In Nathan H. Schur, Inc. v. City of Santa Monica (1956) 47 Cal.2d 11, the California Supreme Court rejected an attempt to enjoin a crime via a taxpayer action. There, a corporate plaintiff brought a section 526a action against the City of Santa Monica and its police chief, alleging that city officials improperly licensed certain games that violated gambling laws and that the issuance of licenses was itself a crime, and seeking to enjoin the city from issuing the licenses. (Id. at pp. 12-14, 17.) The trial court issued an injunction. The Supreme Court reversed, holding "that unless the conduct complained of constitutes a nuisance as declared by the Legislature, equity will not enjoin it even if it constitutes a crime, as the appropriate tribunal for the enforcement of the criminal law is the court in an appropriate criminal proceeding." (Id. at p. 17.) The court explained that the injunction was "basically one to enjoin the alleged commission of a crime" (id. at p. 18), and thus "'has the collateral effect of depriving a defendant of the jury trial to which he would be entitled in a criminal prosecution for violating exactly the same standards of public policy ...'" (id. at p. 19). The defendant is also deprived of the protection of the higher burden of proof. (Ibid.) "'For these reasons,'" the court explained, "'equity is loath to interfere where the standards of public policy can be enforced by resort to the criminal law, and in the absence of a legislative declaration to that effect, the courts should not broaden the field in which injunctions against criminal activity will be granted.'" (Ibid.)