CURIOUS LITIGATION

Greymouth Evening Star, 10 March 1939, Page 12

CURIOUS LITIGATION

A CASE ABOUT BEES Even in these stirring times there is always a chance of finding more interest in the law reports in the daily papers than in any other column (writes “Janus,” in the London ‘Spectator’). This week has been a case in point. Most laymen like myself must have been rather astonished to find that a lady who suffered mental shock from witnessing a collision between

a car and a lorry (she was untouched by either) could be awarded £2,500 damages, to be paid by the owners of the two vehicles equally. That was on Monday. Then on Tuesday there were Mr. Keary’s bees, whose adventures, as described in the Court of Appeal on that day, demand more space than I can give them here. Briefly, they swarmed, not in Mr. Keary’s garden, but in Mr. Pattinson’s next door. Mr. Keary asked leave to enter the nextdoor garden and take his bees, but Mr. Pattinson, who liked Mr. Keary less than he should, demurred. The next day Mr. Pattinson, half-relenting, told Mr. Keary that by going into Mr. Fenton’s field, beyond his (Mr. Pattin-' son’s) garden, he could reach in and take the bees. Mr. Keary, however '

hesitated to trespass on Mr. Fenton’s domain, and a little later Mr. Pattinson, now in full contrition, said Mr. Keary might enter his garden after all. Unfortunately the bees by that time had vanished. Mr. Keary thereupon sued his neighbour for the value of the insects and their potential honey—£4—but the County Court judge found against him. And on Tuesday Lord Justice Slesser, in a learned judgment, turning on the ques- 1 tion of whether bees were “ferae naturae,” whether they were chattels and whether they were identifiable, confirmed the finding. Lord Justice Clauson and Lord Justice Goddard concurred. Mr. Keary might have found loss of honey cheaper than litigation. But perhaps he loved his bees.