Summary

Portrait of Harold Hitz Burton Harold Hitz Burton Nilva v. United States — Opinion of the Court

This reduces the case to the charge that petitioner wilfully disobeyed the court's order to produce certain corporate records required by subpoena No. 160. On that issue, it is settled that a criminal contempt is committed by one who, in response to a subpoena calling for corporation or association records, refuses to surrender them when they are in existence and within his control.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Harold Hitz Burton Harold Hitz Burton Nilva v. United States — Opinion of the Court

On the first trial, in 1953, a jury was unable to agree on the guilt of Christianson and Paster but acquitted petitioner. In 1954, in preparation for a retrial of Christianson and Paster, the same court issued subpoenas duces tecum No. 78, returnable on March 22, and No. 160, returnable on March 29. Each was addressed to the Mayflower Distributing Company, a St. Paul slot machine distributing corporation wholly owned by Paster. Each called for the production of records, for certain periods in 1950 and 1951, relating to transactions in slot machines and other coinoperated devices.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Harold Hitz Burton Harold Hitz Burton Nilva v. United States — Opinion of the Court

He identified items (a) , (b) , (c) and (d) of the 22 listed in the third specification and introduced those records as his exhibits. Item (a) was the company's general ledger for 1950. It contained a record of sales of new slot machines during October 1950-January 1951; sales of used slot machines during July 1950-January 1951; and purchases of used slot machines during August 1950-January 1951. Petitioner admitted having previously examined the company's 1950 and 1951 general ledgers but said that he had not found evidence of slot machine purchases and sales.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature