WANDERING BEES
WHO IS THEIR OWNER? The vexed question as to . the rielitfnl ownership of bees which quit their hive, and are found by another man some distance away, was before Judgo Gwynne James in the County Court at '.Tames Batstone, of Fairfield Park, Bath, claimed J39 from Herbert Rummini? a neighbour, the value of a swarm of tees, wh'ch the defendant, it was claimed, had seized. Counsel for the tilaintiff claimed that. the ownership of the bees remained with the orieinal owner as long as he kept them in The case for the dofcnce was tlwt they wei;o not kept in sight, and so ownership' TOR"lost.
The .Tudfre said it had been clear for hundreds of years, under ft law laid down bv the Emtioror Justinian, that a swarm of bees belonged to a man as Ion;* as thev were in his sight, and could easily be pursued. Otherwise, they became tho property of the first person who smv them. This swarm had not been in the owner's siidit when it went from the hive, or when it was on it.s way to the .hud?®. 100 yards away, where it was found. TV law to-day was just as it wns hundreds of years ago. If a man did not keep the bees in sitjlit. they lvcame the ■nj-onerty of anyone who fo"nd them. Judgment would be for the.defendant.
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/DOM19191220.2.19
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 74, 20 December 1919, Page 5
Word count
Tapeke kupu
229WANDERING BEES Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 74, 20 December 1919, Page 5
Using this item
Te whakamahi i tēnei tūemi
Stuff Ltd is the copyright owner for the Dominion. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Stuff Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.
Log in