133 A.2d 787

LOUIS C. WYMAN, Attorney General v. HUGO DeGREGORY.

No. 4563.Supreme Court of New Hampshire Merrimack.Argued February 5, 1957.
Reargument ordered June 28, 1957.

PETITION, under RSA 491:19, 20, to have the defendant adjudged in contempt for declining to answer certain questions in connection with the Attorney General’s investigation of subversive activities pursuant to Laws 1953, c. 307, as extended by Laws 1955, c. 197.

In prior proceedings a grant of immunity was made to the defendant under Laws 1955, c. 312, pertaining to testimony which he might give in the above investigation. Issues relating to the construction of said chapter 312 have been decided by this court in Wyman v. DeGregory, 100 N.H. 163.

Defendant refused to answer questions asked of him by the Attorney General on the ground that to do so might incriminate him and invoked the Fifth Amendment of the Federal Constitution

Page 83

and the Fifteenth Article of the New Hampshire Constitution as the bases for his refusal. The Court (Wheeler, C. J.) ordered him to answer and when he declined found him in willful contempt of the Court and ordered that he be committed to jail and there remain until purged of contempt, all of which was subject to defendant’s exceptions. This court suspended the order for committal to jail and permitted defendant to go free on bail pending final disposition of the constitutional issues in this court. Wyman v. DeGregory, 100 N.H. 513.

Defendant’s exceptions were reserved and transferred.

Louis C. Wyman, Attorney General (by brief and orally), pro se.

James C. Cleveland (by brief and orally), for the defendant.


The decision in this case which presents the issue of the constitutionality of Laws 1955, c. 312, has been held in abeyance awaiting opinions and orders of the Supreme Court of the United States on kindred subjects which were announced June 17 and June 24, 1957.

Subsequent to arguments in this case that Court has decided Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 77 S. Ct. 1203, and Watkins v. United States, 77 S.Ct. 1173, both decided June 17, 1957, and has issued orders in No. 306 Raley v. Ohio, 77 S. Ct. 1391, and No. 206 Miscellaneous, Morgan v. Ohio, 77 S. Ct. 1403, both dated June 24, 1957. Since the disposition of this case may be affected by these decisions and orders it is necessary in fairness to the parties that the case should be set for reargument. Accordingly, the case will be assigned for reargument by separate order of this court at a time therein indicated.

So ordered.

Page 84