288 LAWS THAT CONCERN THE BEE-KEEPER 



the use of the same building for the storage of gunpowder or other high 

 explosives could not be permitted. 



The common law, proceeding from fixed principles of universal appli- 

 cation, and developing from the growth of civilization, has, in each suc- 

 ceeding period, found ready adjustment to new subjects resulting from the 

 widening dominion of mankind over the creatures and forces of nature, 

 furnishing a ready remedy for every wrongful encroachment of one upon 

 the rights of another. In the times of the early law writers bees were most 

 generally known as they existed in their original state. Hence they were 

 called ferw naturw and classed as wild animals. A property right, or 

 at least a qualified property right, in them could be acquired by capture 

 which, in accord with the general rule concerning wild animals, existed 

 so long as the captor could hold them in possession. A distinction seems 

 always to have been made between the possession of animals ferocious and 

 those of gentler dispositions, and it was indictable as a nuisance to per- 

 mit an animal of known mischievous disposition to go at large. Bees, 

 however, seem never to have been regarded as ferocious or as likely to do 

 injury to persons or property, and in the far greater number of instances 

 in which they have been the subject of judicial consideration the questions 

 at issue have concerned the property interests in them. It is doubtful now, 

 however, if any court would denominate them as wild animals, in view of 

 the present general state of development of the industry of honey produc- 

 tion and the numerous instances of State legislation designed to promote 

 and protect the breeding and rearing of bees for that purpose. In the one 

 or two cases decided in American jurisdictions in which the question has 

 been presented, it has been determined, in accordance with the rule above 

 referred to, that the keeping of bees, even in large numbers and in towns 

 and villages, is not a nuisance per se. 



But greater interest, perhaps, centers in the question of whether or 

 not bees may be so kept as to constitute a private nuisance, and also 

 whether municipal corporations, as cities and towns, may restrain or 

 prohibit their presence within the corporate limits. In answering the first 

 proposition, it must be borne in mind that persons who dwell in urban 

 communities must of necessity submit to such restrictions upon their abso- 

 lute liberties that the dwelling of other persons therein shall be tolerable. 

 As it is the unreasonable or unwarrantable use of one's premises or prop- 

 erty, otherwise lawful, that contributes an essential element of a nuisance, 

 a first inquiry in any case would be directed to this point of reasonableness 

 of the use or occupation, and in determining this all of the surrounding 

 facts and circumstances would enter into the consideration. The presence 

 of one colony at a given point might be perfectly consistent with the due 

 observance of the rights of the owner of the next lot, while a colony stationed 

 at another point within the same distance would be obnoxious to the law. 

 Again, one colony at a, given place might pass unnoticed, while a nximber 

 of colonies at the same place would be a nuisance. The habits of the bees, 

 the line of flight, their temper, and disposition of the colonies, either 

 separately or when collected together in numbers, might all furnish matter 

 of more or less weight in reaching a conclusion. So also the character 

 of the annoyance or injury done to the complainant must be a substantial 

 element. In the only reported case involving this question it was charged, 

 and the court found there was proof, " that during the spring and summer 

 months the bees so kept " — 140 colonies on an adjoining city lot and within 



