Bell Appeal

to mean. We what ought hold, therefore, was of the oral independent Trial testimony, Judge, justified instructions for the plain- giving binding complaint tiff as the filed and Cadwallader Nei- evidence sufficient on its face. was documentary testimony evidence nor the oral ther documentary sufficient the insurer of its affirmative relieve of evidence production prima show duty facie the exclusion. proof was rebutted coverage is affirmed. judgment Appeal.

Bell J., Before Jones, 1959. Argued January O. JJ. and McBride, Cohen Musmanno, Jones, Bell, 1959. refused reargument July 22, N. with him David Charles City Solicitor, Stahl, Pitts- for Assistant City Solicitor, City Caputo, appellant. burgh, Louis them

T. Robert Brennan and with C. Glasso, appellees. Brennan and Brennan, Solicitor, Alan Assistant Miles Ruben, City for Philadel- David City Solicitor, City and Berger, Rule under 46. phia,

Opinion by Mr. Justice 1959: July Chief Jones, by disposed cases heard of together These were and were here on allocatur brought and Superior Court the Superior whether purpose for considering proceedings had con- which were Allegheny County County pursuant procedure statutorily in that ducted prescribed and which does not provide from the final orders. See Court’s Sections County and of the Act of PS P. L. August 10, 1951, and 23538. The fol- question arises out of the §§23537 circumstances lowing judi- and the administrative cial taken in connection therewith. proceedings Killeen,

Joseph George E. Tarr William Bell, the appellants in the offi- were police' Court, cers of the As a result a certain City Pittsburgh. incident in which some participants had been they each un- of them was capacity, with conduct charged an officer. were a Police becoming tried before They Trial Board in accordance procedure pre- with the scribed the Act of which is by applicable 1951, supra, to Second The Police Trial found Class Cities. Board the accused against them guilty charges recommended their dismissal from the service. City’s The recommendation approved was duly Mayor. by The police officers thereupon severally appealed to Civil Service Commission of the respec- from City tive orders of dismissal. The hear- after Commission, affirmed the recommendations of the Trial ing, Police as approved Board, police Each of the by Mayor. officers then from the action appealed Serv- Civil ice Commission Court of County Allegheny Act September See County. P. L. (Sess. 53 PS 1951-1952), §604. upon Court entered ele hearing novo,

as was do required Section 8 of the Act supra. After full at which extensive hearings, the court entered an testimony taken, order in case appellants of each of the their re- affirming, the orders of spective dismissal costs, recommended Police approved Trial Board as Mayor affirmed, Service Civil Commission. stipu- By all pertinent lation of counsel, the Killeen testimony and Bell cases the Tarr was admitted in evidence in case. adjudication The court’s its in discussion in ex- Killeen case of the reasons for its action, was, by press adjudication a of the made reference, part Bell and Tarr From cases. the orders so entered by took policemen dismissed County Court, severally appeals argu- after which, ment opinion to all three applicable filed thereon, appeals allocatur) and entered the order here on (now the separate orders of the with reversing the same effect as dis- charges had been though missed in the lower court. jurisdiction

No a question of lack of the Supe rior the appeals entertain was in that raised court which the subject concluded matter be fore it on broad and proceeded certiorari to a disposi It appeals tion of on the merits. is never too late question jurisdiction subject court’s mat ter: Fowler v. 110 Pa. 1 A. Eddy, 789; and, lack the Superior jurisdiction Court’s in the prem ises is before now directly specifically been us, having Philadelphia raised in the City amicus curiae brief it has filed in this court under 48. our Rule is settled question beyond of sub cannot ject-matter acquired a court either waiver or through estoppel consent, parties: Patterson’s 341 Pa. 19 A. 2d Estate, 177, 180, 165; v. Trust & Deposit Lewisburg 305 Pa. Co., Wolfe Safe 158 A. Blumenthal’s 567; 227 Pa. Estate, 75 A. 1075. Where appellate review action first instance or of an administrative tribunal for statute or is provided so expressly denied, exists. right even in such But, ap- instance, pellate of the proceedings below certain pur- obtainable this court poses is an exercise through powers May King’s of 22, Act of our Bench under in XIII. As stated 1 Section Sm. L. 131, 140, 1722, Carpentertown Company Pa. & v. Coke Laird, Coal supra, “vested the Act of 61 A. 2d 1722, 94, 99, 426, powers jurisdictions of Supreme all the Court namely, superior courts at the three Westminster, Exchequer. King’s Pleas and the Common Bench, power King’s Bench was the in the Inherent Court superintendency general inferior tribunals, over inception recognized power ancient was of which beginnings. very Black from common .its law jurisdiction says, ‘The Book *42: stone III, high Bang’s very and transcendent. Bench] is [of jurisdictions keeps the bounds all inferior within It proceed may authority, remove their either their progress prohibit ings their to be determined here, ” below.’ jurisdiction Superior its all of derives Court Duquesne City powers v. Fincke, See from statute. Long, v. 112 A. Commonwealth 130; 269 Pa. 115, 112, v. ex rel. 120 A. Commonwealth 125; 276 Pa. 156, 154, Pittsburgh v. Speer, cf. 268; 110 A. 267 Pa. 129, 134, right Superior no 524. Hence, Ct. 520, Pierce, instance that court in exists in review of except expressly statute. Particu authorized it be Superior larly significant fact Court is the King’s powers possess Court does Camp County National Bank v. Delaware Bench. See cf. 106 A. 2d Martonick 416; also, 378 Pa. 311, 316, bell, statute 117 A. 2d 715. No 383 Pa. v. Beattie, except upon Superior powers Court such confers right of man purely issue writ incidental prohibition court of inferior to a damus or pending proceedings ancillary Court by appeal appellate jurisdiction, author i.e., its under May P. L. Act of 47, statute. See ized the Supe- this restriction on Part. Even PS Pkt. §181, pro- mandamus and issuance of writs of rior Court’s confirma- use further hibition for purely ancillary does not pos- tion of fact in- Bench sess the powers King’s general writs of cer- to issue common clude the law power the Superior tiorari. follows, therefore, inferior of an is without work authority right tribunal as on certiorari where Walker’s that court is conferred statute. Appeal, 288. 294 Pa. A.

The certiorari which the Supreme employs to of a a court of the record up proceeding bring no of is appeal statutorily first right where instance, is not to be con- authorized expressly prohibited, the certiorari utilized this court fused with and by for the re- purpose Court for bringing up the court record in below when an authorized view the has been taken. For appeal uniformity, doubt, for adopted court’s appeal Court form to a lower court rec- send for directing up review there in an case. appealed Such form, ord, pending, called but means used for initiating certiorari, instance appellate review and is the com- any of certiorari mon issued law writ under the King’s this court Bench which alone is powers authorized exercise in this State. In the Act of June fact, 1895, 24, P. L. established the Superior which ex- Court, that “No provided writ certiorari shall be pressly needed remove the record the Superior from the court but the of the shall below, perfecting appeal equivalent be treated as issue and execution said writ.”

The historical for modes before matter bringing this court Supreme Court when review, was appellate tribunal were exercising only jurisdiction, writ of and. Lessee appeal certiorari. error, See, e.g., M’Clemmons v. 88 (1810); Com- Graham, Binney monwealth v. Baker Rawle 366 (1834); Beaumont, v. 2 Pa. 116 separate These three (1845).1 Williamson, methods for appellate court rec- review were obtaining ognized and carried forward in Constitution Article by Section which provided Y, the Supreme judges “shall have appellate ju- exposition purpose For an authoritative and concise scope Supreme and of the several methods State, King, in use in this see Rand v. 334 Pa. A. generally employed where it “[The was said that mode] most was error, lay any against judgment any the writ of which final record, against interlocutory auxiliary court of and such and orders upon as have been made reviewable it statute. On this writ judgment alleged is reviewed with reference to errors pointed exceptions are out taken to action of the trial court rulings made, general at the time when the are aas rule the power Supreme questions Court is limited to the so raised: Tp. Tp. D., Warsaw Poor D. v. Knox Poor 107 Pa. 301. In aU equity cases, following equity forms, and those from complained proper brings the decree is the mode of review. up pleadings rests, evidence on which the decree necessary examine, for the makes and see just conseionable whether the decision is on the case was presented remaining to the chancellor made it. The who method brought up of certiorari. writ the record in writ This correction, brought only: given and but it record case for review License, 330; White, 127 Pa. Holland v. 120 Pa. 228. Carlson’s appear be must The corrected on face the record: errors 403; inquired Miller, 41 Pa. and the merits cannot be Chase v. into judgment writ, upon but are left of the court below: Cases, opinion court, Pa. Neither the nor Election 20. any part proper, evidence, forms the record and for that they White, on certiorari: will not be examined Holland v. reason reviewed, proceeding supra. suggested, to be The character adopted, therefore, and the within to be limits which the the method preparation.” practitioner direct his should enlarged scope review on certiorari was to some extent 1919, 72, appear. 18, by April will P.L. hereinafter the Act of by appeal, all certiorari risdiction or of error in writ provided may by as is law.” or hereafter cases, now be May The Act of P. L. PS sub 9, 1889, 158, §1131, appellate proceedings sequently prescribed that “All in supreme by error, heretofore taken writ pro appeal a shall hereafter be taken in certiorari, appeal.” ceeding did to be All that that Act called an single separate apply a was name the three Supreme appel invoking distinct writs for Court’s jurisdiction. any way late did in obliterate ap scope characteristics of the several or the writs pellate King, each. In afforded Rand v. review recognized early 19 A. 641, 645-646, 806, [of review] “Since the Act of these modes remain applicable limits, in the same within the same cases, only the same effect as difference and with before, being they . all are called same name. . that now . provides proceedings simply Act] that dissimilar [The appeal name. name shall called the same An be in legal may therefore a certiorari error or writ necessary, every it is to look into effect, case, determine at outset of our record, examir appeal’ is nation what ‘called an is such whether or is a of error or certiorari.” also writ See fact, Camp Borough, Hill 142 Pa. A. 511, 516, Pennsylvania R. 154 Pa. Gates v. 26 A. R., quotation King from above Rand v. where approval. suggestion Any that the was reiterated with including the common of cer Act writ law subsequent “appeal”, tiorari term had the within the jurisdic upon conferring effect appeal ap no to entertain where tion certiorari, peal patently fallacious and has been authorized, consideration. merits no further appellate jurisdiction to on certiorari

