Friday, July 26, 2013

Teresa Herrera y Sandoval Vs Maria Leyba y Mendoza ~ Lands Santa Cruz 1706 (3)

I, Maria de Leyba y Mendoza, come before you and I say, that if she is married and did not have the consent of her superior, which it is evident, she did have; and besides this as her superior because she admits that she had used the articles and when they were before his very eyes he did not ask where they came from? And if he did not know that they came from the contract, why did he not immediately say that it was not his wish to sell the lands?  Instead it was allowed to take its course and now they have recognized that what I ask is just.  In addition, don Tomas, her father, is not a minor, nor has he any superior.  For this I ask the document be executed in my favor.

With regards to having appealed to me for an agreement, why does she not answer the point that I made in my statement, that her father ill-treated me?  There is no need to go to the wives with fine-sounding phrases to ask them how much was owed by their husbands, and in case they should answer, whatever they say will be referred to what is stated in the promissory notes or deeds that the man names, because it is well prove that women do not fully know about the trades made by their husbands but the husbands do know everything that goes on inside their homes.

In regards to the fact that I deny the debt, I have fully explained myself in this document.  In a conversation with Domingo Martin, I did not say that it was 50 but 40, outside of which as I have said, I do not know whether they had another agreement with my husband – why did they not get assurance in writing?  … Maria de Leyba

On March 15, 1706, I order that don Tomas de Erera come before me.  Asked if it was true he had executed the deed of sale for a tract of land which head sold to Diego Xiron, he said it was true that he had executed and signed it; likewise if it is true that his daughter Theresa de Herrera y Sandobal gave him her consent to said sale with the consent of her husband, Diego Martin, he said that it is true that his said daughter gave him her consent with would be the consent of her husband.  He does not know anything else and signed it, Tomas de Erera y Sandobal, Francisco de Ribera, Juan de Atienza and Roque Madrid as receiving judge.

Immediately thereafter, I asked Diego Martin to appear and under oath asked if it was true that the contract for the land that Tomas de Erera had sold to Diego Xiron was executed at his house; he said that it was true that when the said Diego Xiron had gone to purchase the tract from his wife, he was there before him and he likewise said that he did not want to execute the deed because he did not want his wife or his father-in-law to say at any time that he was to blame but that he did not hinder his wife nor her father in selling it.  He also agreed that he had seen the articles given in the contract at his house.  When asked about the balance still owed, and when and where it was to be paid; he said that it is a fact that 40 pesos was the balance owed on the debt by Diego Xiron. That he was obligated to pay the 40 pesos this coming April and that he had said that if he did not come he would remit the amount.  That he does not know anything else, and not knowing how to sign, Diego Martin by Juan de Atienza, wit/ Francisco de Ribera and Juan de Atienza.

I, Roque Madrid, remit the papers to the Governor so that he may examine them and determine whatever he deems advisable.  The proceedings consist of eight leaves.  Signed Roque Madrid, Juan Median de Ortis, Francisco de Ribera.

Reference:  Spanish Archives of New Mexico, Series I, Twitchell 401, Reel 3, Frames 66-78
©Henrietta M. Christmas

Wednesday, July 24, 2013

Teresa Herrera y Sandoval Vs Maria Leyba y Mendoza ~ Lands Santa Cruz 1706 (2)

I, Teresa de Herrera y Sandobal, come before you and state that the deed was executed before Your Honor and that it was signed by my father, don Tomas de Herrera y Sandobal, to which I desire to say that I being married, recognize only the authority of my husband, Diego Martin, who did not give me his consent to make this sale.

In regards to me having the articles nice the contract was made, I say that it is true, but when trades and adjustments are made without the sanction of the husband or minors the deeds are not valid and the documents are cancelled. Besides she appealed to me for an agreement and has not consented to any.

With regard to the “trade was malicious” because her husband was absent the embarrassment arose that he still owes me 50 pesos and the on another occasion or occasions it was said that the amount was 40 pesos; whether it was 50 or 40 does not take it away.  With Antonio de Moya and his wife had said that they had given the cloth for the shawl for 20 pesos and the skirts for 30 pesos and that her husband still owed a balance of 50, which he was to pay during this month of March.

As to the point about the document being void because it was signed in my name, though I do know how, I say that only is a deed or promissory note should it state that because Teresa de Herrera did not know how to sign she requested a witness to sign. In petitions one does not sign by request.

