| Source | HM35172, Mexican Inquisition papers, The Huntington Library, San Marino, California |
| Date | 1735-1739 |
| Contributor | Transcription: Sanjana Friedman, William B. Taylor, Karen Melvin Translation: Karen Melvin, William B. Taylor |
| Type | Bigamy |
| Coverage | Mexico Minas de Taxco San Juan de Zitácuaro |
| Percent Completed | 102 |
1735 t Relazion de la Causa de Bernardo Reyna Por Poligamo |
Inquisidor fiscal del santo oficio de Mexico contra Bernardo Reyna y Salas Mestizo natural de la Villa de San Juan Zitaquaro de ofizio minero y vezino y Residente en las Minas de Tasco de treynta y zinco años de hedad poco mas o menos. Por Casado Dos Vezes Prueba del Delicto | |
En 26 de Septiembre del 1735 se rezibio la Denuncia dirigida por el Comisario de Malacatepeq que ante el hizo Mariana Maya segunda muger de este reo contradicho su marido de ser antes casado en el Pueblo de San Juan de Urecho. Y porque la Denuncia seria mal tomada y Diminuta se le Debolbio al dicho Comisario para que la bolbiese a examinar y ratificar en |
| y no le parezio nezesario dezirlo al Juez eclesiastico ni Juzgo que juraba falso, ni mentia en afirmar que hera soltero y libre de Matrimonio (Notese que este Mestizo es muy advertido y de una clara razon natural) y el segundo le contrajo en esta firme creencia y buena fee en que le pusieron las notizias que a expresado en su escrito. Recombinos ese con que no cabe buena feé en darse al Cura por soltero en cuia palabra se entiende el que nunca a sido casado callando su Matrimonio Antezedente por lo que se presume fue a engañar al Cura, y a la Yglesia para que creyendo el cura como con efecto lo creyo que nunca havia sido casado omitiese aquellas diligencias que correspondian a la aberiguazion de la muerte de su muger. Dixo que conoze que herro en no averse dado por Viudo expresamente pero que es zierto no cometio este herror de malizia porque no tubo presentes las reflexiones que se la ponen por Delante ni pensó en tal peligro de hallarse casado dos vezes porque fundado en las notizias que a expresado | toda forma, lo que executo en Veynte y uno de Octubre (de nobiembre) y se rezibio en el Tribunal el 5 de Diziembre de 1735 segun consta desde foxas 36 a 42 en que Dize dicha muger ser natural del partido de Ystlaquaca y que se fue a vibir a Tasco con una tia suya en donde se le ofrezio casamiento con este reo vezino entonzes de San Juan de Urecho, de ofizio Minero y con efecto le contrajeron un dia martes ultimo del Septiembre de 1733 asistiendo el Cura de dicho Pueblo de Tasco Don Juan Adan de los Rios y fueron Padrino Gregorio Lopez y Sebastiana su muger, y que al cabo de 6 meses se fueron a San Juan Zitaquaro donde el juez eclesiastico prendio a este Reo su marido por cuia razon fue a saver de dicho juez la causa de la prision y le respondio que porque su marido hera casado en San Juan de Urecho y biba su primera muger que segun antes la havia dicho este reo se llamava Catalina de calidad Morisca y que tubo tres hijos en ella. Y que oyda la respuesta del Juez |
no le quedo Duda en su conzienzia de que hera muerta su primera muger, y en su consequenzia obró lo demas asta casarse segunda vez, no creyendo que lo que hizo y Dixo para su segundo casamiento pecada ni obraba mal, y que esto se Confirmava con que si el hubiera tenido mala feé no se hubiera hido despues con su sugunda muger a Zitaquaro donde havia muchos que le conozian y a su segunda muger por lo que se venia a los oxos no se havia de hir a meter a donde fuese luego descubierto (como suzedio) que llegado a dicha Villa le Dixo al instante Diego Pexez el cobrero que su primera muger hera viba, lo que no creyó, y tubo por disparate, y se mantuvo en Zitaquaro asta que le prendio el Juez eclesiastico por aver Denunciado dicho Diego Perez quien se lo dijo a este reo (Notese que no conforma con esto la Declarazion de dicho Diego Perez en lo mas). A la Publicazion de este testigo Dijo que aunque es verdad que se caso en Tasco con la Amaya, pero que es falso que conoziese a esta en Malacatepeque porque antes la havia conozido en Zitaquaro a donde bolbio casado con ella quando se Dize y que entonzes fue pr[e]so por el Juez eclesiastico con quien no se tubo su | Consulto el caso esta muger con el Padre Heras Religioso de San Francisco quien le dixo que hiziese correo a Urecho a saver si era Viba dicha Catalina y aunque embio el correo no bolbio con respuesta discurriendose averse a ogado en alguno de los muchos Rios que hay que pasar, por lo que ella se retiro a Malacatepeque, y que despues hizo fuga este reo de la Carzel de Zitaquaro el 18 o 20 de Abril de 1735, y vino a Ver la haziendola bastante Ynstanzia para que llebarsela pero ella se escuso diziendole no hera posible pues hera casado en Urecho, a que respondio este reo que ya lo havia compuesto y continua en las grandes Instanzias de llevarsela viniendo cada 15 o 20 dias a verla a escondidas, y que la ultima vez la dixo se hiba a Urecho a saver si hera zierto que su primera muger havia muerto porque el asi lo creyia por averla |
| segunda muger, ni pudo porque estubo enferma todo el tiempo de las Aguas, pero que es zierto Dixo en la carzel delante de algunos que havia sido antes casado con Catalina Ramirez y tambien que viendose tanto tiempo en la Carzel consulto con el Padre Heras y le Dio un escripto para que fuese suelto de la prision a que le dixo dicho Padre que por el no habra estaba preso que despachase correo con carta que le daria para Urecho con que se adquierse Zertificazion; y que con esto Ymbio a Agustin Martinez quien no bolbio, y se Dixo falsamente averse aogado porque pasando preso con los quadrilleros de Velazquez por Charo le vio en dicho Pueblo. Y que es falso que hiziese instanzias a su segunda muger para llebarsela ni que la fuese aver del 15 a 16 dias, o, 20 ni que la Dixese que ya estaba compuesto el negozio de su prision, ni pudo dezirselo porque supo ella muy bien que havia echo fuga de la Carzel y andava a escondidas y que aunque es verdad | alargado avia 10 o 12 años y averle dicho algunos de Urecho havia muerto de sarampion lo qual oyo la declarante que se lo dezia a este Reo uno llamado Bernardino. Y que quando estubo este Reo preso en Zitaquaro vino de Urecho Manuel Varaxas quien presente la declarante Dijo a este Reo en principios de Diziembre de 1734 a la puerta de la carzel que su primera muger Catalina hera Viba y que la habia visto en el mes de Agosto de este mismo año. En todo lo qual se ratifico. Encargadas con la primera notizia las Justificaziones de los dos Matrimonios, y el Comisario de Tasco embio la de el segundo que consta de la partida del casamiento de este Reo Bernardo Reyna con Mariana Maya zelebrado con Asistenzia del Cura Adan de los Rios, y los Padrinos Gregorio Lopez, y Sebastiana Gomez |
| que estubo con su muger segunda casa de Chepe Reyes junto a Malacatepque dos o 3 dias se fue luego a Zaqualpa donde estubo algun tiempo y de aqui salio con animo de hir aver si hera viba su primera muger y de camino paso por Malacatepeque donde hubo con la segunda aquella noche y se bolbio a dormir en casa de Chepe Reyes, sin bolberla aver mas ni hazerla ynstanzia para llevarsela. Recombenido con que en la respuesta del capitulo 7o de la Acusazion, o, aqui miente porque halla Dixo que solo una vez havia estado con dicha Maya y esa a lo ultimo quando se venia a aberiguar si su primera muger hera muerta porque de lo que acaba de dezir se conoze que ya son dos vezes las que la vio la 1.a al venir y ydo de Zitaquaro en esta ocasion ultima, y no una. Dijo que no entenderia bien el Capitulo 7o de esta Acusazion y asi diria lo que se le Dize pero que la verdad es lo que lleba aqui declarado. Y que es falso que el aya dicho a su | su muger en 13 de Octubre del 1733 denunziandose en dicha partida ser el mestizo y de San Juan Zitaquaro, y ella de Temascaltepeque, y española. Y por quanto en el echo de este segundo Matrimonio no hay cosa notable no se ponen los testigos por extenso, y solo se dize ser quatro los que testifican de casamiento, y Velazion quando refiere la partida, y que el motibo de casarse este Reo que porque antes estaba amanzevada con dicha Maya y con la mision del Padre Martinez de la Compania se movio a casarse. Los testigos fueron Gregorio Lopez, Mestizo, su muger Sebastiana Gomez Padrinos del Matrimonio, el sachristan de la Parroquia Don Pedro de Ocampo Ramirez, Don Joseph de la Borda natural de Canfran en el Reyno de Aragon |
