May 25. Ibid.  In the morning the judges for Castilla said that inasmuch as the matter upon which they had been notified was a weighty one, they would defer their answer until the next meeting on the twenty-seventh.  Then the attorney Ribera presented a paper wherein he stated that the attorneys for Portugal ought to be compelled justly to act as plaintiffs, as in fact they had proved themselves to be in their petitions, conforming themselves therein with their sovereign who had provoked and commenced this negotiation.  Therefore they were acting contrary to their words and deeds.  The judges for Portugal ought to act in accordance with the interlocutory opinion of Castilia, so that the case might be valid.  We did not have to solicit proofs and witnesses, since our rights were so well-known.  But how could we solicit such things without a preceding sentence in accord with the suit depending upon the petitions, etc?  Outside of this, since sentence must be passed jointly on possession and ownership, and the judges appointed for this purpose by the King of Portugal having placed a thousand impertinent obstacles in the way, it was evident that the deputies on the other side were avoiding the judgment and suit, and were eluding and losing the time of the compromise.  Then he petitioned that they act in accord with his petition.

May 27. Ibid.  The Emperor’s deputies, in answer to the notification of the twenty-fourth, said that although it was proper that their interlocutory opinion be acted upon, nevertheless, because their Majesties wished the affair settled within the time agreed upon, they would agree that the attorneys of each side should plead their rights within three days.

In the afternoon meeting the deputies of Portugal responded saying that the answer was unsatisfactory.  It was unnecessary to have the attorneys of each part plead, since such a thing had been ordered without avail on the eleventh of April.  Therefore they insisted upon the interlocutory assembly.

May 28. Ibid.  The attorneys for Portugal presented a writ to the effect that the time limit expired on the last of May, and the matter was in such shape that it would be finished briefly; for in regard to the ownership, their attorneys were unanimous on the three points, except in matters of slight moment, in which they could soon agree.  In the matter of possession, the witnesses of both sides were present, and such an expedient could be adopted that this case could be determined immediately.  “Therefore we petition,” said they, “for a continuation of the time limit.  In this will be done what ought to be done, and what the Emperor seems to wish, since he has told the ambassadors of our King that your graces could extend the time, and were empowered to do it by the said treaty.”

The licentiate Acuna answered immediately that prorogation was an act of jurisdiction, and should be determined on the boundary line, where, according to the order, they must meet during the last three days; and that he was ready to discuss the matter on Monday, May 30 with the licentiate Acevedo, the member first named on their commission.