Nor is (where from action of the .court below Superior to ascribed the authorized) statutorily estab- which that the Act of on ground in Section provides lished the Superior Court, jurisdiction appellate “The shall have . . . said court case classes of cases: ... (e) Any . . . in following in at or civil or or in equity law whatever, criminal, which except felonious in orphans’ homicide, court, stipulation file a in their parties attorneys proceedings court of the proper stage below any the case be heard and decided agreeing may the case otherwise would Superior although Court, Supreme have been Court.” appealable directly (Emphasis supplied). provision, Plainly enough, “appealable” its is made applicable terms, cases, conten- not to ones is authorized. A where Act above-quoted provision tion of 1895 jurisdic- court’s approve intended acquiring tion matter subject agreement parties untenable. obviously the Act de- 7(e)

Section of 1895 was manifestly in cases ivhere parties authorize both signed have Supreme Courts coordinate juris- subject diction in trespass, e.g., assumpsit, matter} to choose the Superior appellate Court’s equity, etc., limitation thereon regardless of amount in or otherwise. The use way controversy Section 7(e) word “criminal”, defining cases to its type provision was to be applica- ble is of no effect. That superfluous and evi- plainly dent. The Sections immediately 7(a) preceding the Act (b) of conferred 1895, supra, respectively jurisdiction pro- quarter in the ceedings sessions and in court of and terminer oyer except felonious cases of homicide. As the Superior consequence, ju- Court’s criminal appeals risdiction of is so make broad as to selecting 7(e), resort the Section useless. forum, Act argument, the

The based similar on effect, Superior May P. amended the of L. 5, 248, which equally Section Court Act of is merit. without ap- provides the an of Act of 1899 “Whenever peal Superior appellee is the shall taken to the Court, objection jurisdiction be have to the held to waived prothonotary he file the of unless with court, objection prior ground, to the thereof an on this Superior hearing appeal by the If the the Court. objection Superior shall is the Court hear made, appeal speedily, if it decide is sustained and Supreme prothonotary to the is certified Court Superior appeal to the costs in addition shall, paid appellant already paid, three be sum of likewise, as further costs the cause.” dollars Here, subject jurisdiction created. no additional matter is juris- provision intended make available the The Superior parties if so desired, diction Court, jurisdiction only that court instances had where subject particular matter cause ow- but jurisdiction ing to the restriction on its because of controversy. amount provisions 7(e) of Section of the Act of 1895 ,11 conversely are the Act of of Section pari

complimentary Sec- are read in materia. be 7(e) have confers the Act of as we seen, tion Superior ap- to entertain an on the stipulation peal parties a to that effect in file if the 11 of Act au- Section of 1899 while court below, ap- appeal if the an thenticates prothonotary pellee that court to file fails with already jurisdiction. objection to the as we have But, applicable provisions only to of these each indicated, judgment, from order or de- where cases cree to subject matter Su relating whereof both the preme and jurisdic have Courts coordinate tion. The decision in Election Philadelphia County Board v. 162 Pa. A. Superior Ct. Rader, 2d to other effect cannot sustained, rationally aas moment’s reflection reveal. will

The Rader case involved an appeal from a judgment of contempt entered court of common pleas against the defendant “. . . for to answer refusing questions propounded Election Philadel- Board of phia.” Superior The Court expressly recognized involved, “. . . appeal . . regardless of amount ., was not within . jurisdiction . .”. Nevertheless, [its] the court forthwith jurisdiction assumed on the basis of Section 11 of the Act of in supra, saying, that “This defect connection, jurisdiction in [want the Superior was to called attention Court] counsel at the bar of this appellee Court, expressly objection waived to jurisdiction. our we Accordingly, have decided the appeal.” In other a court, words, which jurisdiction lacks of the concededly subject mat- can ahead go adjudicate ter, merits. The er- ror of such a proposition is self-evident. Under rationale of the Rader a case decision, involving to a right public which is office, cognizable in the first instance in the court quarter sessions and is, Section 7(a) of Act of made to appealable the Supreme could be to Court, appealed the Superior the appellee Court if object failed to to the jurisdiction. a defendant Again, convicted of murder in the first de- take gree could to the Superior and, Court unless district filed with the attorney prothonotary objection the jurisdiction the prosecut- court, would held have ing be attorney objection waived his to the jurisdiction the Superior Court pro- would ceed to hear decide the matter Section although of the Act that cases 7(b) of 1895 provides expressly of felonious shall to the homicide appealed be directly Supreme Court.

The Act a fur- furnishes P. L. May 8, 1956, ther By illustration of the error of the Rader decision. to en- jurisdiction Superior Act, appeals tertain from orphans’ decrees of the court, repealed to the construc- absolutely and, according yet, tion su- placed on the Act of the Rader case, 1899 by taken appeals orphans’ court cases could still be pra, object if the appellees failed be jurisdiction of that court. The same would the parties true where under Section equally stipulate, as to 7(e) jurisdiction Act of the appellate to be that provision applicable unless be held invoked, when the has only jurisdiction subject matter from it be- prevented but exercising cause The controversy. amount error of Election jurisdictional in Philadelphia ruling Board patent. v. Henceforth that de- Rader, supra, cision must be considered overruled. can only way properly the Superior

conferred to upon Court review the work inferior no appeal of an has statu- where been tribunal, is for the to authorize the Legislature torily provided, (cid:127)Superior appeals entertain in such cases. That Court done the Legislature what was when author- precisely Superior of appeal ized an Court from an order common or the Alle- pleas court of of Court County suspension in cases aof gheny County involving 1 driver’s license. See Section of the Act of 29, May P. L. 75 PS Pkt. Part. 1956, (1955) 1850, There- §193, such cases reviewed this were court on cer- tofore, also the Legislation competent tiorari. and effi- means to the appeals Superior. cient whereby Court orders authorized from of .were courts quarter 606 re- County of Allegheny or Court

sessions li- liquor of transfers or renewals fusing issuance, 1951, April 12, the Act of censes Section (see re- orders court like or from §4-464) L. PS P. 90, 471 of licenses: Section such suspending voking 47 PS Act of supra, §4-471. common appeals beyond election

In most cases, re appellate for. Hence, are not provided pleas certiorari court on such proceedings view v. Martonick See powers. Bench our King’s under appeal The 117 A. 2d 715. 168, 170, Beattie, taken been mistakenly case had the Martonich en the merits and on heard Superior Court which allocatur, the case here on brought order. We tered an jurisdic lack of order for Superior vacated Court’s As the merits. on disposed tion and are there Martonick supra, out in v. pointed Beattie, factual from appeals instances purely but two where matters incidental in election determinations promptly are pleas a court of common made, by statute, Superior Court. See Section appealable n theElection Code PS P. L. June Act L. 25 PS of July 28, 1941,.P. §2936. §3231, ju authorization of legislative (cid:127)This necessary ' fact point serves to further up risdiction proceed lacks authority Court have not been appeals tribunals where inferior ings authorized. L. 17 PS Act of March P. 2,1923, §187, appeals

conferred the County or sentences of orders, judgments, from Municipal or the of Allegheny County appro- more designate than did Philadelphia, n not confer the appeals. forum for such did priate certiorari on the of common law power Bench King’s That court to be continues, therefore, Court. without proceedings in authority review Court of Municipal or the Allegheny County Philadelphia certiorari author where ized statute. Walker’s 388. Cf. supra, p. Appeal,

