New Details About the Montes Vigil Family of Asturias (Part 2 of 4)

In the second part of the lawsuit, Bartolomé de Vigil responded to the complaint, followed by another petition from Diego de Argüelles to the audiencia reasserting his claims. After hearing witness testimony and reviewing written records (which unfortunately are not recorded in this manuscript), the audiencia issued its judgment. In summary:

• Bartolomé de Vigil stated that the allegations made by Diego were false and therefore he should be exonerated. He argued that neither Diego nor María de Estrada were entitled to three-fifths of the property of Juan Montes Vigil and his wife, and he asked the audiencia to impose a judgment of perpetual silence (perpetuo silencio) on the plaintiff. Under the laws of the time, this type of judgment meant that the plaintiff was prohibited from seeking any further judicial action on this complaint.

• Bartolomé further stated that all of the Montes Vigil assets had been auctioned off to settle their debts. Furthermore, he alleged that it was in fact Diego who had unlawfully taken possession of the Montes Vigil assets and property and asked for these to be relinquished to him.

• Diego countered by reasserting his previous claims and also pointed out that as guardian of the Montes Vigil children, Bartolomé was legally prohibited from engaging in any judicial actions related to their inheritance. He therefore asked the audiencia to declare all such actions null and void.

• On February 25, 1605, the audiencia issued its judgement, finding that Diego had proved his case. It condemned Bartolomé de Vigil and Juan de Cenal de Vega to produce an inventory of three-fifths of the Montes Vigil estate within nine days, awarding 2,000 ducats in damages to Diego should they fail to comply.

See below for the full details of this second part of the lawsuit.

---

And Francisco de Oya, on behalf of Bartolomé de Vigil, responding to the aforementioned claim, submitted another petition before our president and oidores, in which he stated that he should be acquitted and declared free of liability regarding the matters alleged and that perpetual silence should be imposed on the plaintiff, condemning him to pay legal costs because of defects in the case, the lack of timeliness and form, and the generality of what had been expressed. He argued that the stated claims were untrue and harmful, and was prepared to contest them if necessary. He further stated that Diego de Argüelles and Doña María de Estrada, whose assignee he claimed to be, did not have, nor were entitled, to the action and right they were pursuing to claim three-fifths of the property left by Juan de Montes de Vega and his wife, in her capacity as the great-grandmother, as was said, of her three great-grandchildren.

Additionally, he claimed that his client neither held nor possessed, as guardian of the children of Juan Montes, any of the property left by the aforementioned, and that the property he possessed was his own and belonged to him by lawful and legitimate titles. This was because, due to the debts owed by Juan Montes and his wife, the assets had been executed and auctioned off by the authorities, and possession had been judicially granted to his client. Even if the defendant had held and possessed these assets as guardian of the children of Juan Montes, Diego de Argüelles, without title, cause, or reason and without legitimate standing, had unlawfully taken possession and seized all the real estate, houses, granaries, fields, lands, crops, cattle, and sheep left by Juan Montes and his wife. He argued that the plaintiff should be condemned to relinquish, return, and restore these to his client.

He also stated that he had paid in full to Alonso de Bascones, a merchant and resident of Rioseco, the entire amount of money for which his client held an assignment from the aforementioned. This amount had been owed to Alonso de Bascones by Juan Montes and his wife, as evidenced by written deeds and guarantees, which were executed without fraud or deceit by his client. He further argued that his client was not obligated to provide any accounting to the plaintiff, and even less so to be awarded the damages demanded. For these reasons, he asked and appealed to us that we acquit him and declare him free of the claims made in the demand, imposing perpetual silence on the plaintiff and condemning him to pay the legal costs. Justice was requested, and the court ordered judicial documents sent to the plaintiff. Concerning this, the case was concluded, and the parties were allowed to provide evidence in due form and within a set timeframe.

And while in this state, Luis de Astudillo, on behalf of Diego de Argüelles, responding to the said petition, submitted another in which he stated that we should order everything to proceed according to his requests, condemning Bartolomé Vigil to provide an accounting with an inventory or deferring the damages to his client, because he had taken possession of all the property left by Juan Montes de Vega, acting as the guardian of his children, especially of Lucas, Mencía, and Ysabel Montes. In the same way that he was obligated to create an inventory for them, he was equally obligated for their heirs, such as Doña María de Estrada, their great-grandmother.

Furthermore, the truth was that Alonso de Bascones, a resident of the town of Medina de Rioseco, was not owed any money by Juan Montes. Acting as the guardian and custodian of the minors left by Juan Montes, he had, through collusion, accepted assignments of debts that were not owed. Not content with doing this once, he had repeated the process, duplicating the same amount, without any receipts of collection. Thus, all the judicial orders, auctions, and acts of possession were entirely null and void, lacking any validity due to their origin in the prohibited dealings between a guardian and his ward. For this reason, he asked and appealed to us that we condemn Bartolomé de Vigil and Juan de Cenal de Vega to provide a full accounting of said assets as guardians and custodians, including those they had unlawfully seized. He also requested that any sales, auctions, or acts of possession be declared null and unjust, made in bad faith as guardians.

In this matter, he demanded justice through the most appropriate means for his client and swore as necessary. It was ordered that the judicial documents of the matter be sent to the defendant, and within the allotted timeframe both parties were allowed to present evidence. Testimonies of witnesses and written documents were produced, publicly disclosed, and the case subsequently reached a conclusion.

And having been reviewed by our said president and oidores, they rendered and pronounced a definitive judgment in the case between the said parties as follows: In the case between Diego de Argüelles de Vega and Luis de Astudillo, his legal representative, as plaintiffs, and Bartolomé de Vigil, resident and regidor of the city of Oviedo, and Francisco de Oya, his legal representative, as well as Juan de Cenal de Vega, in his absence, as defendants, considering the records and merits of the proceedings in this case, we find that the plaintiff Diego de Argüelles de Vega proved his petition and lawsuit, in which he laid out his argument, and that the defendant Bartolomé de Vigil and Juan de Cenal did not prove their executions. We therefore declare their defenses unproven.

Consequently, we find it necessary to condemn and do hereby condemn the aforementioned parties to provide, within nine days from the time they are served with the writ of execution of this our sentence, a complete inventory and accounting to the said Diego de Argüelles de Vega, of a legitimate inventory, prepared in timely manner, of the three-fifths of all the assets, rights, and actions that were left upon the death of Juan de Montes and his wife, deceased. Should they fail to comply within the specified term, we defer to the said Diego de Argüelles de Vega damages in an amount not exceeding two thousand ducats. We make no award of legal costs, and by this our definitive judgment, we so pronounce and command.

[Signed by]: Licenciado Don Juan de Ayala, Licenciado Don Mendo de Benavides, and Licenciado Juan de Frías. The said judgment, inserted and incorporated above, was rendered and pronounced by our president and oidores during a public hearing in the city of Burgos on the twenty-sixth day of February of the past year of 1605. Notification of it was sent to the legal representatives of the said parties in person.

Continued in Part 3. Subscribe to the blog to receive email updates.