segunda muger cosa alguna de tener por muerta la primera. Y tambien es verdad que Varaxas le dixo en la Carzel lo que se expresa oyendolo los demas presos, pero Varaxas venia solo, y no con otro--- Sobre la partida del Matrimonio, y los quatro testigos que deponen sobre el responde al Capitulo quinto; que es así como se dize en dicha partida, y lo deponen dichos testigos menos en que ella sea de Temascalepec porque la tiene por de San Juan Zitaquaro donde estan sus Padres lo qual añadio a la publicacion de la partida de su segundo casamiento; y a la de esta 4 testigos dixo ser verdad lo que dizen. Conduze la respuesta al Capitulo 60 de la Acusazion en orden a esta Zertificazion porque haziendole cargo de la ocultazion de aver sido casado y residido en Urecho responde que aunque | quien aunque no estubo presente al Matrimonio dize saber de zierto se zelebro en Octubre de 1733 porque el pago los derechos por ser sirviente este reo en sus Minas, y que despues que se fue de ellas le escribio desde Zitaquaro notiziandole estaba alli es preso porque el Juez eclesiastico no creyia averse casado en Tasco y asi le suplicava le embiase zertificazion de su Casamiento la qual le embio el dicho Don Joseph, fueron examinados y ratificados dichos quatro testigos en Octubre de 735 y enero del 1736. La zertificazion remitida por dicho Don Joseph de la Borda esta firmada del mismo cura de Tasco Adan de los Rios, y autorizada por Joseph de Cordoba Notario de su Juzgado en que refiere que el 5 de Octubre de 1733 se presento Ante el |
| es verdad callo al Juez eclesiastico todo lo que se expresa pero fue sin malizia y llevado de las notizias referidas y que no penso en cometer semejante pecado ni ha pensado, antes bien a uydo de la ocasion de cometerle pues abra diez u onze años que se vino de la hazienda de Paroco donde estaba su primera muger a Zitaquaro donde se amanzebo con Efigenia de Urbina por lo qual fue preso queriendo ella hiziesen Matrimonio contribuyendo a lo mismo con eficazissimas Instanzias repetidas del Notario del Juzgado eclesiastico Don Francisco Gonzalez, y viendo que no podia evadirse de otro modo le ubo de dezir que no podia casarse con ella por estarlo en su Jurisdicion de Pasquaro y puesto esto en notizia del Juez eclesiastico le desterro de dicha Villa de Zitaquaro y se vino a Tasco (Notese | este Reo para contraer Matrimonio con Mariana Maya. Diziendo ser soltero natural de Zitaquaro representando aver estado mas de dos años en Yncontinenzia deverla este Reo su Virxinidad y Jurando el animo morandi en esta jurisdizion de hallarse pobres, por lo qual echa la informazion de Livertad, y solteria se casaron y velaron, y que respecto de que por carta de este reo a Don Joseph de la Borda resulta que este Reo dize en ella aver callado que hera Viudo porque no se le pidiese Zertificazion en el este Juzgado de Tasco, y que nezesita de Zertificazion de ser casado en este dicho Real para que lo crea el Juez eclesiastico de Zitaquaro por tanto dicho Cura Adan de los |
la prespicazia de este Reo en exponer tal defensa y apoyo de su buena feé.) A la Publicazion de la Zertificazion Dixo que es zierta en todo menos en lo que se asienta de que el ubiese quitado su Virginidad a su segunda muger. A los capitulos quinto y 4 siguientes de la Acusazion Dixo que es verdad calló al Juez eclesiastico todo lo que se expresa pero lo hizo sin malizia por las notizias de la muerte de su primera muger que a referido sin aver pensado en cometer el pecado de casado dos vezes, y trae para prueba de lo de Efixenia Urbina que queda ya dicho en este marjen y que es falso lo mas del capitulo 70 porque desde que se huyo de la carzel de Zitaquaro no estubo con su segunda muger mas que una vez y esa fue a lo ultimo quando se venia, y la dexo en casa de Chepe Reyes que esta en un Zerro despoblado, desde donde sin dificultad la podia aver llevado y asi tambien es falso que la ubiese echo instanzias para que se fuese con el, y repite que conoze herro en no aver manifestado al Cura aver sido casado pero que fue sin malizia--- A la Publizazion de su pre- | Rios mando dar, y da la presente firmada de su mano, y refrendada del dicho Notario en Tasco en 21 de Julio de 1734. Para contraer este segundo Matrimonio se presento este Reo, y Mariana Maya Ante dicho Cura Adan de los Rios en dicho dia 5 de Octubre de 1733 haviendoles Recivido Juramento que hizieron en toda forma dixo este reo llamarse Bernardo Reyna ser mestizo, soltero, natural de Zitaquaro de donde salio la primera vez a los 21 años de su hedad (mentira clara) para el Real de Temascatelpeque donde residio año y medio, y bolvio a San Juan Zitaquaro donde estubo poco mas de dos años y se vino a esta Jurisdizion de Tasco en la que a vibido como quatro años y medio haziendo distintos viaxes |
| -sentazion al Cura Dixo ser verdad aver sido examinado por el Notario y dicho devajo de Juramento lo que se refiere en quanto asi: y que lo mismo hizo dicho Notario con su segunda muger quien falto a la verdad en dezir que el le havia quitado la Virginidad porque ya otro la havia perdido, y que no Juzgo este reo obraba mal en aver dicho ser soltero libre y suelto de Matrimonio respecto de tener por zierto que su primera muger hera muerta. Recombinosele con la mentira que devajo de dicho Juramento echó de que la primera vez que salio de Zitaquaro fue teniendo 21 años de hedad Yendose a Temascaltepeque quando el tiene Confesado fue llevado de muy tierna hedad a Urecho y asi en esto tubo suma malizia y mala feé. Volbio a dezir que conoze herro en aver mentido al cura en quanto a sus residenzias y ocultadole la verdad pero que como creyo ser mui zierta la muerte de su primera muger no entendio que herraba ni cometia pecado en ello. | a su Patria (Notese como profundamente calló averse criado desde Niño en la Jurisdizion de Urecho casadose y Vibido alli en aquellas Minas del Cobre) deteniendose en el que mas un mes hasta que se vino en derechura a este Real transitando por Temascaltepeque, Zaqualpa, y otros y que es huerfano, y de 30 años de hedad. Y dicha Maya Declaro ser española soltera natural y vezina de Temascaltepeque donde a estado hasta abra ocho meses que es huerfana (esta tambien mintio expresamente en su naturaleza y su horfandad) de hedad de 22 años, y ambos dizen que respecto de hallarse en mal estado y supuesta la palabra Matrimonial de este Reo que le quito la Virxinidad se Vinieron |
| a esta Jurisdizion donde movidos de la mision que se esta haziendo desean salir del Cauteberio en que estan quieren contraer el expresado Matrimonio, y para ello Juran por Dios nuestro Señor y la Señal de la Santa Cruz ser tales solteros libres y sueltos del Matrimonio y que no han dado azeptado ni reprometido palabra a otra persona, etc. | |
A la Publicazion de este testigo Dixo que es verdad que el lo presento y naturalmente Declararia lo que se expresa porque el tal testigo no le conozio casado ni tampoco le pareze que el conozimiento que tenia de el, seria mas que de 6 años a aquella parte quando le pudo ver en Zitaquaro pero que el trato y comunicazion no la tubieron sino es en Temascaltepeque. | Presento este Reo tres Testigos el primero (tiene sospecha de falso) Ylario Gomez Mestizo de 29 años de hedad quien devajo de Juramento Dixo que desde su tierrna Infanzia conoze a este reo por averse criado Juntos y asta la presente por ser Conpatriotas se han tratado, y comunicado, y que aunque uno y otro han echo diferentes viaxes en todos no se han dilatado en bolverse aver, y que |
| abra ocho meses salieron Juntos de Zitaquaro y travajado Juntos asta la presente, y que de el, ni de ella a oydo dezir que ayan sido casado ni desposados ni tengan algun otro ympedimiento para contraer el Matrimonio que sabe intentan por quitarse del mal estado en que estan. | |