Nor is the fact that instances are to found where be the Superior if on cer Court entertained as appeals, when no as appeal was taken tiorari, authorized, support for a jurisdiction which the does possess. Most of such instances con were cerned orders with of courts ap sessions on quarter peals thereto from orders of the Liquor Pennsylvania Control Board in license as cases, such, example, McGettigan’s License Liquor 131 Pa. Superior Ct. Case, 200 A. 280, 213. Assumption of in those jurisdiction cases cannot to support be used properly in the Superior Court which does not exist. Section 404 of the Pennsylvania Liquor Act Control of Novem ber Sp. P. L. 29,1933, the Acts Sess., amended P. L. July 18, and June L. P. appeals authorized from the Liquor orders of the Control Board quarter courts of sessions various counties but State, provided expressly “There shall be that, no further appeal.” In view such an order of court inhibition, quarter ses sions could be reviewed this court on certiorari only by under our Bench powers. The King’s Superior Court, the limitation on its conceding power to review sessions’ orders on quarter ap dismissed the certiorari, in the peals That MeGettigan Case. case therefore, is, non-decisional as to the Superior what jurisdic Court’s tion would have been the Liquor had Control silent respect Act been with to an appeal from the or der of sessions. quarter True there enough, opinion are dicta in the for the Superior in such that court imply that, would circumstances, have reviewed on the proceedings merits. But that jurisdiction does not The Su- make for on certiorari. perior jurisdiction liquor appellate license in Court’s properly already indicated, cases has been clarified. As April supra, .the Act of made such P. L. 12, 1951, 90, quarter orders of the courts of sessions the Liquor Allegheny County of Board Court in Control appealable Superior directly cases Court. right appeal To summarize: Where a from of by or action of lower court is not authorized statute, provides expressly that statute denied, action of the court shall re- be below final, proceeding only of of the view can be had on writ Authority reposed certiorari. in issue such a iswrit Supreme by May the Act of which 22, 1722, upon powers King’s it the conferred Court of Bench. The is not with such clothed powers jurisdiction without to review is, therefore, proceedings of a court on lower certiorari. The Su- perior appellate jurisdiction exclusively Court’s rests expressly direct to it in when stat- authorized necessarily ute. follows appeals entertaining erred in the instant cases. Its must therefore order reversal for want be vacated jurisdiction just done in was the case of Martonich supra. appeals leaves v. That before us Beattie, disposition on certiorari. our , Appellate proceedings of the inferior an originally of certiorari tribunal writ limited to inspection record for an below appearing correction of errors on the face of the record. opinion Neither the court nor the evidence in the part any case formed record and the could merits inquired scope into on certiorari. The not be enlarged. recognized somewhat has since been As .writ Rimer’s 316 Pa. Contested A. Election, n ... “, year considerably this court had conception the review expanded original cer- came before writ accorded cases which passed the General tiorari. In year Assembly from act further possible departures made even April Act to is the Act of rule.” The referred old L. “in proceed- P. which provides any record heretofore or hereafter court of ings had where the has been of this Commonwealth testimony other- or shall taken or be by witnesses, depositions, has shall hereafter appeal and where an been or wise, the judgment, be taken from or order, sentence, decree, to Supreme in said the or entered proceedings, proceedings, such shall be filed in said testimony Court, shall to the appeal and the effect of said be remove, testimony consideration of the the appellate court, the court the appeal taken in from which taken, a appellate the same shall reviewed the court be as by like effect as upon appeal of the with an part record, the upon jury from a entered verdict of a judgment not at so appeal in an action the taken shall law, a the effect certiorari regu- have review the only in the below.” proceedings larity the Act of ex- While enabled 1919, supra, us, by on amination of see wheth- testimony certiorari, the court by er below were supported the findings indicated in Senatorial Twenty-First evidence, District 281 Pa. 126 A. Nomination, 273, 279, to expand Act our operate jurisdiction could the statute states that no in cases where particularly be It was permitted. that, shall there said appeal a fails legislature statutory proceeding, “Where, a certiorari appeal for an . . inspect provide ., sense broadest allowed our may, record, cases, states legislature but where . . . issue; nevertheless, shall then appeal that no beyond permitted, review, had; cannot be questions determining jurisdiction, under circumstances such those and, bar, cer: purpose tiorari for the latter cannot into be broadened something prior rulings more either our extensive, subject general operation hand, April Act 72.” P. L. judicial developed by there was decision

Thus, two classifications of the of certiorari common law writ recognized. which this court has ever since See Kauf- Company man Construction v. 357 Pa. 514, Holcomb, Twenty- quoting after 55 A. 2d from 534, where, supra, First District Senatorial said, we Nomination, pp. “The re- distinction thus made has been 518-519, subsequent iterated reinforced in a multitude provides holding expressly cases where statute scope that there shall be no re- question view limited regularity proceedings; con- merits of the troversy though be considered inter- cannot even pretation given govern- to the facts or the law agency may mental or the court have er- below been citing many only [Footnote roneous. cases] where question appeal the silent statute is on the of by may certiorari review be had ‘in the broadest sense’ may including the court consider the the record, sup- testimony, findings to determine whether the are ported competent by evidence and to correct con- citing erroneously clusions of [Footnote law made. many cases]” August supra,

As the Act of under which proceeding the the does was conducted provide not for an from the action of court, the records before us are here on broad now certiorari. jurisdiction beyond look We therefore of the court be- proceedings regularity low and determine, findings sup- examining testimony, whether are ported by guilty evidence or the court whether error an connection an abuse of discretion in such or certiorari does law. The of our review on scope ar- our the evidence and contemplate thereby weighing independent In Walker’s Appeal, riving findings. A. Pa. we 385, speaking 389,144 said, part is a when testimony certiorari, there- of the Act of 1919, record virtue —“Even further under evidence weigh we cannot conflicting from than to determine whether decree appealed or evidence and the court supported whether by any act com- or to do the judge had authority of.” as said in Rimer’s plained Election, Contested Or, “it Act of is our under the supra, (pp. 351-352), duty to examine the to see if P. L. testimony adequate the trial court are supported findings will evidence nor evidence. We not, however, weigh respects substitute our discretion in other for facts ascer- upon definitely below, although, erroneously correct conclusions of will law tained, we Ap- See supplied). made.” (Emphasis also, Healey’s expressions “any A. 786. The 512,181 peal, in as used Walker “adequate evidence”, evidence” if be- and Rimer mean evidence supra, cases, which, the find- supports the authorized fact lieved finder, are so supported way ings. findings Whether have might credibility on how viewed the depends we our province had been or weight testimony finder. act the fact conduct where- charge unbecoming officer, was found appellants

of each of guilty from force of police was dismissed he out of one epi- and the same grew City Pittsburgh, as so designated credible expressly The testimony, sode. a that Grosso, the court established Tony below, a rec- police racketeer with numbers long well known morn- Officer Killeen in arrested early was ord, ing in the Mar- July Diamond vicinity ket in downtown a Pittsburgh. A pedes- cab driver and trian witnessed Killeen to administer Grosso. beating Officer Tarr Lieutenant Bell and were at scene the arrest. Grosso was booked on the blotter police Morro” “Joseph and that was same given hearing under the alias. Grosso to morning was well known and Killeen Bell were aware of true Tarr, Grosso’s admitted Chester a news- identity, having Harris, that paper hearing knew reporter, they day that Morro” “Joseph was in Grosso. The reality Tony the officers charge concealment against was of an arrested identity person and of persisting deception without steps have it corrected. taking

Whether the officers were of the charges guilty them against depends on the of the witnesses. credibility trial who judge, saw and heard ex- witnesses, accredited testi- pressly whose Harris, reporter, established the mony against case officers. police respect with the trial ad- Thus, in his Harris, judge judication that he states impressed was Harris’s tes- that he honest dis- timony appeared be an interested witness. On the other dis- the court hand, credited of the accused. As to testimony Killeen, the court that found “he untruthful to his supe- was riors, and, before again, testifying this Court” that “he was instrumental with other officers con- cealing Grosso the latter identity when Tony with charged conduct.” The court found disorderly Tarr was Kil- that, although present at the time leen arrested he superior “told his that officers Grosso, he was not present the time of the that he arrest”; “knew Grosso had been booked under an Tony assumed name”; and he “made no effort to cause Grosso’s correct name to police be entered on the rec- ords.” The further found Lieu- “As Acting charged responsibility Bell of was with the tenant, making that his sure the was under accused booked proper charged that the “Grosso . at name”; was . . police scene of the arrest and later on the station “Acting under an assumed Lieutenant and name”; concealing participated yet Bell well knew and identity.” the accused’s testimony, conflicting in this of oral we

If, welter weigh should assume to end, the evidence in the and, opposite findings come out court with to of the doing thereby sub- we would be than below, more stituting Such, our that of the trial court. discretion for prerogative is es- not our on however, pecially review, primary duty on certiorari. was the lower the to court find material facts and render accordingly, may rightly interfere decision we findings the with result unless the court in its below palpable guilty was of a er- abuse of discretion an considerately say the ror of law. cannot we That, present in the case instance.

Although County Alle on of the gheny County supra, as amended under Act of 1951, (applicable Cities) from order Second an Class Pittsburgh, City Civil Service Commission proceeding an the court does not have de novo, adjudging to exercise the merit absolute discretion validity order. Civil Service Commission’s respect necessary give It is court due municipal weight duly constituted action respect charges body to act with which authorized police City’s against force. In Ditko members of the involved Appeal, 123 A. 2d policeman, under Third Class the dismissal unbecoming City for conduct officer, Act, pleas affirmed order of Berks of common city Third by the council under the which, dismissal Serv- occupies Civil position Class City Act, applicable Act to Second ice under Commission opinion Class Cities. We affirmed expressly & the court Pa. D. 569), C. 2d (reported below inter 576- (pp. thereby approved, alia, following us : the fact that the matter is before “In of 577) spite aside an order de the court should not set lightly novo, hands rendered at the of duly-elected of dismissal the City officials public and constituted body [there affairs the charged who are with conducting Council] necessary department of the and police maintaining the the discipline so assure vital functioning efficient force.” Likewise, of an protection police 363 A. 2d 135, Pa. 213, Caldwell v. Fairley, 215, opinion the of the we affirmed on where again from after Thomas v. Connell, quoting below, which, A. effect “What cause the limits ample for removal within constitutes act must be a matter fixed necessarily largely part department” of the head of the of discretion on true of the service police “This especially added, tois discipline encouraged a semimilitary where pun- of enforcement and strictness severity greater permitted.” is to be ishment The the cases before us does disclose record in not discre- court below was an abuse of guilty error of statu- or that it committed an law. The tion procedure pursued prescribed strictly torily officers accorded procedural proc- accused were due full measure. ess in at Num- entered

The orders Term that court April 110 and 1958 of bers aside. and set are hereby vacated the several appeals from orders separate are dismissed. of Allegheny County County opinion concurs in the Mr. Justice Bell appellate question on certiorari. review court on palpa- for a He on the merits would however, reverse, part the trial court. of discretion on the ble abuse Dissenting Opinion Concurring Jus- Mr. tice Musmanno : question opinion

