irTSrri^^-SCKJW ' 



State Bee-Keepers' Association. 79 



left some sweet uncovered and exposed, to attract it, and rarely then does it 

 enter a house. Those who thus invite it are guilty of contributory negli- 

 gence, and have no right to complain. 



"I am employed in this case by the American Union of Bee-Keepers, of 

 Chicago, 111., and this is the only known case in America of England where 

 a town has attempted to prohibit bee culture ; and this is a test case to 

 determine the extent of their powers. The burden of showing the nuisance 

 is on the city. Bailey's onus probandi, page 233, ib. page 460. 



"A city ordinance cannot be leveled at a mere private nuisance to one 

 or more persons. The nuisance must be public and general in its character, 

 and must be an actual nuisance. Horr & Bemiss, Sec. 252,254. 4 Black- 

 stone's Commentaries, 167. i Bishop Crim. Law, Sec. 243. Wood on 

 Nuisance, pages 24, 25, 26, 80, 8r, 82. Dillon on Municipal Corporation, 

 Sec. 308. 



"I undertake to say from a knowledge of the habits of the bee, that it 

 would be impossible for it to become more than a private nuisance, for 

 which the person injured has his remedy, as in case of injury from a vicious 

 animal. The nuisance must not only be public and actual, but substantial. 

 'It is not a mere trifling annoyance with which the law deals in public 

 nuisances,' but 'real, substantial injuries, that are calculated to offend the 

 sense of men of simple tastes and habits.' Conveniences are not balanced. 

 Wood on 'Nuisance,' page 81. 



"Even in those acts which are admittedly nuisances, an ordinance is 

 void and unreasonable' where it trenches on private rights and property 

 without corresponding public necessity. Thus, while slaughter houses may 

 be regulated, an ordinance is void which prohibits one from killing an 

 animal on his own premises, unless in a slaughter house— an attempt to 

 drive everybody to one slaughter house. Treford vs. People, 14 Michigan, 

 4r. Cannot compel removal of a steam engine from a city not per se a 

 nuisance. Baltimore vs. Palecke, 49 Md. 217. 33 American, 239. Nor can 

 a city require the owner of a theater to pay a police officer for attendance at 

 every performance. Waters vs. Leech, 3 Ark. no. In the last cited case, 

 Judge Dickinson, delivering the opinion of this court, says : 'The corporate 

 powers are not only limited, but must be reasonably exercised in sound dis- 

 cretion, and not only strictly within the limits of the charter, but in perfect 

 subordination to the Constitution and the general laws of land, and the 

 rights dependent thereon.' 



"In short, I refer the Court to Horr & Bemiss, on municipal police 

 ordinance. Sec. 131, for a full review of this point. 



"Where the instances are given wherein unreasonable ordinances and 

 those in violation of private rights are given, the ordinances must accord 

 with the Federal Constitution and laws, and with the legislation of the State. 



