to be made
for the amount that was therein ordered--not taking account of the
payments that had been made here until they should arrive at Sevilla,
as the official judges of these islands have decided--and that what
was lost must be at the risk of the said Don Francisco Tello.

This was proper, since at the time when the said royal officials
gave the said money to the masters of the ships to be delivered to
the treasury of Mexico, the aforesaid Don Francisco Tello, by the
authority of his position, gave orders that the said masters should
give him the money; and he invested it in merchandise, which, if it
had arrived in Mexico, would have gained a great deal. It was right
that, since he was to have the profit, he should bear what risk there
was--which was greater than if he had allowed the royal officials to
send the money as it suited them. Since each year a great quantity
of money is sent from the treasury of Mexico to the one here, they
would have given orders that, instead of sending the money from here,
it should be deducted from what was to be sent from Mexico, in order
that that quantity might be sent to Sevilla. In this way the risk of
going and coming would have been avoided; and, even if there had not
been any opportunity for this, they might have sent the said money
in gold--which is a less risk, because it is of less bulk and weight
than reals--and thirty per cent would have been gained in Mexico.

Both sides brought evidence, but that for the opposition was of no
importance; so the governor gave judgment according to the opinion
of the licentiate Luis Ortis de Padilla, reporter of the aforesaid
royal Chancilleria, ordering that his property be sold to the highest
bidder, in order to recover the amount for which the execution had been
granted--deducting from it all which the royal officials certify to
have been paid here, and also, eight thousand pesos for what he says he
has paid in Sevilla. I consented to the judgment as far as concerned
what was favorable, and I appealed from what was in opposition, to
what I had asked to have received as evidence. The opposing side has
denied this, and made a declaration of nullity against the aforesaid
royal decree of the year six hundred, saying that, according to it,
it was ordered that the accountants of the royal Council of the
Indias should make a record of this matter, which they did not do;
so that everything that was done by its authority is void. Thus the
sui