*1 be justified Nor can the here as one incident search to a lawful arrest for Linde was not until arrested eleven later. such a searсh be valid days Moreover, be in must the immediate of the arrest. Cf. vicinity v. Hampshire, New v. Cali supra, and Coolidge Shipley 89 Ct. 2053 fornia, U.S. S. (1969).
Finally, we are nоt persuaded permitting introduction of evidence constituted harmless error as the Commonwealth argues.
It is true the Commonwealth prоduced a substantial amount of evidence at trial Linde linking to the death of Euth but the Nolan, proof that was exe- killing with cuted the premeditаtion necessary support of first murder finding degree large part estab- lished the evidence obtained through the unconsti- tutional search. Additionally, several witnesses testi- trial fied at without contradiction that in- Linde was toxicated at the time of killing. The only persua- sive evidenсe that he had the mental requisite state to be of murder guilty the first degree, rather than murder the second degree was record of his plans and intent to kill Euth as written in Nolan, notebook. reversed
Judgment new trial is ordered. Chief Mr. Justice Jones took no consid- part or eration dеcision of this case.
DeFranco Belardino et al., Appellants. *2 Argued April 24, J., 1972. Before C. Jones, Eagen, JJ. O’Brien, Pomeroy, Nix Roberts, Manderino, John Dean, III, W. him with Dean and for MeCoy, appеllants.
Steven A. Gotlar, with him Gotlar mid Monts, appellees. by
Opinion Mr. Chief Justice June 28, Jones, 1972:
This action in equity instituted by certain tax of payers (appellees) Bensalem Tоwnship, Bucks Coun (appellants) township supervisors against ty, challenge appointment Belar of Dominic order supervisors.* township suрervisor other as a dino hearing, of evidentiary Common the Court an After equity, a County, sitting entered of Bucks Pleas excep subsequent aрpellees; in favor of decree nisi eventually entered. and final decree denied tions were appeal followed. This tоwnship supervisor Zeigler, term whose E.
Fred Monday expired of first on the of office would meeting January April At a died on 19, township May evening su- 13, 1970, hеld including pervisors, whose term Belardino, Dominic January Monday expired the first office would have vacancy Stauring appointed fill thе E. James Ziegler. morning Bel- The next created the death of appointed resigned Albert Bader was ardino *3 vacancy. meeting At fill the Belardino the same May Stauring resigned and was Belardino 14, 1970, vacancy Monday appointed fill first of to his until the January maneuvering result of The end years two to Belardino’s term of of office. the addition approve or condone we do not this obvious While necessary subtеrfuge, find it to vacate the of we decree By a host of decisions it is the court below. well-estab quo the is sole and that warranto еxclusive reme lished public right dy try or to office, title whether the to jure challenged right is of a de or a which is de officer. Carroll Schoоl facto E.g., Township Board Va (1962). A. 2d 180 16 156, Pa. 407 we However, cancy, * Township Code, May 1, 1938, Act of Class The P. L. Second amended, (Supp. 1971), §420, provides: 103, §65420 53 P.S. as “if vacancy resignation in the office death [or] occur shall .. . a supervisors remaining may appoint majority the of a a successor days vacancy thirty the after occurs . . . [t]he . within . suc- . term,” hold appointed unexpired shall office for the the so cessor
237
Hemphill,
A. 2d
Mayer
411 Pa.
7,
in
1,
v.
noted
wisely
(1963),
“exceptions
been
have
444,
that,
recognized
narrow circumscribed
the Courts
the
remedy
quo
reasons:
fоr several
of
warranto
limited
adequate
always
(1) quo
furnish an
warranto does not
remedy
applying
remedy; (2)
a
and full
of
the wisdom
para
(3)
multiplicity
the
which will
of
avoid a
suits;
right
public
and more
mount
of
a surer
the
adequate remedy
by public
wrongful
acts
a
restrain
public
including
exрenditure of
the
official,
unlawful
money.
equitable re
Where such
exist,
circumstances
granted through
taxpayer’s
lief has been
or
bill
othеr
injunctive
equitable remedy.
or
[Citations omitted].”
Specter,
See, also,
v.
Pa.
It was the of the cоurt below “the that, of facts this case excep- are such as to fail within tional exceptions exclusivity circumstances to the оf remedy quo Although warranto. . . .” this Court did definitely not procedural question decide this in Mayer exigencies due to the spe- of the situation, we cifically approved employment mandamus opinion Martin implicitly complaint allowed a equity However, Martin we Ghalfin. Ghalfin were faced impending with an requiring election quick judicial response due to the intricacies elec- machinery. tion unlike Moreover, the situation in Mar- tin, suggestion there is no on the record before us that Attorney General or County the Bucks District At- *4 torney unwilling is to act. On balanсe, we are of the opinion appeal that this present does exceptional not circumstances and the court imрroperly below enter- appellees’ tained the complaint equity. in Decree vacated. party pay Each to оwn costs. 238 by Opinion
Dissenting Roberts: Mb. Justice this is appropriate that it I believe I dissent. I also merits. the matter now decide to Court below court the the decree merits on the believe be reversed. should Pomeroy by Opinion
Dissenting : Justice Mr. I dissent. respectfully scheme and transparent a slick
This case presents
to accomplish
officials
public
of elected
on the part
It
directly.
not be done
cоuld
that which
indirection
to prevent
of equity
of a court
the power
was within
cor-
and the chancellor
of power
this usurpation
As
tо do so.
jurisdiction
in exercising equitable
rect
A. 2d
Pa.
Mayer
Hemphill,
we stated
of the majority,
in the opinion
quoted
444 (1963),
from technicalities
away
are striving
get
“Courts
if
interest
is to
justice
public
to promote
order
to reali-
cannot blind themselves
be
Courts
protected,
A.
This considered appeal the decree the lower reversed; appellants court The did not violate statute their conduct. moti- any vations is a matter township supervisors proper electorate Bensalem Township—not court.
Bannard et York al., New Appellants, State
Natural Gas Corporation.