LAWS RELATING TO BEES 
561 
mined 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 or not, or whether 
the bees in general have become a nuisance 
in the city. It is therefore too broad and 
is invalid.” 
Another instance where a city tried to 
prohibit beekeeping within the city oc¬ 
curred in 1901, when the city of Rochester, 
N. Y., enacted an ordinance similar to the 
one enacted by the city of Arkadelphia. It 
was repealed on the ground that it was 
unconstitutional. 
W. R. Taunton, a member of the Na¬ 
tional Beekeepers’ Association, was living 
in Rochester. The National Association 
had an investigation made, by which it was 
ascertained that Taunton was handling his 
bees in such a manner as not to annoy his 
neighbors, and that he ought to be pro¬ 
tected, so advised him not to remove his 
bees, and assured him that in case of trou¬ 
ble the association would defend him. 
Taunton was arrested for refusing to 
comply with the ordinance and was tried 
in police court. The defense was that the 
ordinance was unconstitutional and void, 
and it was so held by the court, and the 
defendant was discharged. 
A case where the bees were, from the 
evidence given at the trial, declared to be a 
nuisance, is that of Olmsted vs. Rich, 25 N. 
Y. S. R. 271; 6 N. Y. Supp. 826, which 
was an action for an injunction prohibit¬ 
ing the keeping of bees in a certain place 
and for $1500 damages. At the trial the 
evidence showed that the beekeeper had a 
large number of hives of bees on a village 
lot adjoining the man who desired the in¬ 
junction, and that during the spring and 
summer the bees interfered with the enjoy¬ 
ment of his premises. The bees drove him 
and his servants and guests from his gar¬ 
den and grounds, stinging them, and other¬ 
wise making his dwelling and premises un¬ 
fit and unsafe for habitation, constituting 
a nuisance., The verdict was against the 
beekeeper for six cents damages and a per¬ 
manent injunction was granted, which was 
affirmed on appeal. 
SHIPPING BEES BY RAIL. 
The general rule is, that it is the duty of 
a common carrier to carry all freight that 
is tendered to be carried. As to the right 
to refuse shipment, in Porcher vs. North¬ 
eastern R. R. Co. 14 Rich. L. 181, the court 
quoted with approval from Story, Bail¬ 
ments: “If he (the carrier) refuses to 
take charge of the goods because his coach 
is full or because they are of a nature 
which will at times expose them to extraor¬ 
dinary danger or to popular rage because 
he has no convenient means of carrying 
such goods with security, etc., these will 
furnish reasonable grounds for his refusal, 
and will, if true, be a sufficient legal de¬ 
fense to a suit for the non-carriage of 
goods.” In Boyd vs. Moses, 74 U. S. 7 
Wall 316; 19 L. Ed. 192, it was held that 
“A carrier may refuse to take lard which 
is packed in such a condition that it can¬ 
not be carried without injury to the rest of 
the cargo.” Also see note in 36 L. R. A. 
649. 
The law, therefore, appears to be that if 
bees are properly packed for shipment it 
is the duty of a common carrier of freight 
to take them, but should they be not prop¬ 
erly packed for shipment so that the car¬ 
rier could refuse the shipment on any of 
the previously stated grounds he could le¬ 
gally refuse to accept them. 
LIABILITY OP RAILROADS FOR LOSS IN 
SHIPMENT OF BEES. 
It is the duty of a railroad to furnish a 
proper car when they undertake the trans¬ 
portation of bees; and the railroad com¬ 
pany with which the contract for shipment 
is made is liable for injury caused by a de¬ 
fective car, even tho the ear has left the 
initial road and was in possession of a 
connecting railrpad. This was held to be 
the law in the case of International and 
G. N. R. R. Co. vs. Aten, a Texas case re¬ 
ported in 81 S. W. 346, in which case the 
station agent was informed that the car 
was desired for a shipment of bees. The 
car furnished was not suitable, and by rea¬ 
son of the car not being suitable the bees 
were injured on a connecting road. 
BEES INJURIOUS TO FRUIT. 
That bees are an essential agent in the 
pollination of fruit blossoms, and that they 
are never injurious to sound fruit, or in 
any way injure fruit trees are matters that 
are firmly established. 
