Minneapolis spokesman. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1934-2000, 1947-06-27

house by Judge John l.. Rounl
for indecent exposure.
Two young women teStifi
seen him nude when they looked
through his bedroom window at
ConeordiA college where he was
attending q summer Y.M.C.A. in
dustrial seminar.
When Peery was arrested the
charges were taken lightly because
It was felt that the young women
had no business walking through
the campus grounds and because
Peery, q war veteran, had an ex-
eellent reputation.
DR.. Walter Gruebner, president
Of the college, appeared in Peery's
defense. The two cities were
shocked when Judge Rounds gave
the maximum sentence Of 90 days.
Pesry had no previous police rec
ord.
A large group Of Twin City or
CARNATIONS rallied to Peery's de-
tense and he was released from the
W0rkhouse on bail pending the ap-
peal TO the state supreme court.
The court heard the case on al
most the last day Of the court term.
Due TO pressure for time, Francis
N. Smith who had done . large
part Of the work in this involved
case in the st. Paul municipal court,
turned his time over to Warren
Burger. q well-kRown st. Paul at
torney, active in the work Of the st.
Paul Council Of Human Relations
and who together with Irving Clark,
Archie Gingold, and q number Of
other st. Paul attorneys, had been
generous Of his time in assisting
Mr.. Smith in the handling Of the
case in the lower court and In writ
ing the brief for the Supreme
court.
Burger Makes Brilliant
Presentation
Mr.. Burger made . brilliant pre-
sentation Of the matter. He argued
all phases Of the case and in add
ton 10 the six points presented by
the printed brisf. Mr.. Burger urged
another point briefed by Mr.. Smith
TO the effect that the fling Of 4 new
complaint by the city prosecutor
against Mr.. Peery while he was on
bail awaiting new trial under Judge
J. L. Rounds first order granting
him O new trial amounted TO an
abandonment Of the original "tab"
charge.
II this contention IL sustained
the effect win be a. though the
original prosecution had been dis.
missed and the prosecution win
have the option Of proceeding
against Mr.. Peery either under
this charge on the second com
plant or some other complaint II
may Sc AZ TO file.
The prosecution finds itself In
this dilemma because II was at.
tempting by n technieality TO pre-
vent Mr.. Peery from having .
jury trial and after seeing some
difficulties in prosecuting him under
the so-ealled indecent exposure or
dinance, undertook 70 charge him
under . little-known "disorderly
conduct" ordinance.
Thomas MeMeekiA Sits In On Case
John J. Mcneil, city prosecutor,
argued the case on behalf Of the
prosecution. Thomas W. MeMeekin,
n Well-known criminal attorney Of
81. Paul, sat with Mr.. Mcneil in the
Supreme court room. but took no
part In the case. He had not formal
ly appeared" in the case and II Ii
not known under what precise ar
rangements he was present.
Mr.. Mcneil entirely ignored the
appellants contention a. 70 the Of
feet Of fling the complaint, but
made much Of the same argument
he had on q number Of occasions In
the lower court claiming Mr.. Pesry
was Obviously guilty.
So far he has not succeeded IN
convincing any Of the nine or more
attorneys who have volunteered on
behalf Of Mr.. Perry.
A decision win be handed down
presumably, sometime during the
summer.