1709. Carta de Francisco Vitorino para Manuel Suárez.

Letter from Francisco Vitorino to Manuel Suárez

The author laments for not having received any letter from the addressee.

In 1709 José Federico de Tovar, a Corregidor’s lieutenant of Salamanca, proceeded against Pedro López Cañedo, Juan Fernández Conde (who had already deceased), Antonio Fernández Conde, Manuel Suárez, Ambrosio García and Pedro Barreda, all of them residents of Vilvestre (Salamanca). They were accused of introducing grain, livestock and horses in Portugal. Corregimiento´s Justice determined they had conducted this trade during wartime against Portugal and therefore they were investigated. In the case of Manuel Suárez, he fled the village and Justice was unable to apprehend him, however, his house was searched and several documents were seized. Among these documents there were accounts, annotations and some letters. Besides an unsigned letter, there were also seized two other letters addressed to Manuel Suárez from Francisco Vitorio (dated from May the 3rd and July the 27th 1709) and a letter written in Braganza by Bernardo López to his brother Gerónimo López. Several witnesses declared that Manuel Suárez was a Portuguese national and he maintained dealings with the realm. Nevertheless, governors of Ciudad Rodrigo knew about those dealings and about the fact they were made for espionage porpoises. Manuel Suárez was treated as a defaulting defendant, as well as Ambrosio García and Pedro Barreda. Antonio Fernández Conde, by contrast, was arrested and argued he had not offended whatsoever, since he had always traded with the Portuguese realm in peacetime and he continued doing so because he was married to a Portuguese woman.

In 1717 the prosecutor from the Chancellery of Valladolid rectified a previous provision that had declared the judgment against the defendants null and sentenced Antonio Fernández Conde and Pedro López Cañedo to pay a fine of one thousand maravedis. Both of them had to report to the Chancellery of Valladolid and the seizure of their properties was issued; additionally, the referral of the original case was requested.