Honolulu star-bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1912-2010, 1914-04-27
WOULD DISMISS
THIELENCHARGES
AGAINST M'CARN


is HL~""r They. A'p'@r, Also t.
H.- ~ lu"etioY .e' rH.t Nr Tn.' len.
q SATURDAY. III" ,'rh q March. ia
Gu.rd Dr H"rt"rt t.. I, company Elm
g. NJ 'lcNaru : Office ana chat the
,nf.-r Of ~I'h visit Mas I" nut!fv Mfr.
N,Carr 4 Tie mtrtal condition 81
Mrs. Th:pI"n ard o| the uDt-uth Of
certain slatrm-;.fo crutaiTrd IN the
hI"l for divorce. IF which statements
Nr Th:,."n haG n~"Nio"S kn""l ledge.
There j. & SHARP disagree cement ~ -
" hat trdssi irrI At t.iS interview.
W. HcCarn states in substance that
hc GOES net remember that I~ Her
hrrt said ANYTHING hrvOud the state
ment that Mrs. Thi"l"n was mon com
pos mrntis." and he further states
that i nr Herbert had stated that
She vas "ahsuIutrly irresponsible for
her statements" he should have known
il 10 he untrue. for the reasons set
forth on pages = and ~ Of his answer,
to which the court is referred. On the
ether hand. both Mr. ThielPn and DR.
Herbert are absolutely positive that
Tr Herbert Informed Mr.. MCCarn not
only that Mrs. Thielpn was mon COM
pos mentis" but that she was also not
responsible for the statements she
had made.
Both Mr.. Thielrn and DR.. Herbert
are also emphati" in their statements
that Mr. MCCarn agreed or promised
rot to take further steps without con-
sutng one or both Of them. This
Mr.. McCarn absolutely denies. See
pages l. to ~ Of his reply. This Of
flee does not feel that it can at this
time state which is correct.
There appears to be no question
but that Mr.. Nc arm agreed with Mr..
Thielen that the allegation that Mr..
ThieIen had inflicted his wife With a
Venereal disease was one CT the main
allegations Of the libel, and it further
appears that DR.. Herbert informed Mr..
McCarn that Mrs. Thielen was not suf-
fering from any venereal disease and
explained TO Mr.. McCarn the cause OF
such trouble as she may have had
and there is no disfute as to the fact
that Mr. Thielen offered to- submit
himself to such examination as Mr..
McCarn might desire.
This office has been informed by
Dr. Herbert that he has examined both
Mrs and Mr.. Thielen and that the
allegations of the bill so far as con-
Germs this matter are absolutely false,
and for the purposes of this report the
statement Of DR.. Herbert is regarded
as true The interview between Mr..
McCarn. Dr. Herbert and Mr.. Thiclen
was on Saturday the l4th. On Mon
day the 10th, the libel was signed and
sworn to by Mrs Thielen at the office
of the clerk of the circuit court. Mr..
Thompson, Mr.. McCarn's assistant,
filed it in the court forthwith and at
once withdrew it, On the 18th the
libel was returned by Mrs. Thielen
for service.
The question therefore arises as to
W hether Mr.. NcCarn was justified in
filing this libel after the interview
with DR. Herbert and Mr.. Thielen.
without making further investigation
tC determine the mental condition OF
his client and the truth or falsity OF
the charges contained in the libel.
Attorneys every day bring divorce
proceedings which contain charges
equally strong against the libellee.
In this case, however, the libellant
was. in the opinion of this office. &C
tually insane at the time the proceed
ings were brought and Mr.. McCarn
had been so advised by a reputable
to whose statement he at
that time gave little weight for the
reasons stated on pages nine and ten
of his answer. which is hereto at
taChed. and had further been advised
that the charges which intimately af-
fected the character Of the libeIlee
were untrue.
The charges in the libel were sup
ported by affidavit made by Mrs.
Thielen at the suggestion Of Mr.. Nc
earn. Knowingly making untrue af-
fidavits or having them made for pur-
poses of taking advantage Of the court
or private parties are grounds justi-
tying disharment." See Am, & Eng.
Enc. Law. 311. and cases collected
there "But where it is not clear that
the attorney intended to state false
hood, there is no ground for disbar-
ment" Matter of Houghton, c. Cal.
ST.
In my opinion Mr.. Nee arm did not
act maIiCiOusly or in conscious had
faith. though there is room for a diff
ference of opinion as to Whetho" he
exercised the care that a prudent law
yer should have exercised under the
"The power to suspend or dishar a
LAWYER should We exercised with great