I on concur in certiorari. Majority’s conclusions I from dissent, however, facts do on the merits the case. I believe the Court. warrant conclusion reached inescapable penalties simply that the In it is event policemen imposed against are case in this the three point cruelty. unreasonable of unfairness respec- their Here are three men have devoted who profession police they are officers; tive lives to the type other. be- for this and none Now, trained work judgment, assuming the of a mistake cause (which County its correct in conclusions, Court was concede), they dis- are of course I do not dismissed, deprived con- livelihood. It is a of their honored and any- templation harrowing and should disturb justice we to the cause of one devoted fairness, justice America. and fairness in know Allegheny place, County the first the Court In findings approved the County have should never In Service Commission. Trial Board and Civil County completely failed hearing Court case, required perform duty.- to evidence It hear to its was De assumes that novo. novo consider the case de previ- hearing purpose there been no has for the up proceeding. a takes a cause de When novo, Court ous AVeighing hearing responsibility of evidence, it has first this been conclusions as if had and reaching it, a before appeared ever had litigants time the involved under- not to did seem Court tribunal.1 County considera- under appeals this. It stated: “In stand wheth- its decision decide this has limited tion Court evidence to sustain substantial er or there was adminis- action Service Civil Commission even police though officers, tration in dismissing these conclusion at a have arrived mag Court different it an independent were inquiry.”2 making if had a hint if the Court

This is broad County a it not have reached as Trial would been sitting Board, announced. But the conclusions it County a the facts. as Trial determine sitting it have what it said or should been Avasdoing, doing, power not have the to do. It have the power did did independent to make an Avent inquiry, and, fact, the motions but independent of an inquiry, through it came to formal put then when adjudication, and contented itself affirm- with an self-forged chains, went of what on before. ance This its misconception of least its powers, failure exercise entitles to a policemen them, neAv I hearing, reverse the action Avould,therefore, Court and send the cause County back for re- hearing.

In its seeking action the justify the case of cited Thomas v. 264 Pa. where Connell, “What Court said: constitutes cause ample (just) for removal must a matter of necessarily largely discretion on the of the part head of the department. To be sufficient, cause however, should be personal and such employee as to render him for unfit Runzo, Supp. American Fruit Growers v. 95 F. 842. throughout, Italics mine... jus- his dismissal position he thus occupies, making tifiable for the the service.” But and good case the official had been found discharged guilty contemptuous insubordination and and profane using language superior. toward his Mayor Scranton, Our Court said: disre- “Insubordination and properly spect is to toward see whose superior, duty the work of his is department proper carried on in are matters un- pass if to manner, permitted which, tend to demoralize the punished, public service, to lead em- general inefficiency among disloyalty ployees.”

There was like that in the case three nothing men involved in these proceedings. The record shows them have police been have good been officers; they respectful their efficient have been superiors; they and loyal. William Killeen a policeman became on Jan- 1950 as uary 19, (not stated incorrectly Court.) Bell his Joseph got January badge 1929. E. George Tarr has been on force police since December 1941. these rendered officers Thus, 17y2 faithful service for and 16 years, years, years, all In respectively. those years have been never they have insubordinate, never they flinched from danger, have never failed measure they ex- what up pected of a good police officer. In all that time they have upheld law have order; they protec- bestowed on the tion and the weak, aged, helpless; have they assistance to given who everyone turned to them have never help; shame they brought or dishonor to the uniform wore. they

These three men have upheld dignity respect which with an officer goes police- law. A man is a soldier he is the peace, symbol of an orderly community. When the in that community tranquillity violence when disturbed, accidents when threatens, po- it is

spill their and cargoes pain confusion, normalcy works back liceman who and battles bring it summons medical and who harmony, policeman re- care mechanical the policeman who aid, neigh- stores confidence to the distraught and well-being borhood. the tributes

These three men have been worthy on guardians bestows society happily un- until records peace. Up their were July as their names their reputations blemished, unstained, On excellent. citizens law-abiding home-loving at face is if accept we July 3, 1957, they erred, value Trial the affirmation findings Board, unsatisfactory Civil Service and the Commission, review by Court. But, assuming that, chalked performance of their missed duty, they misstep did so far that their line, they go marginal should condemn them to decapitation? Was it kind aof blunder which warrants their taking away uniform which have worn so a single without they long brass button emphatic tarnished? is an answer My negative.

Another deplorable sequel inflicted penalty if is that it will extend be- case, unrectified, the men yond themselves. The punishing punishment will work effect police on the whole demoralizing force. policeman will feel that a Dam- Every sword of ocles over his head as he walks his hangs beat he to a call to action. responds policeman’s A weapons are not limited revolver and mace. also He must the side arms of aggressive carry daring, initiative, he resourcefulness if is to fight bandits, successfully and other malfeasors under- burglars, thieves, are equipped world who and trained to formidably wage their against society. war If the ungodly law rivets ankle an iron ball of chas- policeman’s threatening always trip ready he makes tisement to Mm the event extent disarmed he is unforeseeable error, against back the criminal. he is held in his If battle his ardor in that fashion his zeal bound to suffer, is advantage only to of can diminish—all the .violent society. pounce ready a ever to on defenceless evildoers policeman like Of a is amenable the law course, legal transgresses everybody But code. else if he charged a crimi no one that these men committed has involving performed they inal offense or that deed pos turpitude. Taking moral the evidence in its worst negligent possibly light they indifferent sible and were they right getting necessity name of a man of later a dollars and who on ten arrested released forfeit.* findings

Assuming were of the Trial Board reprimand sus- a or. a short substantiated evidence, pension drive have out of order. But to not been would profession appellants only they know, out badges, calamity away their visit take unsullied and justice, punishment is their a which families cannot, supported by facts or law. preach vigilance, Of it to and is virtue what use slip, lifelong record rectitude with one little man’s if, ignored vigilance, is virtue and rectitude is and. he pushed ignominy are over the disaster? We cliff goodness, vengeful people. are We dedicated right, probity but it is written conduct, pages that to err the error human; of man when and, spirit, ready to is not stand motivated evil we give erring chance. That mortal another is America, that is Christendom. If tolerance, is civilization,

* duty required perhaps when Officer Killeen went further than guidance approached assist- him for he struck motorist who ance. part are and mercy

moderation, charity, humanity, are, the American undoubtedly way life, they this is exercise those attri- the time and place butes. it

If the exercised the Court had County authority it in accordance possesses, would, very least, imposed with the have reduced the law, punishment the Trial au- Board. If this exercised Court had it which have thority would indubitably possesses, struck down this out penalty completely accord with the law written in the books and in hearts of men. since the Court and But, have failed what I as their discharge regard obvious I trust Pitts- responsibility, City will reinstate Joseph Officers burgh William Killeen, Bell and E. Tarr to George places. their For whatever error have they may have since committed, they long made retribution in lost and salary anguish suffered.

William Schwenk Gilbert said: “The policeman’s is not a lot one.” happy But there is no reason why unhappiness should be added to forces by very uphold law, policeman which fears storm or darkness, flinches from no danger or menace, fights visible against and invisible foe, stands ready, if any time, his life. necessary, give The cumulative dangers hardships which these three men of law have sustained over a collective of 61 incumbency years entitle to a them of kindness showing they have often undoubtedly displayed toward en- others, tire with keeping majesty law and dignity all man, which, make combined, America the land of true and justice. understanding Dissenting Opinion Mb. Justice McBbide: fell reverses a This in one whole decision, swoop, course has of procedure justified which is by law, fully approved been this the Su- Court and followed since its creation. perior Court Between 1895 and 1919 the Superior nar- Court reviewed host of cases on certiorari. row Between 1919 time that present court reviewed the same of cases cer- types on broad tiorari. Now Court holds never have should they done at all.

The Act of August P. L. 53 P.S. et provides that §23537, the second seq., any city class no policeman “shall be or removed, discharged suspended for period ten as a exceeding days penalty, or reduced in rank or without his pay written consent, except just which shall not be cause, religious . . political; departmental .”. After procedures have been satisfied and the has Mayor approved a discharge, policeman accused has the within ten right, days of such to appeal to the notice, civil service commission. If the civil service commission sustains the decision has accused right petition court of pleas.1 common is to duty “hear the made charges against the accused de novo. . . . The court shall fix a time and place for hearing, shall make findings fact and conclusions of law, file a decision. The issue before the court shall be the whether action the of trial court [police] shall be affirmed or modified in any respect or whether the should be charges dismissed.” No further to appeal court is or any authorized forbidden.

In the case present charges were made their su- periors against Joseph E. Bell, George and Wil- Tarr, 1 County AUegheny County given jurisdiction The of was by §l(m) July 6, 1951, the of Act of §626, P.D. P.S. and September 29, 1951, of the Act P.D. §604. PS of policemen

liam City Pittsburgh, Killeen, offi- each of conduct had been unbecoming guilty hearing cer. Each of the three policemen given was before a trial recommended dis- police board which the the missal. This action approved Mayor the officers dismissed. and were City Pittsburgh to the civil Upon service commission the. appeal affirmed. took policemen ap- dismissals were The then to peals Court of County Allegheny County de made of fact con- findings heard cases and novo, dis- clusions of and held cause for the ample law missals appeals existed. The then filed policemen No contention was made Superior Court. jurisdiction lacked City appeal. hear such an The reversed Superior Court orders all three President cases, reversing from the decision Judge dissenting Rhodes of Tarr Killeen. peti- dismissals then City tioned for allowance of which this Court granted. powers Supreme Court,

By “analogy” this case Court asserted certiorari” on the basis of of “broad power with which it found itself invested. Act

Under the L. §13, Sm. May 22, 1722, courts of in the judicature province establishing Supreme power Court was given Pennsylvania, the jurisdictions “exercise and powers” [granted by to all “as intents pur- fully amply, act] as the Justices of Court of poses King’s whatsoever, at Westminster, Common Bench, Pleas, Exchequer, or can do.” The power King’s them, may in criminal crown Bench was exercised cases on the cases side plea side of the court and in civil on the the court. v. Pa. 365, Commonwealth Balph, 220. 3 A. §41, 17 P.S. L. 784, Act of June P. 1836, §1, By to minister “. . . the our power confirmed legislature fully as to in all matters, whatsoever, all justice persons, said court to all and as the and intents purposes, amply, constitution to the has heretofore had under power do, . .” laws this . . commonwealth; and of 1874, Article Constitution §3, Then, by it this “shall have provided was error all or writ of in certiorari by appeal, provided law.” hereafter now eases, may Those three forms of utilized separate review were it essential various and was types proceedings meet them appropriate select from litigants among mode of review. 134 Pa. A.