| A la Publicazion de estos dos testigos Dixo que tambien fueron presentados por el a los quales y tambien al Antezedente Dixo que bien Veyian que no tenia ympedimiento para casarse y asi no se escusasen de ser testigos. Y como no lo havian conozido casado ni oydolo no tubieron dificultad en ser tales testigos y que es zierto que estos dos ultimos le conozieron desde el tiempo que expresan. | Los otros dos Testigos fueron Phelipe Salinas mulato libre de quarenta años de hedad, Miguel Ruano mulato libre de 45 años los que deponen de conozimiento de este Reo diez y seis años antes y que en ellos no han oydo que aya sido casado ni desposado ni tenga otro algun otro impedimiento impediente, o, dirimente para contraer el Matrimonio que pretende. |
| A la Publicazion de esto Dixo que pasó lo que se Dize y hubo las preguntas y respuestas que se refieren | Dicho Cura Adan dio por bastante la Informazion, y mando se hiziesen los despachos para las Informaziones |
| pero que le pareze que entonzes no havia con el cura mas que el Notario aqui de notar los efectos que sin duda resultaron de darse este Reo por soltero que fueron el creerle el Cura nunca casado, y por eso contentarse con Informazion de Livertad tan limitada, y rebocar las requisitorias para las amonestaziones en Zitaquaro las que executadas havian de aver produzido naturalmente y descubierto el Ympedimiento o la notizia de casado con otra. | o amonestaziones en Zitaquaro pero echos por el Notario Joseph de Cordoba, y llebados a afirmar de dicho Cura, que estava a la sazon con el Padre Juan Martinez de la Compañía mando llamar a este Reo, y a su segunda muger y venidos les preguntaron si tenian animo de morar en la Juridizion, y respondiendo que si. Dixeron dicho cura y Padre Martinez, ser bastante causa el animo morandi para no despachar las requisitorias fechas, y Tambien por escusar gastos y Multiplicazion de derechos. --- |
| A la Publicazion de esta diligencia Dixo que es verdad saco a dicha su segunda muger de casa de una llamada Magdalena y no de casa de sus Padres porque andava escondida de ellos sin que se acuerde porque (bien se podia acordar este Reo que estaba amanzevado con ella y que su Padre Francisco Maya le Dixo escusarse frequentar su casa como lo depone este Francisco foja 95 vuelta. Y que la llebo a las minas que tambien ay de cobre en la Jurisdizion de Zitaquaro y trabajava Francisco Mungia donde estubieron | A los quatro o seis meses de echo este segundo casamiento se bolvio este reo con su segunda muger a San Juan Zitaquaro donde Ya el Juez eclesiastico Don Francisco Joseph Albardo tenia probeydo Auto desde 15 de septiembre de 1733 años un mes antes que se casase la segunda vez, para que respecto de aver savido que este Reo se havia uydo? de dicha Villa con Maria- |
| como tres, o, quatro meses y viniendose los dos para Tasco al pasar por Temascaltepeque les prendio el Theniente y aunque no se acuerda determinadamente del tiempo que estubo preso pero save que fueron tres, o, quatro meses y el Alcayde Solorzano le dexó hirse porque se lo pago y tambien le saco la muger de la casa donde estaba depositada, y se Vinieron a Tasco y que es verdad que haviendo buelto ya casados a Zitaquaro prendio a este Reo el Juez eclesiastico el dia 5 de dicho mes y año, pero no lo es el que su segunda muger fuese depositada por lo que ya tiene dicho. | -ana Maya, y andar en este partido amanzevado con ella, se aberiguase la verdad: Y haviendo buelto como ba dicho ya casados los referidos ha Zitaquaro. Mando dicho Juez eclesiastico en quatro de Mayo de 1734. Fuese el preso, y ella depositada, y con efecto lo executo el Notario Francisco Gonzalez de Aragon, poniendo en la carzel publica a este Reo y a ella por estar enferma dexo depositada en la casa donde la encontro acostada. |
| A la Publicazion de esta confesion Dixo ser verdad aver pasado asi como se refiere | Tomoles ha ambos la Declarazion dicho Juez eclesiastico devaxo de Juramento, y el dixo ser verdad que por el mes de Julio del año pasado del 1733 se llebo de Zitaquaro a Mariana Maya, y estubo con ella en Temascaltepeque quatro meses, y se casaron en Tasco por el mes de Octubre con asistenzia |
| A la Publicazion de esta carta Dixo que es falso que el se quisiese casar con la Efixenia de Urbina, antes bien persuadiendosele a ello se resistio segun y como lo tiene dicho y que de lo ultimo del dicha carta no puede dar razon de si es asi, o, no. | del Cura Adan de los Rios. Lo mismo declaró dicha Mariana Maya. Con ocasion de la prision de este Reo llegaron diferentes notizias a dicho Juez eclesiastico de vibir su primera muger en Urecho, y entre ellas fue una carta de Don Manuel de Santa Cruz Motezuma en que denunzia a dicho Juez eclesiastico que [begin inserted text] sirviendo en sus minas [end inserted text] con ocasion de quererse casar este reo con Rosa de Urbina, criolla de Zitaquaro, le dixeron dos, o tres operarios de sus minas vezinos o naturales de los Payses de Pasquaro, o Santa Clara que conozian a este reo, y savian hera casado en san Juan de Urecho con una negra que estaba Viba, y dicho Motezuma añade, que aora rezientemente oyo al Cura de Tuzantla aversele denunziado muy pocos dias havia lo mismo por persona que conozia a este reo. Por papel de dicho Cura de Tuzantla de 8 de Junio de 1734 consta que una persona que no expresa le |
| denunzio por descargo de su conzienzia que este reo conozido en Zitaquaro por Bernardo Reyna es casado en Urecho con una negrita, y que save el Denunziante de pocos dias ha, que Vibe su muger en Santa Clara y que dicho Bernardo Reyna tiene otro nombre por el qual le conozio en su patria. | |
| Dixo es verdad escribio ambas cartas para el fin que expresan. | Presento tambien a dicho Juez eclesiastico el referido Motezuma dos cartas que le escribio este reo desde la carzel de 23 y 30 de Mayo en que le refiere a oydo que la causa de su prision es porque dizen que su primera muger es Viba, y que su adelinquido es por engaño de Manuel o Thomas el Rey a quien embio por Zertificazion y bolbio, suponiendole que su muger hera muerta diziendo lo mismo a muchos testigos que lo diran y asi |
pide a dicho Motezuma le patrozine para salir de la Carzel, y el travajo en que se halla, por cuia diligenzia le ofreze travajar en sus minas quatro, o, seis meses, y concluye este Reo la carta con que el save medianamente como su muger es muerta por otras personas que antes de embiar a Thomas el rey se lo dixeron [el reo]. | |
Al capitulo 8o de la Acusazion Dixo que no tubo mala feé en averse casado segunda vez por las razonas que tiene expuestas en las Audienzias y en el pliego de papel exsibido en la ultima de ofizio. Con esta ocassion se le recombino imediatamente con esto que Motezuma escribio a dicho Juez eclesiastico le havia afirmado Thomas el Rey devajo del Juramento. Respondio a dicha monizion que es falso quanto dixo a Motezuma Thomas el Rey como constaria de los testigos que a zitado y tiene pedido sean exsaminados.
| En el Reberso de la primera carta de 23 de Mayo de 1734 escribe dicho Motezuma al Juez eclesiastico con fecha de 26 de dicho mes y año que remitiendose este Reo en su descargo al presunto de ser casado dos vezes a la prueba de que Despacho antes de Contraer segundas nupzias a su tierra por Zertificazion de su Viudez a un mulato que regularmente llaman el Rey. Lo llamo abia 15 dias a su presenzia, y preguntandole la verdad del caso por |
| lo demas que tiene Declarado como lo diran los testigos que tiene zitados. | Zelo de la honra de Dios nuestro Señor niega la zita dicho mulato el Rey y solo asienta que aunque fue azia los Payeses de Urecho a otro negozio, con cuia ocasion le encargo dicho Reyna, alias, Salas, que preguntase si hera viba o muerta su muger que no hizo tal diligenzia ni le trajo tal zertificazion por no averle dado dinero para ello y que esto lo Juro dicho mulato por Dios nuestro Señor y la Señal de la Santa Cruz. Notese que mandado despues buscar y exsaminar a este Thomas el Rey no a podido ser hallado. Por todo esto mando dicho Juez eclesiastico que estas diligenzias se pasasen al Comisario de Valladolid de Mechoacan Don Miguel Romero Lopez de Arbizu canonigo y Dignidad de su |