In the last point of her statement she further states that she could not wait for two years or until he return of her husband to support her children.  She is ignoring the debit in past and confessing her delay and if this is true, all of the clamor, that no release form the debt was given, that no document should have been made and it is was made it would have contained the clause in which the debt is acknowledged.  Teresa de Herrera y Sandoval (rubric)

Reference:  Spanish Archives of New Mexico, Series I, Twitchell 401, Reel 3, Frames 66-78
©Henrietta M. Christmas

Monday, July 22, 2013

Teresa Herrera y Sandoval Vs Maria Leyba y Mendoza ~ Lands Santa Cruz 1706

I, Teresa de Herrera y Sandoval, a resident of la Cañada, appear before you… I have placed on sale a piece of land which I acquired as a dowry from my father. I transferred it by deed which was executed before your in favor of Diego Xiron, from whom I received the sum of 50 pesos in a pair of blue serge skirts and a silk shawl; and in order to complete the sale and contract, the said Diego Xiron, still owed 50 pesos which he agreed to deliver to me at the beginning of this present month of March.  Since he has failed me in this said contract I should be able to and can annul the sale and deed, brining my suit before the court both as regards to the above point and because it was not the liking of my superiors and as Maria de Leyba is filing a petition to have the said piece of land vacated so she can occupy it, I appeal to her to agree to postpone it until two years from now.  I will lend her lands in which she can plant, because my father, don Tomas de Herrera y Sandoval, had rented the said piece of land to Francisco de Ribera prior to the said sale. 

In consideration, I ask and request, to agree to my plan so the aforesaid woman can agree to my plan and if she does not, to order that the balance due me be paid for it is justice that I ask.  Signed Teresa de Herrera (rubric)

At Santa Cruz on March 4 1706, I Roque Madrid, Maese de Campo, Alcalde Mayor of this villa, so sign with two witnesses who are:  Francisco de Ribera and Juan de Medina Ortiz

I, Maria de Leyba y Mendoza, resident of Santa Cruz, appear before you in accordance with the petition of Teresa de Herrera y Sandoval that I challenge and re-challenge it from the first point to the last for the reason that her allegation is malicious; it is evident from the deed of sale which I have in my favor that it was executed and signed by don Tomas de Erera y Sandoval, father of the said Teresa and shows that he had the consent of the said Teresa and also that of her superior.  It is also known that since the contract was executed she has been using the articles as her own. 

As to the point that my husband still owes her 50 pesos it is not recorded in said deed and there in great malice in these statements and have stated the amount was also 40 pesos.  Why did they not demand security for the said amount in life or in death and also specify the time in which it had to be paid.  They had plenty of time from the time of November when it was executed until the 17th of said month, when royal possession was given my husband to have obtained security from my husband for all that they now claim.  They waited until my husband was absent so they could take it away from me.  I do annul her petition as it is not signed according to law, because she signed for herself even though she does not know how.

With regard to her statement that she appealed to me for an agreement in the first place, it was not that way at all.  Considering that I had children, I went to the house of don Tomas de Erera to request him to lend me some land so I could plant, for all of which he treated me with contempt without taking into consideration that I am a married woman and have a clear conscience, telling me that he had nothing to give me on which to plant, that if I planted or never planted his word has been given that the lease was to continue. I answered him that I would take my children to his house so he would support us and he answered that I was to go to my mother for support.  For this reason, I present this deed before your Honor.

With regard to her saying that I agreed to her plan, I do not accept any plan, as I had asked don Tomas de Erera for the same and he did not want to do so. If it is to their advantage to rent it, they should have seen it in time so the deed would not have been executed. I cannot afford to wait for two years so that my children can eat.  If my husband should die I will deliver it when the time comes and if he doesn’t, let he wait until he returns.

I ask that the deed be complied with in full, I swear in due form that this is my petition. Maria de Leyba, wit/ Jose de Atienza.

On March 9 1706, Roque Madrid asks for a response.  (continued)

Reference:  Spanish Archives of New Mexico, Series I, Twitchell 401, Rell 3, Frames 66-78
©Henrietta M. Christmas

Friday, July 19, 2013

Maria Hurtado ~ Will 1725

I declare that I was married according to the Rite of our mother, the Catholic Church for a period of forty-six years, more or less to Antonio Montoya, deceased, during which time we procreated and had as our lawful children, Juan Antonio, Andres, Angela, Juana Maria Antonia, Nicolasa, Tomasa, Antonio and Manuela.

A piece of land that my hold three fanegas and a half of wheat see, which I bequeath to my son Antonio Montoya.

I declare that I bequeath to the holy church of this villa, one statue of Christ which is over one half vara in size.

I declare that I bequeath to my daughter Juana Montoya, one skin lined with fine linen and one chemise of Rouen linen.

I declare that I bequeath to my grandson Miguel Ortiz, one mattress and one woolen sheet.

I declare that I bequeath to my granddaughter Francisca Montoya, one blanket and woolen sheet.

I declare that I bequeath to our holy church one statue of Nuestra Señora de la Soledad with frame, the size of one cuarta, the said Señora to be placed as a decoration on the altar of Saint Anthony.

And in order to comply with my last will and testament, I request Captain Miguel Jose de la Vega y Coca, Alcalde Mayor and War Captain to interpose his authority for its greater force and validity.   
Executed at this said villa on the 28 day of the month of December of this present year 1725, noting as Receiving Judge with the undersigned assisting witnesses in the absence of a public or royal notaries, as there are none in this kingdom, on the present paper because the royal seal is not available in these parts.

Witnesses:  Juan Manuel Chirinos (rubric), Tomas de Sena (rubric), At the request of Sebastian Gonzales – Juan Manuel Chirinos (rubric)

Reference:  Spanish Archives of New Mexico, Series I, Twitchell 405, Reel 3, Frames 92-95
©Henrietta M. Christmas