We said Rand v. King; 806: “That most the writ generally employed final any which lay against error, any judgment such and against record, interlocutory it as have been made orders reviewable auxiliary upon statute. On writ is reviewed judgment reference errors are alleged pointed with out taken the action of trial court exceptions are the time when the and as a rulings made, gen- eral power Supreme rule is limited so raised: Poor v. Warsaw questions Tp. D. Pa. all Knox Poor 301. In cases, Tp. D., equity those from forms, following equity of is complained proper the decree mode of review. and the brings pleadings evidence on which up makes it appel- the decree rests, necessary and see late court whether decision examine, case eonseionable that was presented just made who it. The method to the chancellor remaining of certiorari. This writ brought writ up was by case for but given review and record correction, record brought only: Carlson’s License, to be 380; Holland 120 Pa. The errors v. 228. White, corrected must on face appear the of the record: Chase v. Pa. the cannot Miller, 403; merits be in- into quired judg- this are left upon but writ, ment the court 20. of below: Election Cases, Neither the opinion evidence, nor court, part forms any record that rea- proper, and for son will not be examined on certiorari: Holland they supra. v. The character of be White, proceeding reviewed, the method be suggested, therefore, the limits within which the adopted, practitioner should direct his preparation.” ofAct P.L. P.S. May 9,

Thereafter, 1889, 158, “All legislature provided appellate proceed- 1131, ings Supreme Court heretofore taken writ appeal or error, shall be hereafter taken certiorari, to be called an proceeding appeal.” This not did that cer- mean, writ of however, error or tiorari was thereby abolished; simply meant one or appropriate more of these three dissimilar modes review could under a procedure an had, called appeal. v. Rand 134 Pa. King, A. 806; Camp Hill 142 Pa. 21 A. Borough, 978; Commonwealth v. 4 Pa. Superior Tragle, Ct. 159. The opinion majority “Any suggestion Act of says, includ- 1889, by the common law ing writ certiorari within term had the subsequent effect of ‘appeal’, upon conferring the Superior jurisdiction to entertain ap- peal where no certiorari, appeal has been author- fallacious ized, and merits patently con- further sideration.” To the best of my no such knowledge, has suggestion been made by anybody certainly made in this being opinion. dissenting This status appellate review when Superior Court was created. Act of By June P.L. 17 P.S. 212, §7, §181, legislature pro- “shall have exclusive vided the Superior and final of all appeals following are in the now allowed Supreme its amend- classes cases: . . .” act, Under ments and classes of cases enumerated supplements, are: kind in the Court Proceedings of

(1) any Quarter judge Sessions of the Peace before any thereof cases except right public involving (17 §182) office. P.S. kind in the Court

(2) Proceedings except and Terminer General Jail Oyer Delivery cases of felonious homicide. (17 §183). P.S. in of from the Court Common Pleas

(3) Appeals case at or in if the of con- subject any law equity be either real or or troversy chattels, money, personal, of or to real if the amount possession title property no in be or if the than controversy greater f5,000 be action not authorized or defended brought, by official P.S. (17 General in his Attorney capacity. §184). in in divorce

(4) Appeals proceedings and general labor appeals claimants under the Act of 1897. by (17 §186) P.S. sentence from or

(5) Appeals any order, judgment of or of the Mu- Allegheny Court County County or of Philadelphia of similar nicipal Court any where it is not provided hereafter created law by be taken of or appeal such Court Pleas Common Quarter of Sessions the Peace. pro- was further or sentences judgments vided such are orders, Supreme except Court allow- appealable upon the case other ance as in judgments orders, (17 Court. P.S. §187) sentences in Corpus involving Habeas cases Appeals (6) of children. (12 §1874) P.S. custody legislature, gave to it when jurisdiction final exclusive and in 1895, Supreme “appeals” allowed to the all were there which mean did not in the enumerated classes cases, or error thereby it writ of to exclude review legis- the fact that in 1889 certiorari. In view specified preserved modes, in all three lature review “appeal” using there all to cover of them, word meaning any different to believe it reason intended “appeals” it it used attached word when legis- years believe that six later in 1895. I where provides appeal any case specifically for lature falling any specifically classes enumerated Supe- provided the Act as amended, appropriate may whether afford review rior Court appeal the same be writ of error, certiorari, previously do. way had as this Court August Act P.L. 1189, However, proceed- present seq., et under P.S. §23537, ing brought, authorizes nor neither noted above, al- from the forbids though §1, the Act March P.L. under appealable proceedings of of all2 17 P.S. §187, given Allegheny County County is Court given appeal Superior right'of thereby no Court Superior any particular It follows that the case. appeal by in its strict case either not review this could sought by it has to do so. of error and sense or writ scope appellate by law the common review a fruitful source of contro- certiorari has been writ of Superior versy in the Court. this Court and both in 2 right Superior to review different from the This is case, proceedings In the latter Pleas Court. of Common “money, chattels, personal, real or as to controversies limited to property possession if in con to real the amount of or title or the $5,000.” greater troversy than no

627 v. Construction Co. As out us in pointed by Kaufman been there has 357 Pa. 55 A. 2d Holcomb, its creation much in the cases. Since vacillation held itself power Court from Superior 1895 until certiorari less to where review even narrow by court statute the action of the lower provided final there could be further or conclusive or that con same That appeal.3 during period, court, the extent certiorari reviewed narrow sistently by the inferior passing upon and the its in cases where proceedings regularity forbade statute neither authorized nor applicable appellate review.4 Such review covered many types cases.

3 Appeals quashed Superior or dismissed Court between specifically 1895 1919 where review is denied Wagner, (1919) ; statute: Schwenker & Co. v. Superior 71 573 Pa. Ct. Metropolitan Co., ; Miller Superior (1914) v. Ins. 464 58 Pa. Ct. Life Reese, Superior ; Some v. (1911) Protective Assoc. 47 Pa. 452 Ct. Top Huntington Fluke, Superior &Broad Mountain R.R. v. 32 Pa. Ct. Berge, (1906) ; Fry (1906) ; Adams Superior v. 422 126 30 Pa. Ct. Spatz, (1905) ; Minogue v. Superior v. Ashland Bor 592 29 Pa. Ct. ough, Superior (1905) ; Phoenix Iron Co. v. Works 27 Pa. Ct. 506 Mullen, Superior (1904) ; Alexander & Co. v. Gold 25 Pa. Ct. 547 (1900) ; Crumley Co., stein, v. Coal Superior Crescent Pa. Ct. 518 13 Co., & Erb (1900) ; Carroll v. Barnes Superior 11 Pa. 13 Pa. Ct. 231 (1899) ; Colwyn Tarbotton, Pa. Superior Superior v. 1 Ct. 179 Ct. 590 . (1896) 4 Superior on “narrow” certiorari Cases reviewed nor where is neither authorized 1895 and 1919 between Travis, Holly Superior v. 527 71 Pa. Ct. forbidden statute: Case, J.) Allegheny s’ Commissioner ; (1919) 61 Pa. (Keller, Sinking Borough, Spring (1915) J.) ; Superior Ct. 591 (Kephart, Layton, J.) ; Com. v. (1913) Superior (Henderson, 481 Pa. Ct. Brewing Co.’s P.J.) ; Star (1911) Superior (Rice, Ct. 582 45 Pa. License, J.) ; v. (1910) (Head, Superior Com. Ct. 43 Pa. P.J.) ; Mack v. Brownell, (1908) (Rice, Pa. Ct. 249 Trust, ; Schuylkill (1907) J.) (Porter, Ct. Township’s Districts, 29 Pa. Superior Election Franklin Ct. 534 628 Supe Pa.