Catedral. Despues se uyo este Reo de la Carzel de Zitaquaro en 20 de Abril de 1735, y se bolbio a buscar a su segunda muger, y dejandola, segun el dize, para venir a Urecho a saver si hera viba su primera muger llegando a Charo le prendio alli el Alcalde mayor por alguna sospecha de Coperante de urto por fin del año de 35. y los Comisarios de la hermandad del Capitan Velazquez le trageron a esta ciudad de Mexico y Carzel de dicho Capitan; lo que savido en este tribunal y tambien que en dicha carzel se dezia ser casado dos vezes, se mando al secretario Carrillo fuese a la Carzel de dicho Capitan, y supiese de este Reo con toda yndibidualidad su primer Matrimonio, y le dejase reencargado como preso de este santo oficio a dicho Capitan Velazquez como con efecto lo executo todo |
dicho secretario Carrillo. Perdiose la primera comision que se embio a Urecho Dirijida al Comisario Arbizu sobre el exsamen de la primera muger que omitio el Cura de Urecho en las diligenzias de la Justificazion de este primer Matrimonio, y asi en 31 de Agosto de 1736 se bolbio a encargar dicho exsamen el que no se pudo lograr ni rezibir asta 26 de noviembre de 1736. | |
A los capitulos 1o, 2o, y 3o de la Acusazion Dixo que es verdad lo que contienen el 1o y 2o y sustanzialmente tambien lo es lo de el Capitulo 3o porque aunque ay alguna variedad no es en cosa de momento y que el no la dexo quatro hixos, sino es los 3 que a referido, pero no save si quedava preñada, o, no quando se Ausento. A la Publicazion de este testigo Dixo que es verdad todo lo que refiere exzepto que el, y su primera muger estubiesen los primeros quatro años en Urecho porque pasado un año se fueron | En 7 de octubre de dicho año el cura de Santa Clara de los Cobres exsamino y ratifico a dicha primera muger quien debajo de Juramento Dixo llamarse Catalina Ramirez de casta mulata y de 45 años de hedad de estado casada con Bernardo de Salas (Notese como dizen bien los que han dicho ser Conozido este Reo en estas Minas de Santa Clara y Jurisdizion de Urecho por el Apellido Salas, y no por Reyna) cuias |
| a Guarimeo donde estarian como otro año y de aqui se vinieron a las minas del Cobre de la Jurisdizion de Ario en la que no hay mas Pueblo que el de la Guacana y que de ellas a Urecho hay la distanzia de un dia de camino. pero aunque de las minas a Santa Clara donde se lleba el Cobre a fundir, ay 8 dias de camino de requa: | señas expresó y que se caso con este Reo en el Pueblo de San Juan de Urecho abra como Veynte años siento Parracho el Br. Don BuenaVentura de Alexandre, y Villa Roel, y Padrinos Thomas Rangel, y su esposa Maria Martinez y testigos, Antonio Zepeda, y Joseph Rangel; Y que hizieron vida maridable primero quatro años poco mas o menos en dicho Pueblo de Urecho y despues en Guarimeo Jurisdizion de este Pueblo de Santa Clara del Cobre, y se Vinieron despues al trapiche de Paroco Jurisdizion del de Turicato donde vibieron de tres a quatro años y alli la dexo este reo, con quatro hixos que fueron Maria de la Concepzion, Marcos Anastasio, Roberto Doroteo, y Phelipe de la Cruz, y por eso esta declarante se bolbio a Urecho y que abra que se Ausento de ella sin motibo, ni causa abra doze años poco mas, o, menos, y que no supo de el hasta que oyo se hallaba (en Valladolid) |
2o | en Valladolid, y que una vez desde san Juan Zitaquaro la escribio una carta que ya no tiene y se la ha perdido (esta carta esta en los Autos aunque no entera) rogandola que se llegase halla porque el se hallaba en travajos por averse casado segunda vez y que esta verdad, etc. |
| A la Publicazion de este testigo Dijo ser verdad lo que refiere aunque no sabe que tenga cuñado del nombre que se dize. | Encargada por el Comisario Arbizu la Justificazion de este primer Matrimonio al Cura Alexandre exsamino este quatro Testigos el primero Pasqual Rodrigo Lozano en siete de nobiembre de 1735 quien devajo de Juramento dixo que es Vezino de este partido de Urecho que asi se acordava del Casamiento que el Br. Don Joseph de Brambila havia zelebrado en este partido de Urecho y que el dicho Salas hera su concuño y que quien los havia apadrinado hera Thomas Ranxel, y Maria |
de la Cruz que se mande traer y se sabra la verdad en que se afirmo y ratificó. y Dixo ser de hedad de 50 años. | |
| A la Publicazion de este testigo Dixo que es verdad lo que refiere | En el mismo dia, y del mismo modo fue exsaminada la Madrina del primer Matrimonio Maria de la Cruz, Viuda de Thomas Ranxel, y devaxo de Juramento dijo que estando en el Rancho de Cacanguyo la fueron a traer, y que como obra caritatiba Asistio a apadrinar a dicho Bernardo Reyna y Catalina Ramirez la que havia 15 dias que havia visto en las minas de Yguaran y que la declarante tenia de hedad como 70 años. |
| A la Publicazion de este testigo Dixo que es verdad lo que Declara. | Joseph Manuel como de 40 años de hedad Dixo que asistio a la Voda de Bernardo de Reyna y Salas con Catalina Ramirez y aun hizo burrla de que el mozo hera pequeño en Comparazion de la muger. |
| A la Publicazion de este testigo Dixo que es verdad lo que refiere en quanto al Casamiento y los 3 hijos pero que no tubo notizia [palabras borradas] azerca del suzeso de su hija que expone. --- | Bartholome Guebara de 35 años poco mas, o, menos exsaminado en la mala forma que los antezedentes Dixo que havia asistido a ver casar a dicho Bernardo Reyna y Salas |
y Catalina Ramirez a quienes conozio en tiempo de sus Padres haziendo vida maridable tubieron tres hixos uno llamado Marcos, y otro Roberto, y una muchacha llamada Maria de la Conzepzion, y se casó en el puesto de Cacanguyo, pero al año murio de parto con la criatura y que dichos dos hixos se hallaban oy en compañia de su Madre en lo qual se afirmo el Testigo, etc. | |
| Al capitulo 40 de la Acusazion Dixo que estando preso en Zitaquaro por la Denunzia de Diego Perez el Cobrero vino Baraxas y le notizia que su primera muger hera viba porque aquellas mismas Aguas la havia visto en las minas de Apupato (Notese con esto como ya podia dudar de ser viba su primera muger y que despues de salido de la carzel hera mejor ubiera hido a buscar a esta que No a la segunda.) Y que al bolverse dicho Varaxas a las minas le dio una Carta para su primera muger la que se reduzia a pedirla muchos perdones de averse casado segunda Vez pero que la Culpa la tenia | Con esta Diligenzia Vino tambien la carta que este reo escribio a su muger desde San Juan Zitaquaro de que se a echo ya menzion, la qual esta en medio pliego doblado pero cortada mucha parte de la ultima quartilla en la que esta la firma de este Reo y la da quenta como se halla preso en dicha Villa por casado dos vezes y que el Juzgo se havia muerto quando casó la segunda vez porque asi se lo afianzo Thomas el Rey. Por lo qual cometio semejante Yerro |
| su Primo de ella Thomas el Rey que embiado a saver si hera viba bolbio asegurando hera muerta. A la Publicazion Dixo que esa es la carta que a dicho en otra Audiencia y que toda es de su letra asta el primer renglon aunque parezca la de este dibersa de la demas porque nazio de estar mui delgada la pluma al escribirle. | que ella pudiera tambien aber cometido con tanto afianze como el tubo de lo qual pide a Dios misericordia, y a ella su favor, y que le perdone y Venga a dicha Villa Y dize otras cosas que por no ser de sustanzia se Omiten. Con esto fue mandado traer a carzeles secretas en 22 de noviembre de 1736 y traydo el dia siguiente; y metido en ellas. Orden del Prozeso En 26 de dicho mes y año se le Dio la primera Audienzia en que dixo llamarse como ba expresado y ser de la casta vezindad y hedad que ba dicho casado con Mariana Maya con la que zelebro Matrimonio tres años [?] en zinco de Octubre. Velandose al mismo tiempo asistiendo el Cura Adan de los Rios de Padrinos Gregorio Lopez, y su muger, y que antes fue casado con Catalina Ramirez mestiza a quien conozio en el Pueblo de Ario, y que se zelebro el Matrimonio abra 16 a 17 años en la Capilla de la hazienda de San Juan en la hazienda de Urecho siendo cura el Br. |
Alexandre asistiendo en su nombre Don Joseph Brenbila Clerigo Presvitero, y de Padrinos Thomas Ranxel coyote y su muger Maria de casta mulata.
