FARMER STUNG BY BEES.

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLV, Issue 286, 6 November 1925, Page 6

FARMER STUNG BY BEES.

NOVEL CLAIM FOR DAMAGES

HAYMAKING INTERRUPTED

HAMILTON, Nov. 3

A claim, the first of its kind in New Zealand, was heard before Mr AVyvcrn Wilson, S.M., at Hamilton to-day, when R. R. Meyer, dairyfarmer, Ngahinepouri, sought to recover £SO damages from W. A. Forsyth, apiarist, Ngahinepouri, on the grounds that defendant’s bees interfered with his haymaking operations and caused loss to him.

Evidence was given that the parties were disabled returned soldiers who had been to the front together. Defendant was given permission to place 68 hives on Mr Neil Reid s property at Ngahinepouri. Plaintiff stated that when endeavouring to make hay the defendant’s bees became so troublesome that the operations had to be postponed until a wet day. As a consequence the hay became damaged. The bees stung plaintiff’s liorse and caused it to bolt. Plaintiff admitted that the present site occupied by the hives was satisfactory.

Evidence was given for the defence that the bees had not been as troublesome as plaintiff contended, and that they wore an advantage to the pasture lands in • the neighbourhood in assisting fertilisation ot plants. The defence admitted that ir tho plaintiff’s proceedings had been framed in negligence 'there might liavo been a case to answer, but the action had been taken for nuisance only. It was contended that the evidence did not warrant the Court in coming to the conclusion that a nuisance had been 'proved. T. S. Winter, inspector of apiaries, and A. H. Davies, president of the National Beekeepers’ Association, agreed that if defendant’s apiary constituted a nuisance the bulk of the locations of apiaries in New Zealand would bo exceptionable on the same ground.

The defence contended that no complaint of the condition had been made by the plaintiff during the first four years of tho defendant’s operations, and that the very rarity of the complaint and of the litigation itself was itself an argument strongly in favour of tho defendant.

In giving judgment for tho defendant with costs, the magistrate considered that any claim the plaintiff now had should have been founded in negligence. Hie only damage suffered by plaintiff, and the only evidence adduced by him in support of his claim, had reference to one occasion, when lie and liis horse were stung, and another occasion on which the plaintiff was stung while cutting a hedge. These facts did not form nearly sufficient ground to justify the Court holding that a nuisance had been committed.