II They took the solemn oath to act in the sight of God and conscientiously.

III The judges ordered the attorneys of either side to state their side of the case, and to proceed with the matter.

IV The attorneys disputed as to who should act as plaintiff.  Each one wished the other to act in this capacity.  The Spanish attorney asserted that this affair was at the instance of Portugal, and that the ambassadors had been sent for this purpose by that country.  The Portuguese attorney asserted that there was nothing upon the matter in the treaty, as was well known to Spain.  In this wise passed the day.

April 14.  On the said bridge.  The Portuguese attorneys presented a notification, asserting that they made no petition; they said that the King had had possession of Maluco for more than ten years; therefore Spain ought to ask for and accept the witnesses which, according to the terms of the treaty of Vitoria, they were prepared to give as their proofs.

The Spanish attorney gave answer, insisting that the King of Portugal had moved first in this matter, and therefore should be the plaintiff.  As to the rest he said that the suit was obscure, vague, and general, insufficient to form a case on possession, and to pass a sure sentence upon it, let them specify wherein they thought the treaty was not observed, and let them attempt the fitting remedy and interdict, and he will answer them.

April 20.  In the chapter of the Cathedral church of San Juan at Badajoz.  The attorney for Portugal said that it was not apparent from the records that his King had moved first in this matter, nor even if such a thing should be apparent, could it be called a provocation, because this matter was between those who could not be coerced into judgment, since they recognized no superior.  As to the claim that their suit was vague, that was no reason why it was not a suit.  They stated clearly that their King had been in possession ten years and more.  Therefore Spain should act as plaintiff.

April 21.  Under the same head.  The attorney 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.