Indeed, Commonwealth v. 9 Gibbons, Superior rior Ct. commit reviewed Quarter ment of a Sessions for criminal con tempt. jurisdiction ques specifically Its to do so was tioned. In an able discussion held that statutory power though had certiorari review even appeal contempt specif an in cases of criminal is not ically authorized. This Court entertained reported Kelly’s sub nom Contested Election, Superior 200 Pa. A. 50 248. af Court was scope firmed without al discussion of review to that lowed court. obvious had opinion Superior been of Court lacked opinion asserted on the face of we its independently would have its order vacated and then passed upon judgment Quarter Sessions today. majority Court as the does now it is seen Thus twenty-four years Superior that for without Court, attempted consistently correction this Court, exer right to cised orders of inferior courts April narrow certiorari. And the Act of then, legislature 12 P.L. P.S. §1165, P.J.) Waynesburg Borough’s ; (1905) Districts, (Rice, Election 29 Superior (1905) Appeal, (Rice, P.J.) ; Pa. Welsh’s Ct. 534 Pa. J.) Donegal Rd., Superior (1903) (Porter, ; Township West Ct. 392 ; Superior (1902) (Per Curiam) 21 Pa. Road Herrick Ct. 620 Townships, Superior & Ararat (1901) (Smith, J.) ; 16 Pa. Ct. 579 Piollet, Superior v. (1901) P.J.) ; (Rice, Nobles 16 Pa. Ct. Line, Huntingdon County Superior (1900) (Rice, 14 Pa. Ct. 571 Summers, P.J.) ; Superior (1900) (Orlady, Miller v. 13 Pa. Ct. Township, J.) ; a Private Road in Dennison In the Matter Luzerne (Rice, P.J.) (1900) ; Superior County, Com. v. Gib- 13 Pa. Ct. bons, (1899) (Smith, J.) ; Superior In re Division Ct. 527 Pittsburgh City Districts, Appeal into Election Wards at., Guffey, (1898) (Per Curiam) ; et S.W. 7 Pa. Ct. 478 Fogelman Flomenhaft, Solomon and Harris Com. v. 3 Pa. P.J.). (1897) (Rice, Ct. 566 right appellate to any court the first time in created by certiorari.5 called broad is now review what prior may to existed Whatever doubt have dispelled. very ought is the to This statute have been by its own act the assertion of in invoked this Court power Without it we certiorari. review broad right. contention can would have no such No serious Superior specific be made that inclusion of the meaningless. along Pre- with this Court was legislature sumably knowledge full of the con- had position Superior sistent its taken since opinion. creation in the cases cited in this The need appellate was felt that both courts should not be re- regularity stricted to “certiorari to review proceedings appeal the court in Where is below”. an open. specifically all allowed three modes of are review enlarged scope obviously Therefore this apply appeals intended in the class of cases where tvere neither authorized nor there otherwise forbidden, provide would have been reason that the testi- mony upon would be considered “with like effect as an appeal judgment upon a from entered the verdict aof entirety &e., enacted, The Act in its reads as follows: “Be it any proceedings in That or heretofore hereafter had testimony of record of this Commonwealth where the has or been by witnesses, otherwise, depositions, shall be taken or and where appeal order, an has been or shall hereafter be taken from the sentence, judgment, proceedings, decree, or entered in said Supreme Court, testimony such shall be filed said proceedings, appeal remove, and the effect said shaU be to appellate court, testimony the consideration of the taken appeal taken, the court from which and the shall be same record, part reviewed court as a with like upon appeal judgment upon effect from entered the verdict jury law, of a in an action at and the so taken shall not only regularity have o&rtiorari to review the effect proceedings (Emphasis supplied) in the court below.” of 1919 the Act in an action law . .'Since jury have both Court6 reviewed Court and respective certiorari their com- broad cases within for- the statute neither- nor petence where authorizes bids an are appeal. be noted these cases all liquor license cases as the in- opinion majority dicates. include public road town- Bather, they cases, annexation criminal ship appeals from cases, justices, proceedings of the Courts contempts, zoning cases, Quarter Sessions and in the proceedings Municipal of Philadelphia Court and the Alle- But -in gheny County. Court and in the Su- also this. perior Court there has been much as to the vacillation of the latter court right since 1919 narrow review by an, certiorari where the legislature, has denied provided judgment inferior tribunal is final or position conclusive. The of this Court as 6 by Superior Cases reviewed .the Court on broad certiorari since appellate 1919 where review is neither authorized nor forbidden Appeal, statute: Superior Jehovah’s Witnesses 183 Pa. Ct. 219 (1957) (Ervin, J.) ; Twp. Case, Hazle Superior Annexation 183 Pa. (1957) (Ervin, J.) ; 212 Jakub, Ct. Superior Com. v. 182 Pa. Ct. (1956) (Wright, J.) ; Appeal, 418 Superior Culbertson 182 Pa. Ct. (1956) (Per Curiam) ; 374 Appeal, Superior Schaub 180 Pa. Ct. 105 (1955) J.) ; (Ervin, Richardson, Superior Com. v. 174 Pa. Ct. 171 (1953) (Reno, J.) ; Appeal, Superior (1951) Lerten 168 Pa. Ct. 516 (Gunther, J.); Adoption Case, Superior Diana 165 Pa. Ct. 12 J.) (1949) (Reno, ; Township Case, Middlecreek Road 162 Pa. Superior (1948) (Arnold, J.) ; Ct. 619 Raphael, v. Polis 160 Pa. Superior (1947) (Hirt, J.) ; Appeal, Ct. 544 Superior Likar 157 Pa. (1945) J.) (Rhodes, ; Roming Superior Ct. 572 v. Shivers, 156 Pa. (1944) J.) ; Lynch (James, Hickey, Ct. 205 Superior v. 152 Pa. Ct. (1943) (Rhodes, J.) ; Liquor 129 Case, Pacewicz License 152 Pa. Superior (1943) (Keller, P.J.) ; Ct. 123 Liquor Martin’s Grill Inc. Case, Superior (1942) License (Keller, J.) 149 Pa. ; Ct. 185 Brad- Township Appeal, Superior doclc 148 (1942) Pa. (Rhodes, Ct. 52 J.) ; Co., H., Wood v. Industrial & Superior A. L. Ins. 107 Pa. Ct. (1932) (Stadteeld, J.). 338

631 least perfectly clear, has been its own Pa. v. 357 Holcomb, Construction Co. since Kaufman Court has Superior 2d but 534; 55 A. position the incorrect cases taken number of the legis- where certiorari even on narrow review may all review.7 some of In appellate lature has denied this refusal practice have approved cases we farther, has even Superior allocatur.8 gone cer- reviewed on broad number cases has the de- legislature provided tiorari where the has conclusive, court shall be final or cision lower all review.9 appellate Again thereby denying 7 Superior narrow Cases reviewed eertiorari specifically 1919 where since denied statute: Wynne Township, Superior Penn v. Lower Merion Pa. 524 181 Ct. (1956) ; Wynnewood Township, Civic Lower Merion 180 Assn. v. Boyle Superior Superior (1956) ; Appeal, Pa. Ct. 453 179 Pa. Ct. Superior (1955) ; Township Case, Ct. 318 Plum Annexation 178 Pa. (1955) Saxony Appeal, Superior ; Construction Co. 178 Pa. (1955) ; Funding Case, Superior Pittston Debt 172 Pa. Ct. Ct. 132 ; Liquor (1952) Case, Blair License Ct. ; Liquor Case, (1946) License 157 Pa. Ct. Kimmell Case, Superior ; Liquor (1945) 5 Pa. Ct. Shaheen’s License 145 Liquor Case, (1941) ; 142 License Lithuanian Assoc’s Club Benef. Superior ; Appeal, Superior (1940) 140 Fester’s Pa. Ct. Pa. Ct. 556 Superior Case, Spaniard’s Liquor (1941); 138 Pa. Ct. License 293 McGettigan’s Liquor Superior Case, (1940) ; Pa. License 131 251 (1938). Ct. 280 8 Boyle Appeal, Superior 318, Ct. allocatur 179 179 Pa. refused Saxony Appeal, (1955); Superior Co. xxvi Construction Pa. Ot. 132, Superior Superior 178 178 allocatur refused Pa. Ot. Pa. Ct. Case, Superior Township (1955) ; Pa. Plum Annexation 178 xxviii (1955). Superior 376, xxix Pa. Refusal refused 178 Ot. allocatur by by treated the Bench and this has been of allocatur Court approval import unlike on the merits of ease an Bar to by Supreme the United States. Court of denial of certiorari 9 by Superior on broad certiorari reviewed Cases by specifically appellate denied statute: review is where since 1919 Superior ; Case, (1954) Borough Pa. 38 Lemoyne 176 Ct. Annexation 632

Court has this refusal of allo- approved situation by catur.10

Since the Superior Court was created purely statute it power has no whatever to way review in any the jurisdiction of inferior tribunals the legis- where lature has appeal.11 denied is true the word granted when of uncertain “appeal”, by statute, in that it is still meaning necessary adopt appropriate writ method, is, appeal or certiorari Fisher, error, (Commonwealth v. 184 Pa. Superior Ct. 132 A. neverthe- 2d 739), when denies the legislature less, right appeal, excludes all Superior review all three Court by methods all of review and save review our only right narrow certiorari. Superior has so v. held in: Perroni correctly 173 Pa. Superior Thornberry, Ct. 98 641 A. 2d (1953); v. 81 Pa. Ct. Superior 589 Sires, Shaffer (1923); Widener v. 74 Pa. Schwartz, Superior Ct. 294 (1920).

