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.