## Facts

- Roscoe Goose, J. William (J.W.) Goose, and Luther Goose were brothers who jointly operated an establishment known as the Sycamore Cafe at 238–240 Central Avenue in Louisville, Kentucky.
- Roscoe owned the premises. A saloon license was held in J.W.’s name (and renewal was later denied), and a soft drink/restaurant license was in Luther’s name, but the record showed the brothers acted together as proprietors.
- Although the Sycamore Cafe held itself out as a restaurant and saloon, evidence showed it was in fact used for extensive illegal gambling, including taking bets on horse races and gambling with cards, dice, and other devices.
- The location drew common and professional gamblers and developed a long record of law violations at and around the premises, including both misdemeanor and felony conduct tied to gambling and disorder.
- Over a number of years, Louisville police conducted numerous raids at the Sycamore Cafe and made many arrests of the Goose brothers and others connected with or frequenting the establishment.
- During a five-year period described in the record, J.W. and Luther were arrested multiple times for offenses such as suffering gaming on the premises, gambling, disorderly conduct, malicious assault, and related offenses; many charges were “filed away,” and only occasional small fines were imposed.
- The brothers admitted their course of criminal conduct, yet the Sycamore Cafe continued to operate as a common gambling house despite repeated resort to criminal process.
- Acting for the Commonwealth, the Attorney General filed a suit in equity seeking to enjoin the defendants from using the property for gambling and to abate the operation as a public nuisance.
- The trial court entered a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from using the premises for unlawful gambling purposes and abating the nuisance. The defendants appealed, arguing equity lacked jurisdiction because the conduct was already punishable as crimes.

## Issues

1. May the Commonwealth, through the Attorney General, obtain an injunction in equity to abate the use of property as a common gambling house and public nuisance even though the activities are criminal offenses ordinarily addressed by prosecution?
2. Was the showing of repeated, ineffective criminal enforcement sufficient to establish that legal remedies were inadequate and that injunctive relief was proper to prevent continued unlawful use of the premises?

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals of Kentucky affirmed the judgment granting a permanent injunction.
- The court found the evidence showed the Sycamore Cafe was operated as a common gambling house and constituted a public nuisance.
- The court rejected the argument that equity was barred merely because the same conduct was criminal, reasoning that the suit sought prevention and abatement of a continuing nuisance, not punishment for past acts.
- Given the history of raids, arrests, and unsuccessful criminal dispositions, the court concluded the ordinary criminal process had failed to stop the ongoing unlawful enterprise, making equitable relief appropriate.

## Legal Principles

- A court of equity may enjoin and abate a public nuisance at the request of the Commonwealth, even when the nuisance is maintained through acts that are also crimes.
- A “common gambling house” may be treated as a public nuisance subject to abatement by injunction when the proof shows an ongoing unlawful use of the property affecting the public.
- Equity’s role in this setting is preventive: it restrains the continuation of an unlawful use of premises rather than imposing criminal penalties for past misconduct.
- Repeated raids, arrests, and ineffectual criminal proceedings may support a finding that prosecution is not an adequate remedy and that injunctive relief is warranted to stop continued violations.
- The Attorney General may bring an action on behalf of the Commonwealth to restrain and abate a public nuisance that threatens public welfare and order.

## Conclusion

Goose v. Commonwealth ex rel. Dummit holds that where a property is persistently used as a common gambling house and criminal proceedings have not stopped the operation, the Commonwealth may proceed in equity through the Attorney General to enjoin the unlawful use and abate the nuisance, and a properly focused permanent injunction will be upheld on appeal.


Goose v. Commonwealth ex rel. Dummit, Attorney General, 305 Ky. 644, 205 S.W.2d 326 (1947)