Knox v. Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
1981 Mass. App. LEXIS 1189, 425 N.E.2d 393, 12 Mass.App.Ct. 407 (1981)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Massachusetts anti-cruelty statutes, the term 'animal' is interpreted broadly to include all non-human, irrational beings. Therefore, a law prohibiting the offering of any live animal as a prize in a game of skill or chance applies to goldfish.
Facts:
- For twenty-two years, the plaintiff has operated a concession business in various states.
- The plaintiff intended to run a concession booth at the Brockton Fair in July 1980.
- The game involved players tossing a ping pong ball into one of several goldfish bowls, some of which contained live goldfish.
- A successful player would be awarded a live goldfish in a clear plastic bag containing water as a prize.
- The Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (MSPCA) informed the plaintiff that this conduct would violate state law.
- After obtaining a court order, the plaintiff gave away live goldfish as prizes at the Brockton Fair on July 3, 4, and 5, 1980.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff, a concessionaire, sought a temporary restraining order in Probate Court against the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (MSPCA) to prevent enforcement of G. L. c. 272, § 80F.
- The Probate Court granted the temporary restraining order.
- The MSPCA filed a counterclaim, seeking a declaratory judgment that the statute did prohibit the plaintiff's planned conduct.
- The Probate Court judge granted a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of the statute.
- Upon agreement by the parties on a statement of facts, the Probate Court judge reported the case to the Appeals Court of Massachusetts for a final determination of the legal question.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the word 'animal' in Massachusetts General Laws c. 272, § 80F, which prohibits offering a live animal as a prize in a game of skill or chance, include goldfish?
Opinions:
Majority - Dreben, J.
Yes, the word 'animal' in G. L. c. 272, § 80F includes goldfish. The statute is one of a series of provisions designed to prevent cruelty to animals and is intended to curb acts that 'dull humanitarian feelings and to corrupt the morals.' Citing precedent from Commonwealth v. Turner (1887), the court reasoned that the common acceptation of the word 'animal' includes 'all irrational beings.' This broad definition, consistent with dictionary meanings, does not require the court to engage in taxonomic line-drawing. The humane purpose of the statute is to protect animals from potential neglect by prize-winners, and therefore it applies to goldfish.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies a broad and liberal interpretation of the term 'animal' within the context of Massachusetts's anti-cruelty statutes. By refusing to limit the term to specific classes of creatures, the court established a precedent that strengthens animal protection laws against narrow, technical challenges. The ruling signals that the legislative intent behind such humane statutes—preventing cruelty and moral desensitization—should guide interpretation. This makes it more difficult for defendants in future cases to argue that certain non-mammalian or less conventionally sympathetic creatures are outside the scope of statutory protection.
