◆ SpookStack

eliciting his place of residence was not within privilege ‘against self- incrimination, im absence ef suggestion by defendant or his counsel during cage . Altterrogation or during subsequent criminal coatempt prosecation how facts ———-- Foe ee ee erdimarily not incriminating might reasonably tend to be incriminating in their special setting. | | . , Judgment affirmed. ‘The U. S. Supreme Court, per curiam: Bpon consideration of the entire record and the confession of error by the Solicitor General, the judgments of the Court of Appeals are reversed. Hoffman v. B, S, 351 U.S. 479, , ) x Uphaus v. Wyman (1957) 355 0.S. 16 Proceeding by State's Atty. General for order to compel compliance by defendant with two subpoenas duces tecum served spon hin in course of legislative investigation of subversive activities. The court adjudged defendant in contempt and transferred without ruling the question of law raised by case and defendant also reserved exceptions which were transferred, The State Supreme Court held that under the elrcumstances the legislature was entitled to have disclosed to it guest registration at summer resort as well as correspondence of defendant with persons presenting speeches and discussions at resort, end compelling disclosure did not viclete de Remanded. The U. S. Supreme Court, per curiam, vacated judgment and remanded case to Supreme Court of New Hampshire for consideration im light of Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U.S. 234. we rece NE ne A EA AT ek ANN, Te aF me amy 5 near meray oS t a