## Facts

- Charles Knox operated concession booths at fairs and planned a Brockton Fair game where participants could win a live goldfish in a plastic bag of water by tossing a ping-pong ball into bowls, some containing goldfish.
- The Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (MSPCA) warned Knox that awarding goldfish as prizes would violate G.L. c. 272, § 80F, which barred offering or giving any “live animal” as a prize in a game involving skill or chance (with an inapplicable exception).
- Knox sought and obtained a temporary restraining order and then a preliminary injunction in the Probate Court preventing MSPCA from enforcing § 80F against him.
- Knox nevertheless gave away live goldfish as prizes at the Brockton Fair on July 3–5, 1980.
- MSPCA counterclaimed for a declaration that § 80F prohibited Knox’s proposed conduct.
- The parties submitted agreed facts, and the case was reported to the Appeals Court.

## Issues

1. Whether a court may enjoin enforcement of a criminal statute based on the threat of prosecution absent “very special circumstances.”
2. Whether “animal” in G.L. c. 272, § 80F includes goldfish, thereby prohibiting giving them away as prizes in games involving skill or chance.

## Decision

- The Appeals Court held the injunctive relief was improper and vacated the restraining order and preliminary injunction.
- The court held that “animal” in § 80F includes goldfish.
- The case was remanded for entry of a declaratory judgment that § 80F covered goldfish and that Knox’s prize-giveaway conduct fell within the statutory prohibition.

## Legal Principles

- Equity generally will not restrain enforcement of criminal statutes; the mere threat of prosecution does not justify an injunction absent very special circumstances.
- When no criminal prosecution is pending, declaratory relief may be available to determine the meaning and scope of a criminal statute.
- Humane statutes aimed at preventing neglect or cruelty are construed in light of their protective purpose; undefined terms such as “animal” may be read broadly to effectuate that purpose, including covering fish such as goldfish.

## Conclusion

The court vacated an injunction barring enforcement of a criminal animal-protection statute, ruled that prospective relief should be declaratory rather than injunctive absent special circumstances, and construed the statute’s ban on giving “live animals” as prizes to include goldfish.


Knox v. Massachusetts Soc’y for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, 12 Mass. App. Ct. 407 (1981)