GLEANINGS IN UEE CULTUltE. 



Dec. 



makes, thei-e are few of them who care so little foi- 

 their wives' comfort as to let Uiotn ko on the rest 

 of their lives with aching arms, daily wrestling with 

 a broom. 



T haven't time .lUst now to write any thing lor 

 Gleanings; but if I had, I don't know but T should 

 try in some way to wake up the men on this sweep- 

 ing business. May be j-ou can do it. (Jail their at- 

 tention to the number of hours spent in sweeping; 

 get them to try it themselves; tell them how much 

 tine dust, bits of wool, etc., are breathed into the 

 lungs when the liroom is used, and which the car- 

 pet-sweeper keeps all to itself; the labor saved in 

 dusting, etc., not forgetting to let them know that 

 a broom must still be used ih corners which the oar- 

 pet-sweeper can not reach. If they can not get at 

 home such a one as you sell, the.\- had better pay 

 heavy carriage, atid buy one from you; for many 

 (if them are only a nuisance. I think I paid *;i 00 or 

 if-iM for one not half so good as yours. 



That lo-ceilt honey-knife is the tlnest thing I ever 

 tised for cutting out bits of comb, etc., while the 

 Colony is in the hive. C. C. Mit.fjEU. 



Marengo, 111. 



I'-riond M., I am very glad to be able to 

 piay to you and the other readers of Gle.an- 

 jNos, that the inaniifactitrers have made us 

 such an olter on carpet-sweepers for the 

 coming year, providing we purchase a very 

 large quantity duling the dull season, that 

 we can furnish a machine, greatlv improved, 

 for only $1.50, instead of $2.00. as heretofore. 



TfiE LA'W RELATING TO BEES, 



BO.METHING FKOM ONE OFOUH I-EGAri FRIENDS IN 

 REGARD 'to FORMEIt DECISION'S, ETC. 



fHERE are no statutes and but little law relat- 

 ing to bees as bees; therefore in treating of 

 the subject we must employ such of the 

 analogies as are to be found in the principles 

 relating to beasts and aiu'inals. 



OWNERSHIf. 



Tlie original source of ownership in law for these 

 Rnd all other things of property, is found in the first 

 chapter of Genesis, the 26th verse, whereby man is 

 given "dominion over the fish of the sea, and over 

 the fowl of the air, and over tho cattle, and over all 

 the earth, and over every creeping thing that creep- 

 eth upon the earth." This is the first great law 

 of proi)erty. * 



Following this, ownership in bees was first, and 

 Still Is, acquired by occupancy. Occupancy gave 

 the first (human) right to lands, movables, and bees, 

 and is the natural rational method, a piiori, of ac- 

 quiring title in them; and upon this principle ot 

 universal law this title continues so long as occu- 

 pancy continues.— 3d Kent Com., :i',4. This is the 

 basis of obtaining title to wild bees, by first reduc- 

 ing them to our possession, and subsequently keep- 

 ing them ill our custody. 



The other mode, of getting title through the oper- 

 ation of contract of sale and purchase, is too famil- 

 iar to need description; yet we find a few decisions, 

 mainly in the New i'ork courts, relating to this arti- 

 cle of property, from which we extract, by l)rief 

 quotations, the special points decided: 



"Although an unreclaimed swarm of bees belongs 

 to the first one who hives them, j'ct if a swarm lly 

 from the hive of a person, his qualified property 

 continues as long as he cati keep them in sight, and 



has power to folloAv them."— Jo Wend., ryoO. " And if 

 they are taken or destroyed by anothei', although 

 on his own land, an actioti of trespass (or trover) 

 mav be maintained against him therefor."— i Root, 

 ■Mf)': ', John., Id. 



" Wild lirrs, in a bee-tree, belong to the owner of 

 file soil where the tree stands." "Though another 

 discover the Vices, and olitain license from the own- 

 er to take them and mark the tree with the initials 

 of his own name, this does not confer tlie owner- 

 siiip upon him until he has taken actual possession 

 of the bees." " If he omit to take sucli possession, 

 the owner of the soil may give the same license to 

 another, who may take the bees without being liable 

 to the first finder." " Both parties having license, 

 the one who first takes possession acqtiires the 

 title."— isf Coiv., 243. 



If the first licensee pay for the Ijces, he would 

 have become the owner, as that event would have 

 changed the ownership of the property, as well in a 

 tree as if they had been in a hive. 



AT SWARMING-TIME. 



We may not only reclaim our bees so long as we 

 keep them in siglit, but may follow them upon our 

 neighbor's land, and retake— being responsible to 

 him for the actual damage— no more.^14 Wend., 237. 



DAMAGES FOR BEES IN HIVES. 



As this is the most fruitful source of discussion 

 and contention against keeping bees, we cite all the 

 authorities at hand, beginning at the earliest de- 

 cisions, and ending with the latest. 



"An injury received at iiight is only at the fault 

 of the partyiujured."— 3f. & M.,.'>0-). 



•■ Vicious animals may not be placed in or on the 

 approaches to the house, so as to injure persons 

 exercising a lawful purjiose in going along tliose 

 paths to the house." -If Kng. Com. L., p. :ifU. 



''Posted notice is advisable, and will put persons 

 ujion their guard, and make it at most their own 

 misconduct if injury comes of hitching teams, etc." 

 -('hit. PI. .82. 



"Owners of [irivate property are not liable for 

 injuries occurring, when those injured were upon 

 premises without permission, and not on business, 

 etc."— 35 Mich., 1. 



WORKING BEES ABROAD, IN STORES, ETC. 



In case of grocers and others dealing in honey 

 and other sweets, which naturally attract bees, and 

 by means of which the bees are destroyed, the own- 

 er of the bees may as well have action for injury to 

 his bees, as for the merchant to claim indemnity 

 from their annoyance, or pay for his sweets." 

 " Where an injury, of which a plaintiff cora]ilains, is 

 the result of his own fault or negligence (in un- 

 necessarily exposing his wares), or of the negligence 

 or fault of both parties, without intentional wrong- 

 on the part of the defendant, no action can be 

 maintained."— ,?d Mich., 2oV; 10, id., /.'«. 



IN FIELDS, VINEYARDS, ETC. 



In responding to allegations of injury in this 

 branch of the subject, the right "torecoupe" (to 

 cut again) is applicalile; and "in law this signifies 

 the right and the act of making a set-off."— Boiir. 

 Diet., 430. In law this is regarded as an equitable 

 right, and it would afford a fine case of litigation 

 to put such a case into a court of equity, and estal> 

 lish as a fact that more benefits were done by bees 

 to the blossoms of trees, vines, and grain, by the 

 distribution, etc., than in the supposed injury to the 

 mature fruit; yet such is the spirit of equity and 

 the oftice of recoupment. 



TN.IUIUES TO ANIMALS, ETC. 



Upon this point, the latest, fullest, and best adju- 

 dication to be found is in the case of Earic vs. Van 

 Alstine (S, Barbour's Reports, (130), being the unani- 

 mous decision of the Supreme Court of New York 

 as announced by Justice Samuel L. Sekieu. In this 

 cause the complaint alleged that the defendant was 

 the owner of fifteen hives of bees, which he wrong- 

 fully kept in his yard, adjoining the public high- 



