The Elko independent. [volume] (Elko, Nev.) 1869-1872, 1871-01-14
The state Prison.

in this State, relative to decision of the Dis
trict Court OF ormsby county, rendered on the
31st Of December. by which il is understood
that the State Prison at Carson is no longer
the property of the State but belongs to a Mr..
Treadway, and the judgment stands so record
ed III that court. The Enterprise of January
9Th says:
MIR. Treadway did not purchase the prison,
but was sharp enough to bid in at Sheriff >
sale, some two years since, a lot of land adroit
ly pre-empted by and patented to one Alvin
Mitchell by the Government in 1866, which
lot of land happened to embrace within one of
its corners the State Prison building! This
ldnd was pre-empted by Mitchell two months
after the prison had been sold by Col. Curry
to the Territory Of Nevada, and to secure the
patent some one must have sworn that Mr..
Mitchell had been for some time in peaceable
and undisputed possession of the land upon
which the State Prison stands. Who sub
scribed to this oath we know not, but the name
of the gentleman who did should be made IA
miliar TO the public in connection with pros
ecution for perjury. When it was discovered
that the trac< OF pasture land for which Alr.
Mitchell had applied for patent embraced
the State Prison and quarry, that gentleman
agreed to enter into bond to convey the
prison to the State upon. receiving his patent;
but through the neglect of the State authori-
ties the bond was not exacted for nearly u
year, and in the meantime the whole property
was seized and sold on execution to satisfy Il
Judgment recorded against Mr.. Mitchell. Mr..
lreadway became the purchaser, and the
State or its agents neglecting to redeem il
within the time prescribed by law, that gem
tleman became the owner of it. His right to
the property-including the State Prison
was affirmed by the District Court last Satrr-
day"
The State Prison was purchased by the State
from Abraham Curry in February, 1864, for
SS0,O00 but Immediately after its transfer to
the State, it was ascertained that the prison
was on land belonging to Mr.. Mitchell. The
discovery of the fact caused quite n stir ut
the time. but Mr.. Mitchell Immediately agreed
to execute a bond transferring the prison to
the State. 1t is said, however, that Attorney
General Clarke neglected the matter II whole
year, during which time b. +. King had OBJ
tanned judgment against Mitchell, which
had become IA lien upon the State Prison. On
the 18th of September, 1866, King issued exc
cution on his Judgment, aud on the 18th of
October levied upon the prison property,
which was sold on the ID of November of the
same year. On the 18th of May, 1867, no
redemption having been made by the State,
and no attention having been given to the
matter by the State authorities, the Sheriff of
Ormsby county made n deed of the property
to King, and the validity of this deed has
just been affirmed by the District Court of
Ormsby county. The case will doubtless 90
before the Supreme Court, where it is thought
the decision of the lower court will be sus-
tanned.
Attorney General Clarke publishes "A letter
in the Carson Register, Of the 9Th. relative to
an accusation by the Enterprise charging that
the State Prison has been lost to the State
through the neglect of the Attorney. General
and other State officers, saying that declarn-
ton is false, and was gotten up to manufac-
ture capital for Treadway and induce the Leg
islature to purchase the State Prison. He
says he had neither official nor personal
knowledge of the King Judgment; that he did
not know and had no reason to suspect the
State s title defective, that Mitchell had, or
claimed to have, any interest whatever in the
prison property; that having no knowledge Of
Kings judgment, or that it was lien on the
prison, or that the States title was defective.
ne can not DC hcCuseu OF negligence III not
''redeeming, granting the duty, right and
power in the Attorny-General to make re-
demption for the State, and that no such duty.
right or power exists in the Attorny- G. General.
He further says:
'In order that this deeply concocted
scheme of plumber" may be circumvented,
desire to call n few plain facts to the attention
of the Legislature.
The suit in question was not against the
State of Nevada, but was against james S.
Slingerland not in his official bnt private Gu
pacty.
The issues involved in the pleadngs and
passed upon by the District Court related ex-
clusivcly to the regularity of the judicial pro-
ceedings, Treadway's title through these pro-
cecdings, and Nlitchell's pn.ent from the
United States. These issues were determined
in Trendway's favor, and nothing more. And
further than this, If Mt all. the States rights
are in no manner concluded or prcudiced
The States equitable right growing ont Of
the Mitchell bond was in no manner passed
upon, and is in no manner affected. An &C.
ton may be brought Mt any time, and the
equitable right perfected, and made complete
10y Judgment and decree Of Conrt
Mitchell, II is believed, obtained the patent
in fraud Of the State and for this reason the
patent may be attacked in the United States
Court, and finally annulod and set aside.
Finally: All this talk about dispossessinp
the State, etc, is either the puerilo twaddio
OF fool, or the cunning device Of n knnve.
Every sane man knows that tho State can not
be turned out of its prison property by pro.
cess OF law. md egpppinlly nppu "A ,,n,,'.,,ot