1886 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE. 



973 



way, and that the phiintifif's horses, while traveling- 

 along the highway, and passing the place where the 

 bees were kept, were attacked and stung by the 

 bees so severely that one o1' tlioin died and the other 

 was injured, etc. The answer denied the charge 

 contained in the complaint. Trial was had in jus- 

 tice's court, and judgment given plaintitt for $70.2.5, 

 and cost. This judgment was reversed in the 

 County Court, and from this judgment plaintiff ap- 

 peals to the Supreme Court. The two questions in- 

 volved, as stated by the court, wore: 



"1. Ts any one, who keeps bees, liable at all 

 events for the injury they may do V 



"\l. Did the dafendant kccj) these bees in an im- 

 proper manner or place, so as to render him liable 

 on that account ? " 



After a full statement of the case, and a critical 

 examination of the authorities, the judge says: 



"These authorities seem to me to point to these 

 conclusions: 1. That one who owns or keeps an 

 animal of any kind becomes liable for any injury 

 the animal may dn, only on the ground of some act- 

 ual or presumed negligence on his part. 2. That it 

 is essential to the ])rorif of negligence, and sufficient 

 evidence thereof, that the owner be shown to have 

 had notice of the propensity of the animal to do 

 mischief. 3. That ))roof that the animal is of a sav- 

 age and ferocious nature, is equivalent to proof of 

 express notice. In such cases notice is presumed. 



•• Having shown, then, as I tliink, clearly, that the 

 liability does not depend upon the classification of 

 the animal doing the injury, but upon its i)ropensity 

 to do mischief, it remains to be considered whether 

 bees are animals of so ferocious a disposition that 

 every one who keeps them nnder anj- circumstan- 

 ces does so at his peril. Jf it is necessary for the 

 plaintitr to aver and prove the mischievous nature 

 of the animal, nothing of the kind was done in this 

 case; but if courts are to take judicial notice of 

 things so familiar to man as bees, which, T suppose, 

 they would be justified in doing, then I would ob- 

 serve, that, however it may have been ancientlj', in 

 modern days the bee has become almost as com- 

 pletely domesticated as the o.\ or the cow. Its hab- 

 its and its instincts have been studied, and through 

 the knowledge thus acquired it can be controlled 

 and managed with nearly as much certainty as any 

 of the domestic animals; and though it may be 

 jiroper still to class it among the/era' iiaturrv (.wi\<l 

 by nature;, it must nevertheless tie regarded as 

 coming very near the dividing line; and in regard to 

 its propensity to mischief, I apprehend that such a 

 thing as serious injury to persons or property from 

 its attacks is very rare, not occurring in a ratio 

 more frequent, certainly, than injuries arising from 

 t he kick of a horse or the bite of a dog. 



"There is one rule to be extracted from the author- 

 ities to which I have referred, not yet noticed: and 

 that is, that the law looks with more favor upon the 

 keepingof animals that are useful to man than such 

 as are merely no.xious and useless; and the keeping 

 of the one, although in some rare instances it may 

 do injury, will be tolerated and encouraged, while 

 there is nothing to excuse the keeping of the o( her. 

 In the case of VrdDman vs. Laicyer H", John., 1 :!!)), \he 

 court says: 'If damage be done by any domestic 

 animal kept for use or cunvenience, the owner is not 

 liable to an action without notice' (of their being 

 vicious, etc.). The utility of bees, no one will ques- 

 tion; and hence there is nothing to call for the ap- 

 plication of a very stringent rule to the case. Upon 

 tlie whole, therefore, I am clearly of the opinion 

 that the owner of bees is not liable at all events, 

 for any accidental injury they may do. 



"The question is still left, whether the keeping of 

 these bees so near the highway subjects the defend- 

 ant to a responsiblity which would not otherwise 

 rest ui)on him. I consider this question as substan- 

 tiallj' disposed of by the evidence in the case. It 

 appears that the bees had been kept in the same 

 situation for some eight or nine years, and no proof 

 was offered of the slightest injury ever having 

 been done by them. On the contrary, some of the 

 witnesses testify that they had lived in the neigh- 

 borhood, and had been in the habit of passing and 

 repassing frequently, with teams and otherwise, 

 without ever having been molested. This rebuts 

 the idea of any notice to the defendant, either from 

 the nature of the bees or otherwise, that it would 

 be dangerous to keep tliem in that situation; and. 



of course, upon the principles already settled, he 

 could not be held liable. The judgment of the 

 County Court must be altirmed. .Tudgment af- 

 firmed." 



