Legal Entomology. astonishment of the inquest. Judgment then went against them by default. (Sir Walter Scott's Demonology, p. 106.) Killing flies by the heavy artillery of the Church and of the Law reminds one of Longfellow's story of a fellow lodging in the house of a Jew, who bought of his landlord all the flics in the house, with permission to kill them as he pleased, for his amusement. He then coolly took out his pistol and began to shoot at them wherever they alighted — on windows, looking-glasses — no matter where, bang! bang! until finally the Jew was glad to buy him off. ("Longfellow's Life," by Sam. Longfellow, vol. i, p. 336.) In the Middle Ages domestic animals were tried in the ordinary criminal courts, and their punishment, on conviction, was death. Wild animals, such as rats, locusts, and such like, were tried in the ecclesiastical courts. It was argued that as God cursed the serpent, David the mountains of Gilboa, and the Man of Nazareth the barren fig-tree, so the Church had full power and authority to exorcise, anathematize, and excommuni cate all things animate or inanimate. Yet as the lower animals were created before man, and the first occupiers of the earth; as God blessed them, and gave them every green herb for meat; as they were saved in the ark, and entitled to the privileges of the Sabbatic rest, they therefore were ever to be treated with the greatest clemency consistent with justice. Of course some learned canon ists disputed all these propositions, and regarded these trials as improper and unjust. Bees have been considered by the courts even in these latter days. In the Province of Ontario, not very many years ago, one Mcintosh asked for an injunction restraining his neighbor Harrison from keeping bees. The latter had some eighty hives, and his bees flew around, not only gathering honey, but also humming about the plaintiff's black smith shop, and stinging his customers' horses. Mcintosh complained that he could not shoe the horses, because he had to shoo
327
the bees. These busy-bodies also frequent ed his kitchen at preserving times. The jury found the bees a nuisance. In the Delaware Circuit Court (New York), the following year, a similar action was tried, with a similar result. To right matters the jury awarded six cents damages, while the court granted a permanent injunction commanding the re moval of the bees, and forbidding the further keeping of them. (24 Alb. L. J. 382; 36 Alb. L. J. 364.) But it was held that a keeper of bees was not liable for injuries done by them to a passing team. He had kept bees in the same place for eight or nine years, and never before had they attacked a horse. (Earl v. Van Alstyne, 8 Barb. [N.Y.], 630.) Bees are fera natures, and until they are hived and reclaimed no property can be ac quired in them. Wild bees in a bee-tree be long to the owner of the tree. Finding the tree, and marking it with his name, does not vest in one who is not the owner of the land any exclusive right in the swarm, nor is it a reclaiming. The finder cannot bring an action successfully against another for cut ting down the tree and carrying away the bees. Even if the owner of the land gives the finder permission to take them away, still the finder has no property in them, and the owner of the tree might safely give them to a third party. But if the finder has actually begun to cut the tree down, then he can suc cessfully maintain an action against one who interferes with him. (Gillet v. Mason, 7 Johns. 16; Ferguson v. Miller, 1 Cow. 243; Adams v. Burton, 43 Vt. 30.) The owner of reclaimed bees may bring an action of trespass against one who cuts down a tree into which they have entered, thus destroy ing the bees and taking the honey, even though the tree be on another's land. If my tame bees swarm on to my neighbor's land, so long as I can identify them they are mine, even though I cannot get them with out trespassing. (GofT v. Kills, 15 Wend. 550; Watts v. Mease, 3 Benn. [Pa.] 566.)
