THE LAW AS TO BEES.

Shannon News, 27 January 1922, Page 3

THE LAW AS TO BEES.

AN OWNER’S RESPONSIBILITIES,

Some few weeks ago a number of Shannon residents petitioned the Borough Council asking that a neighbouring bee-keeper be compelled to remove his bees, owing to the possibility of danger in swarming time. The Council decided to write to Mr T. F. Martin, counsel to the Municipal Association of New Zealand and ascertain the position and whether there was any liability on the owner of the bees. A reply was received at Tuesday night’s meeting as follows: “1. The bee industry is regulated by the Apiaries Acts of 1908, 1913, and 1920. These Acts are aimed at the prevention of disease in bees, hives, etc., and are administered by Government in spectorsl The Acts contain no provision as' to the localities in which bees may be kept.

“2. In your borough a person has over 50 hives on a section of less than a quarter of an acre in a closely populated area, and the Council has received a petition from residents asking for the removal of the bees, owing 'to apprehensions of danger in swarmiAg time.

"3. The Council, if it had expert opinion that the keeping of the bees was dangerous to the public, could pass a by-law regulating generally the keeping of bees within the borough, but the by-law would have to be carefully prepared under expert advice /so as not to unduly restrict the business of bee-keeping by the present or any other pee-keeper. “4. If the owners or occupiers of neighbouring properties consider that the keeping of the bees is dangerous to them they, could take proceedings against the bee-keeper for their protection. See Halsbury’s “Laws of England,” Vol. I, p. 375, where the law is thus laid down: ‘Bees, unless disturbed, do not- generally sting, and probably the keeping of a few ordinary hives in an ordinary place would not render the owner liable for damage caused by. their stings in the absence of negligence. If kept in unreasonable numbers, however, they may amount to a nuisance.”

“5. In the Irish case of O’Gorman ,v. O’Gorman (1903 ) 2 Ir. R. 573, the deiendant who kept an unreasonable number of bees at the boundary of the plaintiff’s which bees were smoked out at an unreasonable time, was held liable for personal injury sustained by the plaintiff from his being thrown off his horse which plunged on being stung by the bees.”

The Mayor (Mr Murdoch) said that the opinion received established the tact that unless damage was done through the bees stinging, the owner could not be compelled to move them. Cr Butt said he had spoken to the owner, who said it would have been a difficult matter to shift the bees when the complaint was made as they were swarming. Swarming time was now over and he would rrroVe the hives. A formal motion by Crs Murray and. Fargher that the owner be written to and asked to move the bees was carried. '