Preguntado por el discurso de su Vida Dixo nazio en San Juan Zitaquaro donde fue Vautizado y que se crio de muchacho en las minas del cobre de Santa Clara con sus tios Juan Manuel y Agustín Salas, con quienes estubo hasta que se casó con dicha Catalina con quien hizo vida maridable en dichas minas de tres a quatro años procreando tres hixos la mayor llamada María y los otros dos Marcos, y Roberto de quienes no sabe que se hazen, y que se bino a San Juan Zitaquaro desde a donde paso a las minas de Tasco en las quales y en las zercanas de Zaqualpa de Sultepeque, y Temascaltepeque a estado, y residido
y que abra 3 años que se bolvio con su muger Mariana Maya a Zitaquaro con animo de que darse halla pero luego le prendio el Juez eclesiastico por la causa que el havia presumido pues luego oyo dezir le querian prender por que vibia su primera muger, y como el no se hallaba Culpado (notese como ba queriendo extablezer la buena feé) no hazia caso de eso, y que estubo preso desde el dia 5 de Mayo de 1734 asta 25 de Abril del año siguiente que se Uyo de la Carzel, y se bolbio a Zaqualpa y rebolbio azia donde dezian estaban su primera muger y en Charo le prendio el Correxidor, y desde allí lo trajeron en casa del Capitan Velazquez. Llegando a la Pregunta de si save o, presume la causa etc. Y a la monizion respondio que presume sera su prision por casado dos
Vezes pero que el averse casado segunda vez fue sin malizia Juzgando que no vibia su primera muger por las diligenzias que hizo y probara que hera muerta porque de otra suerte no lo hubiera executado pues se prezia de christiano, y si le hubiera puesto por delante la Yra de Dios, y que lo procurara mostrar sin viendose el santo ofizio pues el esta solo, y preso de mandar executar las diligenzias que expresara y conduzen a que se conozca su sinzeridad. En la segunda Audienzia no Dixo cosa alguna, y solo pidio papel, que se le dio y en la terzera Audienzia que se le dio en Primero de Diciembre de dicho año y trajo escrito de su letra un pliego de papel. En que Dize los motibos y razones por donde creyo ser cierta |
| Sobre estas notizias de los Yndios fue examinado dicho Francisco Mungia y Dijo lo que se vera adelante. | la muerte de su primera muger. El primero que Vinieron tres hombres que expresa de su tierra de los quales el uno se llama Juan Bernardino (acaso sera este el que expresa la segunda muger se lo dixo delante de ella y se llamava Bernardino Pero no dize dicha muger fuese en esa ocassion) acompañado con otros a Tasco donde estaba travajando en las minas de Don Joseph de la Borda y le dijeron que porque no Yba por sus hixos, y respondiendo este Reo que para que queria el hixos que sino estaban con su Madre replicaron que ya esta havia muerto, que en casa de su Abuelo estaban los muchachos, y que despues estando el travajando en las Minas del Francisco Munguia fueron por allí dichos tres hombres y le dixeron lo mismo a dicho Francisco Munxia (Notese que no consta en el Prozeso que estubiese este Reo dos temporadas en Tasco travaxando en las minas de Don Joseph de la Borda, ni que antes de aver travajado en las de Mungia |
Ubiese estado en las referidas de Tasco, y lo que mas consta de dicho suyo al presentarse al cura de Tasco es que dize que despues de aver dejado a su segunda muger y estado dos años en San Juan Zitaquaro dos años [begin inserted text here] Salido la primera vez de Zitaquaro fue a temascaltepeque donde residio año y medio y bolbio a Zitaquaro desde al cabo de dos años que allí estubo [end inserted text here] se vino a Tasco donde estubo quatro y medio, haziendo diferentes viaxes a Zitaquaro asta que abra ocho Meses que bolbio a este Real) y que luego aquella semana santa sirviendo en las minas de dicho Mungia llego a estar con este dicho su Amo Thomas el Rey (a quien entonzes no conozia este reo) y le dixo que hiba para la Ciudad de Pasquaro, con cuio motibo le pregunto dicho Mungia que quanta tierra havia de Pasquaro a Urecho y respondiendole que un dia de camino le dixo havia de hazer una diligenzia por este Reo que estaba en su casa, y asi que fuese alla, y le pidiese
salido dicho cura. (Notese que este cura havia de ser el Br. Alexandre el mismo que hizo de orden del santo ofizio la Justificazion del primer Matrimonio, y asi hera natural que escribese al Comisario de Valladolid Don Miguel Romero Lopez de Arbizu algo de esta carta y Thomas el Rey) Preguntandole si llebaba el dinero para la partida de entierro, y que havia respondido que alli llevaba dos pesos a que replico el Cura que no le avia de costar sino es seis, y a lo menos zinco, y que como no los tenia dicho rey pensó en Vender el macho como de bastante Valor, y comprar un cavallo para pagar con la sobra los zinco pesos pero que no havia hallado quien se lo comprara y que por esa razon se havia venido sin la partida de entierro pero que Juraba
a Dios una y mill vezes que la muger de este Reo hera difunta y pide que este Thomas el Rey como falsario sea preso, y traydo al santo ofizio para que exprese los motibos que tubo para hazerle cometer el herror de casarse segunda vez; y tambien pide sean exsaminados Francisco Mungia y otros zinco que expresa como savidores de la respuesta que trajo Thomas el rey. en 10 de enero de 1737. Hizosele una larga recombenzion que aunque fuese verdad todo lo que a escrito en el pliego de papel no cavia dexase de aver tenido malizia en contraer el segundo Matrimonio respecto de que Deviendo presentarse como Viudo al Cura y referirle estas notizias de su Viudez le oculto muy de proposito su Antezedente Matrimonio
y devaxo de Juramento le aseguro sea soltero libre y suelto de Matrimonio, y falto a la verdad y a la relixion del Juramento pues refiriendo en su presentazion aver salido la primera vez de Zitaquaro de 21 años de hedad oculto el haver [?] a las Minas de Temascaltepeque y Tasco calló la de las minas de Santa Clara, y tierra de Urecho y que asi con esta falsedad no es dable buena feé ni falta de malizia.
Dixo que conozia que en eso havia herrado pero que lo executo, y aseguro llevado de Aver conzevido ser zierta la muerte de su muger que le aseguraron las personas que dize su escripto.
En 10 de enero de dicho año de 1737 se le puso la Acusazion compuesta de 11 Capitulos a los que res-
-pondio devajo de Juramento lo que ba al marjen de la Prueba.
En 18 del mismo mes y año la comunico con dicho su Abogado quien tambien pidio fuesen exsaminados los zitados por este Reo.
Y con efecto se hizo una Comision muy larga en 4 de febrero de 1737 para ebaquar estas diligenzias las que executo el Comisario de Marabatio, y Zitaquaro Licenciado Arriola, y se rezibieron en 8 de Mayo de dicho año, y consta por ellas no venir exsaminados el mulato correo Thomas el Rey, Gaspar Pinto, y Manuel Bernardino que son los dos que se suponen Vibos de los tres que dize este Reo le dixeron y tambien a Francisco Mungia que su primera muger hera muerta antes que embiase a Thomas el Rey. Francisco Mungia fue exsaminado y Ratificado por dicho Comisario al
| A este no se tubo por combeniente darsele en Publicazion. | Thenor de la Comision, y devajo de Juramento Dixo que conozio a este Reo abrá mas de quatro años por aver travajado de Varretero en sus minas y vibido en su misma casa el qual le contó hera casado en Santa Clara del Cobre, pero que tenia notizia avia muerto su muger y que haviendose hido este Reo a Zitaquaro bolbio a su casa despues, pidiendole le acompañase para buscar un hombre que le dixeron havia Venido para que le diese razon de su primera muger y que haviendole acompañado asta el puesto, y casa de Thomas Muñoz y no encontrando al tal hombre se separó el testigo de este Reo quien estando en servizio del Testigo le Dixo como en la mina de los Reyes de Don Alexandro de Eguia estaban 3 Yndios (estos son a lo que pareze los que nombro |
en el prinzipio de su escripto) de su tierra que savian que su muger hera muerta, y que pasado algun tiempo fue este reo a dicha Mina de los Reyes y estubo con los tres Yndios quienes le dixeron que por que no Iba a ver a su criado Bernardo que estava preso en Temascaltepeque por una muger que llebaba, y lo casaba con ella, porque ya su otra muger hera muerta y que si ellos pudieran hir allá fueron y lo fiaran de Carzel segunda y prosigue dando el testigo las señas y nombres de los 3 Yndios.
Y que la Pasqua de Resurrecion abria quatro años que Viendo que este Reo buscaba mozo que fuese a saver de su primera muger que haviendo encontrado como de Viaxe a Thomas el Rey y preguntandole donde Yba, y respondidole dicho Thomas que para Santa Clara del Cobre, Valiendose el Testigo de la ocasion encargo
a dicho Thomas viese a este Reo para que le diera carta requisitoria con que traxese Zertificazion de la muerte de su primera muger ofrezio dicho Thomas hazerlo, pero no supo el testigo si llebo tal requisitoria lo que si supo fue, que este Reo fue ha asistir por dicho Rey con consentimiento del testigo a la casa de Calderas de la hazienda de Santa Ana. Tambien save el testigo que bolvio dicho Rey, y en compañia de este Reo le vio, y pregunto como le havia hido, y les respondio que bien, porque aunque no trayia la Zertificazion por no aver llevado mas que dos pesos, y pedidole el cura Ocho los que no pudo componer porque no hubo quien le comprase el Macho en que Iba, pero que supo ziertamente ser difunta la muger de este Reo por un Phelipe Espi(nosa)
que encontro en Pasquaro, y partizipo como Yba por la expresada Zertificazion y este Espinosa le respondio hera primo de este Reo y ser verdad que hera muerta su muger añadiendo dicho Thomas que si Valiera su juramento, juraria una y mil vezes que hera difunta. (Notese como este testigo Yndica que el fundamento y zienzia de la muerte de la muger le puso el Rey en el dicho de Phelipe Espinosa mas que en el Cura al contrario de lo que este Reo dize en su escrito en donde aunque refiere lo que Phelipe Espinosa [tachado] encontrado antes de llegar a Urecho por Thomas el Rey, pero supone este Reo en dicho escrito que el fundamento prinzipal que tenia Thomas el Rey para asegurar la muerte de su muger fue lo que refirio averle acaezido con el Cura.) Notese tambien que no se le dio en Publicazion este testigo
A la Publicazion de esta primera parte del dicho de este testigo Dixo que es verdad aunque no supo mas que el Notario mismo lo Desterro, y lo saco de la Carzel. | Don Francisco Gonzalez de Aragon Notario del Juez eclesiastico de Zitaquaro exsaminado, y ratificado como el Antezedente por dicho Comisario Arriola devajo de Juramento. Dixo que conozia a este Reo de siete años a aquella parte y savia hera casado en el partido de San Juan de Urecho porque en tiempo del Juez eclesiastico Albarado estaba amanzevado este Reo con Efigenia de Urbina, y por esto le desterro dicho Juez de dicha Villa de Zitaquaro para que fuese a hazer vida con su muger, cuyo Auto le notifico el testigo como consta del Ynstrumento que exsibio. |
| A la Publicazion de este Ynstrumento Dixo que todo paso asi Como en el se refiere. Y porque este Reo dudaba que | El Ynstrumento exsibido es un escripto de este Reo que consta en la Caveza presentado a dicho |
