Honolulu star-bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1912-2010, 1914-04-27
Dismissal of McCarn r.
Charges Suggested
!. M. Stainback CriticizeS AC-
ton OF U. S. District Attor-
ney but Does'Not Find Suffi-
Cient Grounds for OiSbar-
ment Proceedings.

adduCed IN MS investigation maze INTO
The charges preferred by George p.
ThiClen against T. S. District Attor-
ney Jeff McCarn. growing out Of the
suit for divorce filed by the latter on
behalf Of Mrs. Thielen, who was later
adjudged insane, !. NJ. Stainback, ter
ritOrial attorney general, filed a state
ment with the supreme court this
morning in which >he recommends
that the charges be dismissed
While he admits that there is room
for two opinions on whether Mr. Nc
earn exercised the prudence Of good
lawyer in filing the suit under the
circumstances, he goes on TO say that
he does not regard the charges in the
hight Of the facts as brought out as
grave enough to warrant disbarment
proceedings
This is the first oninion handed
down by the new attorney general
since taking office. It is as follows:
Res u Of the Attorney General.
This office has. at the request of the
supreme court, made such investiRa,
ton Of the facts relating to the
charges brought before said court in
the above entitled matter as the short
time at our disposal would permit.
>. An analysis of the affidavits and
statements both OF the parties to the
controversy and such witnesses as
this office has been able to interview
shows purparted facts so absolutely
diverse and irreconcilable that this
office at this time cannot pass upon
the truth or falsity Of a large nropor-
tion thereof In case IL should seem
to the court necessary to reconcile the
conflicting statements OF fact or tn
determine which are trHe. u would
seem that such determination must
be in open court
J The charges of Mr.. Thielen against
Mr.. McCarp are for professional mis-.
conduct and in our oninion resolve
themselves into determination of
the following issues: -.
1l The proBriety of Mr.. McCarn
in filing or causing to be filed or al
lowing tn be filed the libel for d.
varce after the interview with Mr..
Thielen and DR.. Herbert.
.kd2) The ancentanra ef a diamond
rfng ss security for tho fee OF ss0 90.
10 take up the second issue first:
The facts IN this connection are IN
the man nndisputed. !. Mr.. McC earn. re-
ceived the ring as security from. Mrs.
Thielen before the interview with
Messrs ThieleH and Herbert. The re-
iceipt which accompanies the
charges as Exhibit B suffi-
ciently states the purpose for
which the ring was deposited.
In the opinion OF this office such
proceeding is one which must be left
to the determination of the individual
practitioner. A further question, how
ever, still remains in this connection
TO wit: the, propriety of retaining this
ring as security for the payment of
the reduced fee of $500 after the
discontinuance of the case after Mrs.
Thielen had been duly declared an
insane person and committed as such
TO the asylum. The merits OF this
proceeding can be. and We understand
are about to be tested in another court
and hence We express no opinion on
this point
AS to the first issue:
Knowing that this office would
bC t1t8OlNSus bO0HtI oI ldlSl
in the matter of investigating these
charges, a representative of the office
was present at the commitment pro-
ceedings. The witnesses at the hear
ing were DIR. Schwallie, the physician
at the asylum, Rev. Dr. Scudder, and
Mr.. Thielen. DR.. Herbert was not
called and did not appear. Mr.. Nc
Carn's office was notified but he did
not appear. Mrs. Thielen was duly
declared insane at the date of this
hearing, April 3, 1914. and in the opin-
ion Of this office. the evidence ad-
duced at the hearing showed beyond
question that she had been in
sane for some time prior thereto,
and IL is upon this view that this re-
port is predicated.
Shortly after the divorce libel was
filed, Mr. Thielen called at this of
flee and requested that some action
he taken, stating substantially what
he has set forth in this affidavit A
representative of this office inter
viewed Dr. Herbert, and to him DR.
Herbert made substantially the same
statements as appear in his affidavit
1t may be added that Mr. Thielen was
present at this interview. though not
by agreement. MI Thielen was then
informed that this office would take
TO action whatever in the matter un-
til or unless he saw fit TO make 4
written complaint He thereupOn
stated that he would prepare state
ments to be signed both by himself
and by Dr. Herbert. On April 1st
these statements. signed by them,
were filed in this office, and dupli.
Gates thereof later filed in the court
There appears to be no dispute over
the fact that Mrs. Thielen visited
Mr.. McCarn several times and urged
him to take the case for her and re
lated to him her troubles substan
Continued on page SiX)