See this case in Thompson on yeyJ iijenve, ^'o1. I.. 

 pages is^-'s, and authorities here cited. 



The foregoing is probably sufhcient to elucidate 

 the principles of law specially applicable to the pe- 

 culiarities of these useful insects; leaving the other 

 more common principles of the law to be applied as 

 in other matters. liofore quitting the subject, how- 

 ever, we must remark that it is the best of wisdom 

 in such matters, as in all others, to avoid litigation 

 wherever and whenever substantial justice can bo 

 received oi- done, without the intervention of the 

 courts; for the law is, at best, hardly more than a 

 two-edged sword— eutting hoth ways. 



H.\RMON Smith, Esq., 



Ionia, Mich. Attorney and Apiarist. 



The above, although it does not touch the 

 qtiestion very much of bees and grapes, 

 serves to give us something of an idea of 

 what may be expected where we go to hiw 

 to settle these differences ; and T heartily in- 

 dorse the concluding words of frientl Smith, 

 reminding us that whoever decides to go to 

 law will probaV)ly find it a two-edged sword 

 indeed, and that Itoth partif;< will probably 

 get cut more or less. 



HOW TO WIN. 



BY OXK OF OUH BEE-KEEPING FRIENDS. 



■JTo RECENT number of The North icpstern con- 

 ofl>< tained a very appreciative notice of a royal 

 ■<J&lj' hook by a royal woman — " How to Win," by 

 ^L Frances E. Willard. The writer carefully 

 "*-"-^ read the chai)ters of this book as they ap- 

 ))eared in the Chautauquan. They were of 

 deep interest to her, Tiot only because they were 

 prepared by a dearly loved teacher, but also slio 

 iierself wit-hed to learn "how to win." It seems to 

 her that Miss Wibard. in telling the girls " how to 

 get on in the world." did not emphasize one fact 

 strong enough. Slie did not speak of the little 

 paths of opportunity leading directly from home to 

 liroader avenues. She did not tell them that, be- 

 fore they tried to climb into teaching, telegraphy, 

 type-writing, medicine, law, journalism, or litera- 

 ture, it would be well for them to find out whether 

 the first rounds of the ladder to success did not rest 

 just beneath or just above the sod of their own 

 dooryards. 



The windows of the room where these words are 

 written look into a strange little citj', where a cer- 

 tain girl of our acquaintance has found her king- 

 dom. Grass grows thick and unbroken in the nar- 

 row streets which never echo to the whistle of the 

 locomotive, the jingle of a street car bell, or the 

 roll of carriage-wheels. The small, queer houses 

 ditter in size, but in one thing they are all alike; 

 they have no windows and only one door. The 

 people who hourly pass from or enter these doors 

 are the most industrious on earth. In spite of the 

 fact that they are able to wear a suit of brown and 

 gold velvet trimmed with the most filmy and deli- 

 cate lace imaginal)!e, every day in the year, they 

 are not too proud to work for their living. They ab- 

 hor strikes, never waste a moment of time, and 

 loyally and royally giveto their young ruler enough 

 of the sweets gathered from a thousand flowers to 

 fill the capitol building. For this girl rules a king- 

 dom of bees, and her profession is that of a honey- 

 raiser. In learning how to win in this direction she 

 has not found it all sunshine, and there have been 

 times when slie feared she might be able to write a 

 chapter on blasted hopes, from practical experi- 

 ence. 



She began on two or three swarms, and the first 

 year yielded lessons learned only through failures. 

 She was very much afraid of bees, and they stung 

 her cruelly because she, in her ignorance, trampled 

 on their rights. The second year, both stings and 

 failures were less numerous, but the outgrowth of 