Salisbury Township Case, Annexation Superior 172 Pa. Ct. 262 Township (1953) ; Ontelaunee Case, Annexation Superior 172 Pa. Borough ; (1952) Case, Superior Dallas 71 Annexation 169 Pa. Ct. (1951) ; Derry Township Appeal, Ct. School Dist. 129 168 Pa. Borough Superior (1951) ; (No. 1), Irwin Ct. 415 Annexation Case Superior Theatres, (1949) ; 165 Pa. Warner Bros. Ct. 119 v. Inc. Borough, Superior Pottstown (1949) ; 164 Pa. Revocation Ct. License, Superior (1934) ; Appeal Mark’s 115 Pa. Ct. 256 Bender, Superior (1932). 106 Pa. Ct. Borough Dallas Case, Annexation Superior Pa. Ct. Superior (1951); Derry allocatur Pa. refused 169 Ct. xxvi Town ship Appeal, District Superior School 168 Pa. Ct. allocatur (1951) ; Appeal Superior Bender, refused 168 Pa. xxiv Ct. allocatur refused Ct. xxv Ct. 106 Pa. (1932). majority’s disapproval any holding concur with

11 I case can review on narrow or broad certiorari specifically is where review denied statute.

633 The distinction this between the Superior Court in this is Court, that we connection, may certiorari narrow even where the has pro- legislature vided that no appeal further that of the trial beyond court be had.12 This so because may this alone of the courts of this has the Commonwealth power to the records of inferior tribunals bring judicial before us for review under our revisory powers Bench. Delaware King’s Camp Natl. Bank v. Hosiery Pa. 378 106 A. 2d 416 bell, (1954); Apex o. Philadelphia v. 331 Pa. 200 Atl. County, 177, C 598 (1938) Schmuck v. 222 ; Pa. Atl. 70 Hartman, 190, (1908). legislature enlarge the may power this (Apex Co. v. Hosiery Philadelphia County, 331 Pa. 200 Atl. as it 177, 598) did the Act of 1919 (broad but certiorari) take our re- may away so power far as it visory extends to an (nar- inquiry into the certiorari) row asserted tribunal inferior or the of its proceedings. regularity Dept. Grime v. Public 324 Pa. Instruction, 371, Atl. 337; Rimer’s Election: Contested Appeal of 316 Pa. 175 Atl. Gearey, 544; Clarke’s Appeal, 152 Atl. White 92; School Direc Township tor’s 300 Pa. 150 Atl. Appeal, 422, 425-6, 744; Walker’s 294 Pa. 144 Atl. Appeal, 288; Twenty-first Sena- torial District 281 Pa. Nomination, Atl. 566. Since statute in governing this case neither forbade nor authorized review class of cases one which falls within the specifically appel- enumerated late power of the Superior that court was Court, justified in fully entertaining appeal the method certiorari. of broad In other it had words, the right, unequivocal legislative This is true no matter how mandate purports says to be. Sometimes the statute “no shall be aUowed” or the order or decision of the court shall “final” or “final and conclusive”.

634 the to the jurisdiction in addition reviewing to con- its the proceedings, regularity the as the well including testimony sider the record, find- the to the whether opinion determine findings cor- to evidence and competent were supported ings made. conclusions of law erroneously rect any Superior was taken the appeal When this jurisdiction to its was filed objection prior it is never too late appeal. I-Iowever, hearing subject a court over the jurisdiction question 117, Fowler v. 110 Pa. the litigation. Eddy, matter of 1 (1885). Atl. 789 the proposition settled than is better

Nothing con subject cannot over the matter jurisdiction Patterson’s Es estoppel. or ferred waiver consent, Lewis 2d v. 165; 341 Pa. 19 A. 177, 180, tate, Wolfe A. Pa. 158 Deposit Trust and 305 Co., 583, burg Safe Pa. 227 75 Blumenthal's A. 1075. 567; Estate, 268, juris that unless legislature appellate follows gave to the subject matter of this controversy diction of it was Superior purely statutory Court, court, Pa. there. See v. reviewable Commonwealth Long, v. 267 Pa. 120 A. Commonwealth 125; Speer, v. Superior Ct. 288; Pittsburgh A. Pierce, 520. legislature pro-

In creating Act of June P.L. §7(e) 24, 1895, vided by to the in addition specifically 17 P.S. §189, eases the Court had enumerated matter of: case subject what- “Any jurisdiction at or or in civil law criminal, equity ever, except felonious in which homicide, orphans’ court, stipulation file attorneys prop- or their parties stage proceedings court below agree- er the Supe- the case be heard and decided may ing have case would otherwise although the rior Court, supreme appealable No directly court.” to the been legislature stipulation this case. The such in. was filed provided by May §11 P.L. later the Act of §203: is taken P.S. “Whenever appellee superior held to have shall be court, objection un- of that court, waived objection prothonotary less he file with the thereof an appeal prior ground, hearing this to the of the on or objection superior by the the court. If the is made, superior speedily,. if court shall hear decide and it and appeal su- it is sustained and the certified to the is preme superior prothonotary. court the of the appeal already paid,.be to the in addition costs shall, appellant paid by the the fur- sum. of three dollars as the cause.” ther costs in parties present participated the

When in the case in hearing appeal they Superior a the Court, perfected jurisdiction statutory the of that court and although they question are not too the late to' now jurisdiction position their in the must be determined light of that fact. I that addition would conclude in appellate powers Superior specifi- the of Court jurisdiction cally it enumerated also has the over sub- ject appealable spe- any matter of case to us not and cifically providing to forbidden a there be either it, stipulation filed the Act under of a 1895 or waiver legisla- the Act under of 1899. In such is the oases it merely ture tohich has jurisdiction, conferred stipulation provisions or the toaiver.13 These were obviously pur- into inserted the law with the deliberate Compensation example Workmen’s an is same of sort jurisdiction. Despite the fact is authorized statute jurisdiction constitutional the Board has amendment the sub- of ject only Employer Employee if matter both have waived their right by jury. Carnegie Co., to trial See Anderson v. Steel 99 Atl. 215. burden of some

pose Court relieving tribunal also to provide its an business speedier disposi- might get where parties possibly so. the conscious choice of tion make doing should they not have does although Therefore, it does have powers King’s juris- revisory Bench, all from the diction hear appeals generally jurisdiction had Allegheny County appeal hear this certiorari” since particular “broad is denied appeal (2) (1) right City see object. I cannot right waived Pittsburgh support majority conclusion slightest these two opinion sections where apply only jurisdictional amount is involved.

In I case believe summary then, even cognizable allowed, though Supreme right only Court, (except where specifically forbidden 14has to hear it it) jurisdiction if the parties file stipulation provided under the Act of 1895 or fail to as object stated in the Act of 1899. In addition cognizance has of the subject such thereto, matter of are appeals as enumerated in the Act of regardless of consent In amended, parties. both review in instances, nature that formerly appeal afforded writ of by error, or certiorari is avail- whichever able, appropriate. Where appeal neither authorized nor forbidden or common law the Superior Court statute, review on ma,y cer- broad tiorari both enumerated classes all others with the consent of the parties. In all spe- cases, whether enumerated as cifically within falling the appellate jurisdiction Superior Court or there not, may be no Superior review Court means by any 14 Such as cases of felonious homicide. 7(e), Section Act 1895, supra. whatever the statute that there shall provides where be court appeal or that the decision of the inferior shall be final. In such cases this Court may certiorari. narrow us Martonick v. said Beattie,

Nothing A. 2d contradicts this conclusion. In 168, 117 case this decision of from the granted the Superior Court Ct. reported Superior in 179 Pa. 118 A. 2d That 591. had assumed Pleas of an election case Common Court which the law confided this We va Court. its cated decree and the merits the contro decided The difference versy. that case pres between and the ent one is Court has never juris had diction appeals from the Common Pleas either or in except law relation equity chattels, “money, real or or the possession of or title to real personal, property”. Here, contrariwise, Superior Court does have jurisdiction of the subject matter of all cases in the heard Court where County appellate re is appropriate. view in the Martonick Besides, case, the did not purport act virtue of its jurisdiction under statutory §7(e) of the Act or Act 1895, supra, §11 supra, force and effect of those provisions were not argued considered in the opinion. may contended of this result dissent- opinion would be that ing appeals from class second cities in civil service cases will from the go to the Superior Court Court and from all other coun- ties will from the go Common Pleas to they this Court. is true. Such That situation, infinitely however, to one preferable in which the Superior Court would be held powerless review broad certiorari pro- Quarter of Courts of ceedings including Sessions, road liquor public cases, license annexation cases, 638 criminal contempts, from appeals justices,

cases, Philadelphia of the Municipal all in Court proceedings County of Allegheny Court County This made appealable. are not specifically which jurisdiction particularly assume such should Court not statute exclu- given by since the Court was may this such matters and Court jurisdiction sive the nisi prius level, them from not review directly Act error”. or of appeal form of writ least, “by any 17 P.S. Under of P.L. §14, June 24, 1895, 212, §201. have no right will Superior Court today’s holding to review have This will review certiorari. Court above. cases enumerated certiorari all the of types broad alone review by can hold we may Iiow we. of certiorari because Act supra, as well? its terms includes the express- the Superior an from allowed Having entire therefore proceeding I agree that-we on broad certiorari only County Court to ex but also determine regularity it, see light amine the whether, evidence error its an abused discretion or committed 1165; P.L. P.S. April of law. 18,. 1919, Act Public Pa. Department Instruction, Grime v. Hol Atl. 337; Co. v. Construction Kaufman A, I also dissent from 2d 534.. comb, on the the conclusion “merits” Majority case. these complaint policemen against gist otherwise” with-

is that each of them “intentionally a minor the true name of a--man arrested for held of such alleged true identity offense. have (not or should been known” “was person known “to. officer of the three the Bureau but) not rest upon I decision, Police”. would my however, that, specification. is a drawn haphazardly the fact unbecoming conduct The intention clear to charge the applying the officer even though specification, in- be would standards of in judicial actions, pleading such cases need Specifications sufficient. in care same standards in accordance drawn with civil are indictments applied specificity Pa. 215, Caldwell v. procedures. Fairly, 2d A. v. 135; Shellenberger Warburton, 124 Atl. 189. in facts were

