St. Paul recorder. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1934-2000, 1947-06-27

Two young women teStlti
seen him nude when they looked
through his bedroom window at
Concordia college where he was
attending a 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, a war veteran, had an ex-
cellent 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 80 days.
Peery 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
workhouse on bail per.ling 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
M. Smith who had done a large
part of the work in this involved
case in the st. Paul municipal court,
turned his time over to Warren
Burger, a well-known 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 a 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 a brilliant pre-
sentation of the matter. He argued
all phases of the case and in addi-
ton to the six points presented by
the printed brief, Mr.. Burger urged
another point briefed by Mr.. Smith
to the effect that the filing of a 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 a new trial amounted to an
abandonment of the original tab"
charge.
II this contention is sustained
the effect will be as though the
original prosecution had been dis
missed and the prosecution will
have the option of proceeding
against Mr.. Peery either under
this charge on the second COM
plant or some other complaint it
may see mt to nile.
The prosecution finds itself in
this dilemma because it was at
tempting by a technicality to pre-
vent Mr.. Peery from having
jury trial and after seeing some
difficulties in prosecuting him under
the so-called indecent exposure or
dinance, undertook to charge him
under little-known "disorderly
conduct" ordinance.
Thomas McMeekin Sits In On Case
John ]. Mcneil, city prosecutor,
argued the case on behalf Of the
prosecution. Thomas W. McMeekin,
a well-known criminal attorney of
st. Paul, sat with Mr.. Mcneil in the
Supreme court room, but took no
part in the case. He had not formal
" appeared" in the case and it is
not known under what precise ar
rangements he was present.
Mr.. Mcneil entirely ignored the
appellants contention as to the eff
feet of filing the complaint, but
made much of the same argument
he had on a number of occasions in
the lower court claiming Mr.. Peery
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. Peery.
A decision will be handed down
presumably, sometime during the
summer.