The three Castilian lawyers declared that the petitions of the Portuguese attorneys had no place, and therefore within three days they would state and plead their right.
The Portuguese judges said that both informal opinions agreed in each side pleading its right, but the Castilian judges did not state in theirs whether they should be by court or by petition, and they therefore asked them to make such declaration. The Castilian attorney said that the opinion of his side was clear and there was no occasion for the suit.
The legal judges for Castilla made the same assertion.
May 4. In Yelves, in the town hall. The attorneys for Portugal replied that they would receive hurt from the opinion of the Castilian judges, because the latter claimed wrongly that they were the plaintiffs; that the two interlocutory decisions of either part were not the same. And they asserted that to be in accord with justice, and the treaty, which was in harmony with the opinion of their judges, they ought to form a court of cross-examination and furnish as proofs to the attorney for Castilla those things placed before them. And if they would not do this, then it was evident that the delay in the case was due to the Castilian judges and attorney.
May 6. Ibid. The attorney for Castilla denied that the parties to the suit could compel the arbitrators to submit to their opinions. He defended the opinion of his judges; demonstrated that the contrary was unjust and null and void, because they demand witnesses and proofs to be received without a suit, debate, or conclusion preceding, a thing quite contrary to all order in law. He impugned the secret motive that could provoke the Portuguese judges to their interlocutory opinion, the apparent meaning of which was to make a summary investigation concerning the possession in order thereby to clear the way for the decision of ownership, thus making defendant and plaintiff change places. This had no place in the proceedings because they could not prepare the decision in which they did not make investigations. Further it would be a perversion of the order given by the two sides, both for petitioner and possessor, and clearly what they would do would be null and void. For this and other reasons the opinion of the Portuguese judges had no value. They ought to conform to ours, and not doing so, it is evident that they are guilty of the time already lost and which will be lost.
May 7. Ibid. The Portuguese attorney shattered at length the reasons of Ribera with texts from Bartulo [179] and Baldo, and concluded by saying that the opinion of the Castilian judges was null and void and wrong, and ought to be rectified. Without doubt this was the instruction received from the court.
May 13. At Badajoz, in the council house of the said town. The attorneys for Portugal petitioned that the reply of the attorney for Castilla should not be read, because it should have been presented in the junta before the twelfth. There was a dispute on this point, but it was read. It contradicted the other side, and insisted on the same thing as before. At the end it threw the blame for the delay on the Portuguese deputies, inasmuch as they would not come to an agreement with the intention of their Majesties that the cases be determined in the time allotted. The same day, ibid. In the afternoon meeting Ribera said that the onslaught of the Portuguese deputies on the preceding afternoon had been expected, and it was understood that today was the first meeting at which he ought to speak. Therefore he asked that the petition which precedes be admitted and be placed on record. This was ordered.
May 18. Ibid. In the afternoon the vote of the Portuguese judges taken the morning of the same day was made public, namely, that they clung to their opinion, and threw the blame for the delay on the opposite side.
May 19. The vote of the Castilian judges was made public. It was to the same effect. They added that the judges of Portugal should consider whether they could find any expedient or legal form, whereby the remaining time should not be lost, without prejudice to their declaration. The Portuguese judges asserted the answer given at Yelves, whereupon Ribera presented a petition, setting forth the intention of their Majesties, and throwing the blame on the other side for not having even commenced the case by wishing for proof without suit or foundation.
May 23. In Yelves, in the town hall. The attorneys for Portugal said that, with regard to the fault of the others who would not make use of the remedies provided by law in such cases, they found no other expedient except the one they had set forth in their interlocutory opinion.