Page:The Philippine Islands, 1493-1803 (Volume 01).djvu/171

 for Spain insisted upon what he said before, adding only that in regard to this matter being started by Portugal, they denied what they knew to be so, and such a thing could be proved quickly. As to Portugal's saying she had been in possession furnished no reason why Spain should be plaintiff:

April 22. Ibid. In a meeting of the judges, the three lawyers of Portugal gave expression to the following interlocutory opinion: that each side should make cross-examinations according to law, in order that they might examine the witness produced by the attorneys. Thus the latter could offer any writs, proofs, and documents from which they hoped to gain aid in this case, so that, when everything was seen and examined, this case and the doubt as to whom the possession belonged could be determined.

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