FARMER STUNG BY BEES.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXII, Issue 19166, 4 November 1925, Page 12

FARMER STUNG BY BEES.

NOVEL CLAIM FOR DAMAGES. HAYMAKING INTERRUPTED, CLAIM NOT ESTABLISHED. (By TELEGRAPH. —OWN CORRESPONDENT/ ] HAMILTON. Tuesday. A claim, the first of its kind in New Zealand, was beard before Mr, Wyvern Wilson, S.M., at Hamilton to-day, when R. R. Meyer, dairyfarmer, Ngahinepouri (Mr. N. Johnston), sought to recover £SO damages from W. A. Forsyth, apiarist, Ngahinepouri (Mr. J. P. Strang), on the grounds that defendant s bees interfered with his haymaking operations and caused loss to him.

Evidence was given that the parties weie disabled returned soldiers, who had been to the front together. Defendant was given permission to place 68 hives on Mr. Neil Raid'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 damagedThe bees stung plaintiff's horse 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 were an advantage to the pasture lands in the neighbourhood in assisting fertilisation of plants. The defence admitted that if the plaintiff's proceedings had been framed in negligence there might have 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 01 aoiaries in New Zealand would be 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 the defendant's operations, and that the very rarity of the complaint and of the litigation itself was itself an argument strongly in favour of the defendant. - j . In giving judgment for the defendant with costs, the magistrate considered that any claim the plaintiff now had should have been founded in negligence. The only damage suffered by plaintiff, and the only evidence adduced by him in support of his claim, had reference to one occasion, when he and his horse %\ere 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.