Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New listings
New media comments
New resources
New calendar events
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Calendar
New events
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
Classifieds
New listings
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Reply to thread
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
New Zealand Beekeeping Forums
New Zealand Beekeeping
Swarm ownership
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Welcome to NZ Beekeepers+
Would you like to join the rest of our members? Feel free to sign up today.
Sign up
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Mummzie" data-source="post: 11730" data-attributes="member: 5"><p>Result of a google search</p><p>Otago Daily times 1919</p><p></p><p></p><p>James Batstone, of Fairfield Park, Bath, claimed £9 from Herbert Rumming, a neighbour, the value of a swarm of bees, which the defendant, it was claimed, had seized. Counsel for the plaintiff claimed that the ownership of the bees remained with the original owner as long as he kept them in sight. </p><p></p><p>The case for the defence was that they were not kept in sight, and so ownership was lost. The judge said it had been clear for hundreds of years, under the law laid down by the Emperor Justinian, that a swarm of bees belonged to a man as long as they were in his sight, and could easily be pursued. </p><p></p><p>Otherwise they became the property of the first person who saw them. This swarm had not been in the owner’s sight when it went from the hive, or when it was on its way to the hedge, 100 yards away, where it was found. </p><p></p><p>The law to-day was just as it was hundreds of years ago. If a man did not keep the bees in sight, they became the property of anyone who found them. Judgement would be for the defendant.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Mummzie, post: 11730, member: 5"] Result of a google search Otago Daily times 1919 James Batstone, of Fairfield Park, Bath, claimed £9 from Herbert Rumming, a neighbour, the value of a swarm of bees, which the defendant, it was claimed, had seized. Counsel for the plaintiff claimed that the ownership of the bees remained with the original owner as long as he kept them in sight. The case for the defence was that they were not kept in sight, and so ownership was lost. The judge said it had been clear for hundreds of years, under the law laid down by the Emperor Justinian, that a swarm of bees belonged to a man as long as they were in his sight, and could easily be pursued. Otherwise they became the property of the first person who saw them. This swarm had not been in the owner’s sight when it went from the hive, or when it was on its way to the hedge, 100 yards away, where it was found. The law to-day was just as it was hundreds of years ago. If a man did not keep the bees in sight, they became the property of anyone who found them. Judgement would be for the defendant. [/QUOTE]
Verification
What type of honey is New Zealand famous for?
Post reply
Forums
New Zealand Beekeeping Forums
New Zealand Beekeeping
Swarm ownership
Top
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…