el hubiese echo el escrito y firmadole pareziendole que le abria echo su hermano Joseph se le enseñaron sus dos firmas y reconozio ser suyas y verdad lo que se le leyo. | Juez Albarado en 24 de Mayo de 1731. En el qual Dize que a tiempo de dos meses que esta preso en la carzel porque Efigenia de Urbina a supuesto que la tiene dada palabra de casamiento lo que no puede ser ni es porque (fuera de otras razones que expresa y se omiten por no nezesarias) es casado en la Jurisdizion de Pasquaro como consta por su hermano Joseph de Reyna vezino de esta Villa a quien se le puede tomar Juramento sobre ello; y asi Concluye se le suelte de la Prision para Conduzirse y perpetuarse en la vida Matrimonial que piensa hazer en esta Villa trayendo a su muger. Firmo dicho escrito, y devajo esta el Auto, y notificazion del Destierro en el mismo dia y que se fuese a hazer vida con su muger a que respondio estaba prompto y lo firmo. |
| A la Publicazion de los capitulos segundo y tercero de este | Prosigue dicho Don Francisco Gonzalez |
3o/ Testigo. Dixo que es falso lo que se Dize en el Capitulo segundo menos lo de la carta misiba o requisitoria la que es zierto le dio el Notario Gonzalez a quien no dixo un año despues de su destierro lo que se expresa ni trato con el de su segundo casamiento asta que le pidio dicha carta misiba que fue pasados ya 3, o, 4 años de su destierro, y que al tiempo de pedirle la carta es verdad le Dixo tenia notizias de que su muger hera muerta (Notese que al darle la Audiencia de Comunicazion antes de entrar el Abogado Dixo enmendava esta respuesta porque aora se havia acordado que estubo con el Notario Gonzalez en el tiempo que se expresa por el testigo excepto es como un año despues de su destierro una vez y la segunda quando le pidio | su Declarazion y dize que pasado una año poco mas, o, menos bolbio este Reo averle como Notario del Juzgado eclasiastico, y le Dixo que queria casarse con Mariana Maya porque ya su muger hera muerta, a que le respondio que en trayendo la partida de entierro de su muger prozederia a las diligenzias y que para eso nezesitava carta requisitoria para que el cura del partido donde fallezio se la diese y diziendo este Reo que no tenia para los costos le pidio le diese una carta misiba a el Cura la que le dio el testigo. Y Volbiendo pasados algunos dias este Reo averle le Dixo aver embiado su carta con un mulato llamado el Rey quien no le trajo la zertificazion de la partida por no aver llevado bastantes reales a que replico el Testigo que se desengañarse que menos de que no vinese la partida no dava paso a las diligenzias y que no le bolvio a ver mas |
la Carta misiba.) Y que lo demas del capitulo tercero de aver buelto casado a Zitaquaro es verdad menos el que su segunda muger fuese depositada en alguna casa. | asta que este Reo se aparezio aqui casado con Mariana Maya segun el dezia pero luego fue preso, y ella depositada de orden de dicho Juez eclesiastico en casa de sus padres por estar enferma de frios. Y que haviendo muchos dias que se hallava preso se le ofrezio al testigo un Viaxe a Valladolid con cuyo motibo ablo de este Reo con el Provisor y Comisario Doctor Arbizu y le refirio que este Reo le avia dicho que si merezia castigo se lo dieran, y sino que le soltasen de la prision; y que quando bolbio el Testigo de dicha Ciudad, a Zitaquaro, y estando para llevar a este reo a el Doctor Arbizu hizo fuga de la carzel con los demas presos que se metieron en la Yglesia, pero este Reo se fue a otra parte y que es la verdad, etc. |
| A este Testigo no se le dio en Publicazion | Francisco Maya Padre de la Segunda muger exsaminado, y ratificado Dixo conozia a este Reo de zinco años a aquella parte siriviendo de Varretero en las Minas de Cobre, en cuio tiempo |
le pidio a su hixa Mariana para muger y aunque luego otorgo, supo despues el Testigo hera casado este Reo en San Juan de Urecho, a que satisfizo Joseph de Reyna su hermano que la muger havia muerta el año del sarampion a que respondio el testigo que a ellos les tocaba traer zertificazion de ser difunta, y que es verdad que el Testigo entrego una carta y dos pesos a un pardo llamado el Rey que Yba a Pasquaro para que trajese la dicha Zertificazion encargandoselo tambien de su parte con bastantes suplicas, y que este Reo en el ynterin fue a suplir y trabaxar por dicho Rey a la casa de Calderas de Don Juan de Alzate y que tambien es verdad que bolbio del viaxe dicho Rey a la casa del Testigo, y le Dixo que no trayia la zertificazion porque el Cura
le havia pedido seis pesos y que haviendose quedado suspenso en su Corredor bolbio a salir de dentro dicho Cura, y le Dixo que trajera zinco pesos los que busco, y no pudo hallar razon porque se vino sin dicha Zertificazion, pero que ziertamente hera difunta la muger de este Reo que se llamava Catalina con lo qual se suspendio el casamiento y Viendo el testigo que este reo frequentaba su casa le amonesto lo escusase, y el la hurto y llebo al Real de Tasco de adonde bolbio a esta Villa diziendo se havia casado con su hija y que es la verdad, etc.
Fueron tambien exsaminados y ratificados Thomas de Arriaga de hedad de 45 años Miguel Gutierrez de 32. Nicolas de la Piedra de 60 años Juan Antonio de Molina de 40 años los quales no se estienden en esta relazion porque deponen de oydas a este Reo sobre lo de Thomas el Rey conformando en sustanzia con lo que este Reo
| A la Publicazion de este Testigo Dixo que lo mas de lo que refiere es verdad le paso con Diego Perez aunque no en la forma que lo expresa el testigo, sino como este reo tiene Declarado ya en una de sus Audienzias (Notese que este Reo Dijo [tachado] [begin inserted text] al Inquisitor[?] [end inserted text] que dava esta Publicazion y la Audienzia de Comunicazion con el Abogado que aquella amenaza que hizo a Diego Perez no fue de que le havia de herir ni hazer otro daño en su cuerpo sino que le havia de pagar el Ynteres y perjuzio que se le seguia de no travajar y ganar de comer que se le havia seguido de su prision por su Denunzia lo qual se Dejo de mandar [dicho Yn??] se escribiese por no parezer [tachado] nezesario o conduzente) fue le dicho que falta a la verdad en aber dicho en una de sus Audienzias que su prision por la Urbina abria que suzedio Diez, o onze años quando. | tiene dicho. Diego Perez negron español de ofizio cobrero exsaminado y ratificado en dicho mes de Abril y presente año de 1737. Dixo (a la pregunta) de que porque havia Denunziado de este reo ser casado dos vezes al Juez eclesiastico, Que el no fue el que Denunzio ni save quien lo hizo, pero si que abra tres años que Juan Tinoco vezino de la mina del cobre de Santa Clara que no savia como podia ser casado en esta Villa de Zitaquaro este reo porque su muger hera viba y la dejava actualmente en su casa. Y que con esto hizo animo de denunziar pero antes llamo a este Reo, y le pregunto si hera amanzebamiento el que tenia con Mariana a que respondio que no porque hera casado con ella porque unos Padres Misioneros fueron causa de que se casase violentamente con ella a que replico el Testigo |
Consta de la petizion que se a leydo y Auto que quasi no a seis años pues fue en 24 de mayo de 1731. de donde resulta otra sospecha contra el de que en tan breve tiempo como ay desde dicho dia 24 de mayo de dicho año de 31. hasta que solizito casarse segunda vez en que apenas pasaron dos años ubiese tenido las notizias que ha expresado de su primera muger, y mas quando el año de sarampion seria halla en Zitaquaro antes del año del 1731 (Notese en Mexico fue el año de 1727) Dixo a lo primero que el aver dicho los diez, o, onze años no fue por faltar a la verdad sino porque le parezio entonzes que havia mucho tiempo y que por eso echo abulto, y a poco mas, o, menos esos años en que es fazil la equibocazion por la fraxilidad de la memoria y que el no dixo al Notario al tiempo de solizitar salir de la Carzel por la Urbina y ziertamente Vibese su muger, sino | que estava mal casado porque si se ubiera presentado por Viudo le hubieran echo llevar zertificazion de la muerte de su muger, que savia el Testigo estaba Viba en Santa Clara por cuia razon se Veyia prezisado a Denunziar de el, y asi que si estaba en mala amistad con la Mariana se apartase de ella, a que respondio este reo que el hiria aver su muger hera Viba, o, muerta. Y que el testigo no tubo lugar de hazer la Denunzia porque aquella misma noche fue preso este Reo por el Juez eclesiastico y a los quatro, o seis meses de su prision Vino Manuel Varaxas vezino de Santa Clara del Cobre y conto al testigo como havia estado con este reo en la carzel y dichole que su muger hera Viba y se le encomendava: Y que a poco tiempo fue el Testigo a negozio a dicha Carzel con cuia ocasion llamo este Reo y requirio de que |
| [?]lo que hera casado en Urecho [y?] que es verdad que los tres que ha expresado otras vezes le Dixeron aver muerto su primera muger del sarampion pero tambien es zierto no los creyo [s]ino solamente a Thomas el Rey y que es la verdad etc. | el hera la Causa de que estubiese padeziendo por aver Denunziado de el, y que en saliendo de alli le havia de pagar lo que estaba padeziendo a que Replico el Testigo que el no havia Denunziado aunque deviera por ser muy zierto Vibia su muger, y que si queria dentro de ocho dias se la traeria a que respondio este Reo que hera muerta, y que lo savia por las diligenzias de Thomas el Rey quien no le trajo la partida por falta de reales aunque si notizias ziertas de ser muerta a que replico el Testigo que quien le havia de entender ni dar razon de el, pues aqui se apellida Reyna y halla le conozen por Salas y que es la verdad etc. En 29 de Mayo de 1737 se le dieron en Publicazion 12 Testigos y las demas probanzas que contra el resultan y respondio lo que ba al margen de la Prueba. Y en 18 de Junio la comunico con su Abogado con cuio Acuerdo y parezer. Dixo que suplica a este Santo Tribunal se sirvia de absolverle, y darle por libre del cargo que se le haze atendiendole con la benignidad, y Clemenzia que |
que practica, y la que umildemente ymplora bastantemente a repentido de todo lo que se obserbare aver delinquido, o faltado a las obligaziones de Christiano en cuia parte pide y implora a este Santo Tribunal le mire y atienda con misericordia que para todo concurren los meritos siguientes. El primero que la voluntad es la ofizina donde se hazen, y por la que se distinguen los delictos y en la materia presente bien se dexa conozer que prozedi llevado de mi sensualidad pues estando en Yncontinenzia con Mariana Maia, como se expresa en el escripto de las diligenzias Matrimoniales que prezedieron al Matrimonio de esta, y deponen los testigos estorbandose esta ocasion dio motibo lo referido a pasar a dichas diligenzias Matrimoniales, con que bien se conoze aber dirijido todas estas operaziones el que no se estorbase aquella incontienzia. Lo segundo porque se
reconozera tambien en consequenzia de lo dicho arriba que el no aver manifestado por la palabra Viudo mi estado no fue por expezial malizia, sino por la experienzia que tenia segun lo que me havia suzedido con aquel Notario Gonzalez de que sin que se purgasen bien las diligenzias de la premorienzia de la primera muger no se podia pasar a las de otro Matrimonio, y como Aunque yo las tenia de la mia Urjia el tiempo por la incontinenzia de Mariana Maia no quise embarazarlo en tal expresion esto fue lo que movio la solteria que dije.
