8 
BEK-KEEPING NOT A NUISANCE. 
Decision of' llic Supreme Court of Arkansas—June 22, ISSt). 
127 (Crim.) City of Arkadelphia vs. Z. A. Clark. 
The Appellee, Clark, was convicted in the Mayor’s Court of Ark¬ 
adelphia for a violation of the city ordinance. The ordinance under 
which the prosecution was had, provided that it shall be unlawful 
for any person or persons to own, keep or raise bees in the City of 
Arkadelphia, the same having been declared a nuisance. Upon au 
appeal to the Circuit Court, that Court sustained a demurrer filed 
by the defendant, and dismissed the prosecution. 
Held.— Neither the keeping, owning or raising of bees is in 
itself a nuisance. Bees may become a nuisance in a city, but 
whether they are so or not, is a question to be judicially determined 
in each case. 
The ordinance under consideration undertakes to make each of 
the acts named a nuisance, without regard to the fact whether it 
is so or not, or whether bees in general have become a nuisance in 
the city. It is therefore too broad, and invalid. 
Affirmed. 
The decision of the Supreme Court is a document that will 
become of great use as a precedent. It will be a guide for the 
rulings of Judges — for the information of Juries — and for the 
regulation of those who may dare to interfere with a respectable 
pursuit, by law or otherwise ! 
£/urmxon; 
General Manager National Bee-Keepers' Union. 
* 
Issued by the National Bee-Keepers’ Union. Copies may be obtained 
free by addressing the General Manager, Thomas G. Newman, 147 South 
Western Avenue, Chicago, Ills. 