Prom record the following given evidence before the Court: Kil-

In the William early morning July Pitts- a officer police leen, employed by City was of service, with seventeen burgh, years over down- his on patrolling beat, uniform, foot, Diamond town section of the city vicinity excitedly a Market. He there encountered man who had told him Ms automobile been stolen and he a about do policeman trying get something appear his words ear. would angry recovering the man which exchanged were and Killeen in between Kil- the man addressed Killeen by name, whereupon justification so far as apparent without leen, se- and beat him record assaulted man discloses, with his stick. Killeen then took the man night verely call which was close and called box police time ar- About police patrol wagon wagon. another Tarr police rived at scene officer, George police fifteen half service on years (with arrived and stood approximately force city) the call box. feet from In addition to the twenty-five and some crew civilians who wagon quickly patrol Joseph Lieutenant (with Bell gathered, Acting twenty- experience police force of the eight years at the into the got patrol wagon arrived scene, city) for the departed then General Hos- Allegheny pital given so that medical attention could be injured departure, man. Prior to its ad- Killeen had wagon disorderly vised the tomen “book” the man aon injured charge. hospital, conduct At the where the given Joseph gave man was first he his name as aid, (as report). gave Morro shown case He the Aided wagon the same name to the was officers. After he sergeant treated the officers then took him to the desk police at 1No. station where he for dis- was slated orderly given. This conduct under name he had report acting signed by case Aided was later Bell, prisoner lieutenant. The accordance in with then, posted appear usual a a cash bail to for custom, $10 hearing morning. having gone his in the Killeen about appeared duties in at the for time fixed meanwhile, hearing. appear his When the defendant did not magistrate bond was directed be forfeited and hearing charge on the After has ever been held. forfeiture Killeen was at the informed someone police that station in man he had was arrested reality Tony newspaper July Grosso. On a reporter Pittsburgh Telegraph, Sun named experienced police reporter Chester re- Harris, night city write received information from his man, Tony editor that a numbers had Grosso, racketeer, patrolman been beaten Tarr and he com- George investigation. menced an part investigation

As of that he talked first with Superintendent already of Police who Slusser, had identity been informed of true man. arrested Harris thereafter talked with Killeen who admitted Tony claiming, that he had struck Grosso however, impression that he preparing had that Grosso was justified to attack him striking he was in him Although with his fist. Harris testified Grosso reputed biggest was one of the numbers racketeers Pittsburgh in ten to him as such for was known years, perfectly or fifteen he Killeen, made it clear that spoke although Tony, he did of man he arrested as say not that he the time he him knew arrested Tony Tony his name that it was Grosso, Grosso. township Allegheny in a resident fact, was Township known Mt. not Lebanon and had Pittsburgh great been arrested in at least number years although places he had been arrested other Allegheny County only and had used his real Tony Anthony but also as aliases: name, Grassi Grosso, Joseph appear Foley, Russo. would that Officer patrol wagon, driver of the years with fifteen serv- years Sergeant Officer ice; with ten Moceika, service; Caplan, eighteen years Acting with service, Sergeant police at the desk at Station, No. Police eight years with Turnkey service; and 1No. (otherwise unidentified) Police Station had not known identity atman the time arrest.

Killeen Case ag’ainst The essential element case Killeen rests finding on the court’s that walking “Killeen was vicinity his beat of the Diamond He Market. there Tony gambler observed one a known Grosso, operator.” numbers nothing But there is in the testi- mony at that show that time Killeen who knew Grosso showing There is was. no whatever that Grosso anyone was known in that neighborhood, him- was spent self familiar with or that any he it, had time around it that any there was reason whatever for identity. Killeen his know The court makes a find- ing reported fact that “Grosso to Killeen that his car had been stolen. exchanged Words were between Killeen and Grosso and Killeen hit Grosso several night times his with finding stick”. So far as this upon rests an assault upon committed Killeen central whatever has relevance

Grosso it Grosso question that it was Killeen knew whether province of his within he hit. was well whom unjustified superiors charged Killeen with to have true While it is they so. not do but did assault; ap- the niceties specifications drawn with need not'be was pleading, Killeen plicable nevertheless, to criminal called he be it was would to “notice” of what entitled right. statutory against. We his This was to defend all behalf this rule on wholesome cannot invoke finding, policemen. deny This it to other citizens and separate ground must for dismissal, as a therefore, case disregarded wholly the record in and under specifi- only against probative him on value has no finding further was The court’s made. cation was police “Although un- at the station booked Grosso was any 'Joseph made never Killeen the alias of Morro’, der changed”. booking There incorrect to have the effort arrest at the time of even evidence not give. Cer- name the man would what Killeen knew patrol waiting tainly, circumstances, under hospital to a wagon to have him taken the desire significant legally it does seem for examination, getting personally name insist on that he would hospital patrol wagon since he knew both get The evidence is that he contented it. would crew charges merely stating the nature of the himself with placed against that dis- the arrested to man, is, be that orderly there is no evidence conduct. Besides, given any name than have Killeen other Grosso would hospital patrol gave to at the the crew. the one he appeared though hearing he at the Thereafter, reality that defendant informed the was in then was any not been that Tony it has shown he had Grosso, right duty that he had have the in- or indeed changed. personally booking He had not correct the that and there is no suggestion booked man facts. not in possession custodian thereof was July that until It not on this record was clear that reasonable certainty 9 that Killeen knew with any actually Morro been was man had slated who had Superintendent that but at time Grosso; reporter. so the newspaper did same information and Kil- there have been point What conceivable would act that late date? attempted to leen having fifth court “In conversations was finding Killeen the incident, his superiors concerning with none he made statements”. made untruthful Certainly that official Superintendent to the of Police because that talk to or either of testified he did not Killeen evi- the trial There is no others before board hearing. hear- prior dence of Killeen any questioning of fact As an ing. independent finding specifications included in the make go up of conduct an officer and seems charge unbecoming find no whatever in the record. support find- upon

So that the court these then, preliminary came to its ultimate conclusion Killeen was ings, opin- of conduct an officer. In unbecoming guilty my insufficient the findings ion the evidence was justify the court. mis- made below Furthermore, its function. the basic question conceived said appeals in all three is “Did have involved City for its justification sufficient action in dismissing cause In just for said dismissals?” officers and have taken justify did evidence before it other words, That was not the before question decision? City’s it is under statute the issue the court. True police the court was whether the action before not the Civil Service enough trial court Com- (oddly modified or should dismissed. mission) affirmed, to its the court conclusion was required, But in coming under the applicable to in law removal of policemen class second to the case de novo come cities, to its own conclusion on the basis of evidence with out its regard whether conclusions or ac differed that corded with of the police trial court Civil Service Commission. misapprehended Thus scope full of the Act of 1951. In this respect applicable law class second is different from cities that applicable other us municipalities. this is so or that if we so it we say why interpret will more appeals. get opinion cites majority opinion of the lower court in Ditko’s Pa. Appeal, D. & 2dC. affirmed us curiam per said: spite “In of the fact that matter is before us de novo the court should not lightly set aside order of dismissal rendered at the hands duly-elected constituted officials public body are who with charged affairs of conducting police department and discipline maintaining necessary so as to assure the of the vital functioning protection of an efficient police . force. .

The Ditho has case no application to cities second class in which, by court not statute, only hears the matter de novo but is specifically required to make of fact findings and state their conclusions At most the Ditho law. case is not for the authority that proposition court does not come to its own conclusion goes but so far only as to that say doing so it consider may finding of administrative tribunal as of some being persuasive weight.

Tarr Case As to there is Tarr, evidence he Grosso knew prior latter’s arrest Killeen. lie had indeed known him for many years connection with his police duties. There is no evidence, Tarr however, it was knew Grosso who was arrested Killeen. present There is evidence that Tarr was the sense along, twenty-five away that he came stood about feet put patrol being wagon. at the time Grosso was into the if Even it be that he did know that assumed, however, being Grosso was arrested Killeen there is no evi- any that dence Tarr had connection with the whatever given case after that or knew that had Grosso the false wagon hospital, name “Morro” to the crew or to the sergeant. participate desk he Since did not in the arrest duty present day it not following his was be on the and there is no evidence that it came to the attention prior any investigation of Tarr at time newspaper reporter, knowledge or the Harris, Superintendent of Police that Grosso had misstated his name to be His “Morro”. own evidence that he present corroborating was not and the that he evidence assigned special place may was to a detail at another disregarded still leaving any be without evidence what- anything ever that Tarr had to do with the misidenti- finding “George fication of Grosso. fifth The that Tarr superior present told his officers that he was not at support the time of the arrest” has not in the record apply investigative phase if it is meant to to an of any matter since Tarr was not even In interviewed. specification clearly it is not within event, relied upon support charge.

Bell Case findings against incorporate generally Bell findings against other Tarr and Killeen. In addition, City it must be noted the called Bell cross-examina- tion and he denied that he that the man knew arrested actually Tony any prior being was at Grosso time newspaper ap- told man. The court Harris, parently guilty found Bell had because he been on the. police twenty-eight years force for and rode in the wagon along identity. with Grosso not and did his know It is that if true Bell knew was Grosso he then could signing that justify showed of the record Ms Although prisoner Morro. was identity, searched I have that Bell Grosso’s

found knew support for this statement, find record vain policeman assumption any that unless it the bland twenty-eight metropolitan years police force for aon in or every law breaker at, each and habitual knows no community. the arrest At the scene of near given. what- to be evidence name There seems knowledge charge as to Bell with ever would impose identity time would of Grosso upon something duty about it. to do affirmative him “just only for These men could have been dismissed against asserted them that each cause”. The cause was guilty unbecoming conduct rec- was officer. The suspi- up conjecture assumptions, is made ord proof. I cion; but would conclude, therefore, findings County are of fact of the without support adequate additionally, in the record and, reviewing failing to come to evidence it erred in independent resting its instead of own conclusion de- proposition city on the cision dismissal supported by sufficient evidence in the record. correctly I believe the tMs decided judgment reversing case I and would affirm its de- cision of the Court. Appellant, Zoning

Van Board v. Sciver, Adjustment

Case Details

Case Name: Bell Appeal

Court Name: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Date Published: Jul 2, 1959

Citation: 152 A.2d 731

Docket Number: Appeals, 55, 56 and 57

Court Abbreviation: Pa.