Lo tercero porque en el caso de la zerteza de ser muerta la primera le es libre al Varon pasar a segundas Nunzias, y esto que es zierto se ofreze la duda en el modo, y como ha de ser esta zerteza de la muerte de Conyuge, y para esto Vastaria un solo testigo en Opinion de algunos y con el ayudado
de Otras zircunstanzias abra mayor razon para lo Opinion, y aqui nos hallamos que Thomas el Rey, y otros me serzioraron de lo referido lo qual Junto con la Ausenzia de los muchos años que havian pasado aver dejado a Catalina Ramirez mi primera muger, me dio asumpto a la credulidad, y se hallava que en este conzepto para prueba del modo e Intenzion con que trate de manejar el negozio siempre solizite el hazer constar esta muerte ya pidiendole carta al Notario Gonzalez para que no se me llevasen derechos que hera lo que antes lo dificultava ya por la via del mismo Thomas el Rey de que se puede Ynferir no solo que efecto me persuadi, y crey la muerte de mi muger sino que procure en esta parte cumplir con mi obligazion por los medios que correspondian a hazerlo constar, y asi el averme desviado solo lo pudo mover el estrecho de que no se me quitase De la yncontinenzia contrayda con Mariana.
Lo ultimo porque luego que me consto y supe que estava Viba la primera muger manifeste mi arepentimiento que me pesava de lo executado, y asi lo manifiestan las cantas y escribi a la susodicha mediante lo qual la Confesion que tengo echa en las antezedentes Audienzias que reproduzco por mi defensa Pido y suplico a este Santo tribunal se sirvia de mandar hazer como llebo pedido. que es el que se me atienda y mire con la misericordia que corresponde a mi fraxilidad por averme llevado de esta en los reatos que me ha puesto, y de que bastantemente estoy arepentido conoziendo mis herores, y tiene lugar esto y la absoluzion pedida del cargo por el mayor a que promovia la Causa en el sentir mal del santo Sacramento del Matrimonio en lo que nunca e pensado y asi corresponde lo que
llebo pedido. En cuya Ynteligenzia corre y se entiende la Conclusion de esta Defensa concluyendo como concluye difinitibamente. Lo qual se Notifico al fiscal.
1735
Relation of the Case of Bernardo Reyna
For Polygamy.
The Inquisitorial Prosecutor of the Holy Office of Mexico versus Bernardo Reyna y Salas, Mestizo, native of San Juan Zitácuaro, mine worker by trade, and resident and inhabitant in Las Minas de Taxco, about 35 years old. For marrying two times Proof of crime | |
The beginning of the Accusation. Being told the contents of it, [Bernardo Reyna] said that although it is true that he married two times, it was not with the knowledge that his first wife was alive, being confident that she was dead and without malice. Because at the time of the Informacion de Libertad, he said that he was single as he believed the news of his first wife’s death and understood that he was free to marry | On September 26, 1735 the Commissioner of Malacatepec received the denunciation that Mariana Maya, the second wife of this defendant, made before him accusing her husband of being previously married in the town of San Juan de Urecho. And because the denunciation was badly taken and defective, it was returned to the said commissioner so that he could re-examine and re-ratify it |
| and that it did not seem necessary to tell this to the ecclesiastical judge nor did he judge that he falsely swore nor lied in affirming that he was single and free to marry (Note that this mestizo is very well informed and of a clear natural reasoning.) and that he contracted the second [marriage] in this firm belief and in the good faith that he expressed in his document. It was charged that he could not claim good faith in telling the parish priest that he was single, by which word it is understood that had never been married, not mentioning his previous marriage. It is presumed that this was to deceive the parish priest and the church in order that the priest, believing as he did that he had never been married, would omit those proceedings relating to the verification of his wife’s death. He said that he understands his error in not having expressly described himself as a widower, but that it is certain that he did not make this mistake from malice because he did not have the information that is now put in front of him nor did he think he was in danger of finding himself married two times because, based on the news that he has stated, | in all respects, which he carried out on November October 21 and which was received in the Tribunal on December 5, 1735. According to what appears between folios 36 to 42, the said woman is native to the region of Ixtlahuaca and she went to live with her aunt in Taxco where she was offered marriage to this defendant, who was then living in San Juan de Urecho and who was a mine worker by trade. And so they contracted their marriage on the final Tuesday of September 1733 with the parish priest of the said town of Taxco, Don Juan Adan de los Ríos, presiding, and Gregorio López and his wife Sebastiana were the sponsors. And that at the end of six months they went to San Juan Zitácuaro where the ecclesiastical judge arrested the defendant, her husband, and so she went to learn from this judge the reason for the imprisonment, and he responded that it was because her husband was married in San Juan de Urecho and that his first wife was alive. According to what the defendant had previously said, she was named Catalina, a morisca, and he had three children with her. And having heard the judge’s response, |
no doubt remained in his conscience that his first wife was dead. And as a result, he carried out the rest until he married for a second time, not believing that he sinned or did bad in what he did and said for his second marriage. And that this was confirmed because if he had done so in bad faith then he would not have gone afterwards with his second wife to Zitácuaro where many people knew him and his second wife by sight, as he did not have to go to find work where they would then be discovered (which is what happened). That upon arriving in the said town the copper worker Diego Perez told him that his first wife was alive, that he did not believe it and took it as nonsense, and he stayed in Zitácuaro until the ecclesiastical judge arrested him as he had been denounced by the said Diego Perez, who told the defendant that he did this. (Note that this does not confirm with the majority of said Diego Perez’s statement.) At the communication of this witness testimony, [the defendant] said that even though it is true that he married Amaya in Taxco, it is false that he met her in Malacatepec because he had met her before in Zitácuaro where he returned married to her as was said and that then he was jailed by the eclesiastical judge and his second wife | this woman sought advice on the case from Father Heras, a Franciscan friar, who told her that she should write to Urecho to learn if said Catalina was alive. Although she sent the letter no response came, and she supposed that it must have been lost in one of the many rivers that it had to cross and so she returned to Malacatepec. After this defendant escaped from the jail in Zitácuaro on April 18 or 20, 1735, he came to see her, and repeatedly begged to take her, but she excused herself saying that it was not possible since he was married in Urecho, to which this defendant responded that he had already taken care of everything and continued with his great begging to take her, arriving every 15 to 20 days to see her secretly. The final time he told her that he was going to Urecho to find out if it was true that his first wife was dead because this is what he believed since |
| was not with him, nor could she be because she was sick the entire rainy season. But it is certain that he said in jail in front of others that he had been previously married with Catalina Ramírez and also that while spent so much time in the jail, he consulted Father Heras and he gave him a document so that he could leave the prison and that said Father told him that if it were up to him he would not have been jailed and that he would sent mail to Urecho with a letter that I would give him in order to acquire certification. And so he sent Agustín Martinez, who did not return, and it was falsely said that he had drowned because when he was traveling through Chalco as a prisoner of Velazquez’s men he saw him in said town. And that it is false that he insisted on taking away his second wife, nor that he went to see her every 15, 16, or 20 days, nor that he told her that he had already fixed the matter of his imprisonment, nor could he tell her this because she knew very well that he had fled from the jail and traveled in secret. And that although it is true | 10 or 12 years had passed and that he had heard from some in Urecho that she had died from measles. The witness heard that the person who told this to the defendant was someone named Bernardino. And that when this defendant was imprisoned in Zitácuaro in early December 1734, Manuel Varaxas came from Urecho and at the door of the jail and in front of the witness said to this defendant that his first wife Catalina was alive and that he had seen her in August of that same year. All this was ratified. Commissioned with the first notice [and] the proofs of the two marriages, the Commissioner in Taxco sent the one from the second [marriage] which records the marriage contract of this defendant Bernardo Reyna with Mariana Maya, celebrated by the parish priest Adan de los Ríos and with padrinos Gregorio López and Sebastiana Gómez, |
