BEE-KEEPING NOT A NUISANCE. 
5 
and the power is claimed here under 
the general power to prevent injury or 
annoyance, etc. Mansfield’s Digest, 
Sec. 751. 
An ordinance of Grand Rapids, 
which forbade the marching, parad¬ 
ing, riding, or driving upon public 
streets with musical instruments, 
banners, flags, torches, flambeaux, or 
while singing or shouting, without 
tlie Mayor’s permission, was void, as 
prohibiting a thing lawful in itself, 
and leaving it to an unregulated 
official discretion. See Frazee’s case, 
03 Michigan, 396. 
All ordinances arbitrary in their 
terms, and unreasonable, and unneces¬ 
sarily abridging private rights, are 
void. 1 Dillon Municipal Corpora¬ 
tion, Sec. 253, Clinton vs. Phillips, 
58 Illinois, 102. Kip vs. Patterson, 
20 N. .1. Law 298. Commissioner vs. 
Gas Co., 12, Penn. St. 318. Com¬ 
monwealth, vs. Robertson, 5 Cush. 
438. 
This ordinance not only does not 
come within the pnwergranted, but it 
is also unreasonable and unwarranted; 
either is sufficient to make it void. 
Lynn ns. Freemason Building Associa¬ 
tion, 9 Central Reporter, 300. 
Municipalities only have such pow¬ 
ers as are expressly granted to them, 
or such as are necessary to carry those 
powers into effect. United States ns. 
Ludlow,9 Central Reporter, 517. John¬ 
son vs. District of Columbia, 9 Central 
Reporter, 053. It is well settled that 
the general power to prevent annoy¬ 
ance docs not give power to declare 
everything which may annoy or arouse 
the fears of the sensitive — a nuisance. 
Nor does the existence of that fact 
give power to prohibit. See authori¬ 
ties above cited. 
It is equally well settled that a city 
cannot under general power, declare 
that a nuisance which is not so in 
fact. Des Plaines vs. Poyer, 12 West¬ 
ern Reporter, 760. Stockton Laun¬ 
dry Case, 20 Federal Reporter, 01 1— 
where it is held that an ordinance is 
unconstitutional and void which for¬ 
bid a laundry in the heart of the city; 
yet a drying up of stinking soap-suds 
might become dangerous to health, 
and annoy, and infected clothing 
would be 'more frequent than bee¬ 
stings. See also 9 Pacific Reporter, 
111 . 
Mr. Wood, in his work on Nuisance, 
in the index at page 1021, refers to 
bees with a reference to title Danger¬ 
ous Animals. Under that head, at 
page 1025, he refers to cases of ani¬ 
mals which, by their owners, may be 
knownto injure, referring to page 871 
et seq., which recognizes fully the 
right to keep animals subject to 
responsibility (on scienter) for injuries 
by those known to be of vicious char¬ 
acter. 
Strangely enough, of all the cases 
cited, not an instance of injury by 
“the little busy bee,” or the silk¬ 
worm is found : showing how harm¬ 
less these little insects really arc. 
The habits of the bee lead it to wood, 
field, and orchard, for pasture, and if 
it enters a house it is because careless¬ 
ness has 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 con¬ 
tributory negligence, and have no 
right to complain. 
I am employed in this ease by the 
National Bee-Keepers’ Union and this 
is probably, about the only known 
case in America or 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 , 
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, 107. 1 Bishop 
Orim. Law, Sec. 243. Wood on 
Nuisance, pages 24, 25, 26, 80, 
81, 82. Dillon on Municipal Corpor¬ 
ation, 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 nui¬ 
sances,” but “real, substantial, 
injuries, that are calculated to offend 
the sense of men of simple tastes and 
habits.” Conveniences are not bal¬ 
anced. Wood on “Nuisance,” page 
si. 
Even in those acts which are 
admittedly nuisances, an ordinance is 
void and unreasonable, where it 
trenches on private rights and prop¬ 
erty 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 
