STUNG BY BEES.

Auckland Star, Volume LVI, Issue 261, 4 November 1925, Page 5

STUNG BY BEES.

HAYMAKING IMPEDED. FARMER CLAIMS DAMAGES. (By Telegraph.—Own Correspondent.) HAMILTON, this day. A novel claim was heard before Mr. Wyvern Wilson, S.M., at the Hamilton Magistrate's Court yesterday, when a farmer, E. R. Meyer, of Ngahinepouri, proceeded against an apiarist, W. A. Forsytli, claiming £50 damages for obstruction caused by defendant's bees to plaintiff's haymaking operations. It seems the defendant, a disabled returned soldier, secured permission from Neil Reid to use a small elevated portion of the letter's farm for an apiary. Plaintiff is also a disabled returned soldier, having served in the same unit as defendant. His hay paddock adjoins the apiary. Ho was'prepared to suffer a little inconvenience, he said, as the result of stings from his neighbour's bees, but when he could not harvest his hay owing to their pestilence he thought he should seek some redress. Plaintiff told the Court that on one occasion, when haymaking, the bees savagely attacked his horse, causing it to bolt, and he only managed to pull the animal up on the brink of a steep gully. Both he and the horse were badly stung. He was forced, in consequence, to gather in his hay on a wet day. when the bees were not so vicious, and, in consequence, the hay had gone mouldy and the cattle would not eat it. Plaintiff added that there were 08 hives of bees, and he had offered Fqrsyth a piec of land on his (plaintiff's) own farm if he would shift the apiary from its present site. He did not want to make anything out of the case, and would forego damages if defendant would move the hives. All he wanted was to make sure that his haymaking operations would not be obstructed during the coming summer. In answer to defendant's solicitor, plaintiff said he would be quite satisfied to allow the bees to - remain if defendant would cut and stack, his hay for him The magistrate said two isolated case; of stinging were insufficient to indicat that the bee 9 were a nuisance. He say no very good grounds for damages, a he doubted if a nuisance really eve existed. Judgment went for defendant allowing £10 costs.