| that he was with his second wife in Chepe Reyes’s house near Malacatepec two or 3 days, he then left for Zacualpan, where he was for some time and from here he left with the intention of going to see if his first wife was alive, and on the road he passed through Malacatepec where he was with his second wife that night and then he returned to sleep in Chepe Reyes’s house, without returning to see her again nor insisting to take her away. He was confronted with his reply in chapter 7 of the Accusation, or he is lying here because he said that he was with the said Maya only one time and this was when he came to see if his first wife was dead, but, regarding what he just said, it is already known that he went to see her twice, the first when he came and left from Zitácuaro on this last occasion, and not once. He said that he did not understand well chapter 7 of the Accusation and so he would say that which he said but the truth is what he has been declaring here. And that it is false that he had said to his | his wife, in attendance on October 13, 1733. It states that he is a mestizo and from San Juan Zitácuaro and she is from Temascaltepec and a Spaniard. And since in the execution of this second marriage there was nothing out of the ordinary, the witnesses were not questioned at length. It says only that there were four who witnessed the marriage contract and ceremony, as referred to on the certificate, and that the motive for this defendant’s marriage was because before he was living in concubinage with the aforementioned Maya and that the Jesuit Father Martínez’s mission moved him to marry her. The witnesses were Gregorio López, mestizo and his wife Sebastiana Gómez, who were the padrinos del matrimonio; the parish sacristan Don Pedro de Ocampo Ramírez; Don Joseph de la Borda, native of Canfranc in the kingdom of Aragón, |
second wife anything about taking his first wife for dead. And also it is true that while in jail Varaxas told him what is stated, the other prisoners hearing it, but Varaxas came alone and not with anyone else. Regarding the marriage certificate and the four witnesses who were deposed about it, he responds to chapter five that it is as the certificate says and what the said witnesses testified, except that she is from Temascaltepec because it has her as from San Juan Zitácuaro where her parents are, which he added to the publication of the second marriage certificate. And regarding the four witnesses, he said that it is true what they say. Directed to his response to Chapter 6 of the Accusation regarding this certification where he was charged with having concealed that he had been married and resided in Urecho, he responded that although | who, even though he was not present at the ceremony, said he knew for certain that it was celebrated in October 1733 because he paid the fees for the defendant, who was a servant in his mines. After [the defendant] left the mines, he wrote from Zitácuaro to say that he was in jail because the ecclesiastical judge did not believe that he had been married in Taxco and so he asked to send the certification of his marriage, which the aforementioned Don Joseph sent. The four witnesses were examined and ratified in October 1735 and January 1736. The certification remitted by Don Joseph de la Borda is signed by the same parish priest of Taxco, Adan de los Ríos, and was notarized by Joseph de Córdoba, Notary of this jurisdiction. It states that on October 5, 1733 this defendant appeared before him |
| it is true that he said nothing to the ecclesiastical judge about everything that is stated, it was without malice and prompted by the aforementioned news. And that he did not think nor had he thought of committing a similar sin, quite the contrary he had fled from the opportunity to commit it as it would have been ten or eleven years since he came from the hacienda de Paroco, where his first wife was, to Zitácuaro, where he took up with Efigenia de Urbina, for which he was jailed, as she wanted him to marry her. The very effective and repeated insistences of the ecclesiastical judge’s notary, Don Francisco Gonzalez also contributed to this. Seeing that he could not evade it by any other means, he had to say that he could not marry her, for it being in his jurisdiction of Patzcuaro and, informing the eclesiastical judge of this, he banished him from said town of Zitácuaro and he came to Taxco. (Note | in order to contract marriage with Mariana Maya, saying that he was single and a native of Zitácuaro, that for more than two years he had lived unchastely and was obligated to [Mariana Maya’s] virginity, that he swore animo morandi [legal residence] in this jurisdiction, and that they were poor. For these reasons [Fr. Adan de los Ríos] gave the informacion de libertad y solteria and married them. And regarding the letter from this defendant to Don Joseph de la Borda in which this defendant says that he had remained silent about being a widower so he would not be asked to supply certification in this jurisdiction of Taxco, and that he needed proof of being married in this said city [of Taxco] so that the ecclesiastical judge in Zitácuaro would believe it. Therefore the said parish priest Adan de los |
shrewdness of this defendant in setting out such a defense and support of his good faith.) Regarding the communication of the certification, he said that it is accurate in everything except in that it states that he had taken the virginity of his second wife. Regarding chapter five and the 4 following chapters of the accusation, he said that it is true that he said nothing to the eclesiastical judge about all that is stated but he did so without malice because of the news of his first wife’s death that he related without having thought of committing the sin of marrying twice, and he brought proof of it from Efigenia Urbina, as is already said in the margin. And the majority of chapter 7 is false because since he fled from the jail in Zitácuaro, he was not with his second wife more than one time and this was the final time that he came and left her in Chepe Reyes’s house, which is on an uninhabited hill from where he could have taken her without difficulty and so it is false that he could have pleaded for her to go with him. He repeated that he now knows he erred in not telling the priest that he had been married but it was without malice. Regarding the communication of his | Ríos ordered to give and gives the current signature from his hand, which was confirmed by the said Notary in Taxco on 21 July 1734. In order to contract this second marriage, this defendant and Mariana Maya presented themselves before said parish priest Adan de los Ríos on the aforementioned day of October 5, 1733 having sworn an oath in proper form, this defendant said he is named Bernardo Reyna and that he is mestizo, single, native of Zitácuaro, which he left for the first time at age 21 (a clear lie) for Real de Temascaltepec where he resided for a year and a half. He returned to San Juan Zitácuaro where he was for two years, more or less, and he came to this jurisdiction of Taxco in which he has lived for about four and a half years, making various trips |
| presentation to the parish priest, he said it was true that he had been examined by the notary and said under oath all that is recorded here. The notary did the same thing with the second wife, who was not telling the truth when she said that she had lost her virginity because she had already lost it to another. This defendant did not consider that he was doing anything bad in having said that he was single and free of marriage as he had been certain that his first wife was dead. He was confronted with the lie he told under oath that the first time he left Zitácuaro was when he went to Temascaltepec at 21 years old when he had confessed he was taken at a very young age to Urecho and so in this he had great malice and bad faith. He replied that he knows his error in having lied to the parish priest about his places of residence and hiding the truth but that as he believed the death of his first wife to be very certain he did not understand that he erred or committed a sin. | to his hometown (Note how he completely clams up about having grown up since childhood in the jurisdiction of Urecho where he married and lived in those copper mines.), staying there for more than a month until he came directly to this place, travelling via Temascaltepec, Zaqualpa, and other places. And that he is an orphan and 30 years of age. And said Maya declared that she is a Spaniard, single, native and resident of Temascaltepec where she had been until about eight months ago and that she is an orphan (She also clearly lied about her origin and status as an orphan.) and 22 years of age. Regarding their bad state and the defendant’s supposed promise to marry, both said that he took her virginity. They came |
| to this jurisdiction where the mission being made there so moved them that they wanted to escape the captivity in which they found themselves and contract the stated marriage, and so they swore to God our Lord and made the Sign of the Cross that they were single, free to marry, and that they had not given, accepted, nor promised marriage to another person, etc. | |
| At the communication of this witness testimony, [the defendant] said that what he presented in it is true. Naturally he would declare what was stated because the witness did not know him as married nor does it seem that his knowledge of him would be from more than his 6 years in that place when he could see him in Zitácuaro but that they did not have any interaction or communication except in Temascaltepec. | This defendant presented three witnesses. The first (he is suspected of being a false witness), Ylario Gómez, mestizo, 29 years old, testified under oath that he has known the defendant since their early childhood having grown up together and up to the present since, being compatriots, they have spoken and communicated. And even though one or the other has made different trips, they have never delayed in returning to see [each other]. And that |
| it would have been eight months ago that they left Zitácuaro together and have travelled together until the present, and he had not heard neither him nor her say that they had been married nor separated nor that they had any other impediment to contract the marriage that he knew they sought so as to leave the bad state that they were in. | |
| At the communication of the testimony of these two witnesses, he said that they and the previous witness were presented by him. He said that they saw clearly that he did not have any impediment to marriage and so they were not to be excused as witnesses. And as they did not know him to be married nor heard this so they did not have difficulty in being such witnesses, and that it is certain that these last two [witnesses] had known him for the length of time that they stated. | The other two witnesses were Phelipe Salinas, free mulato of forty years of age, and Miguel Ruano, free mulato of forty-five years of age, who testified to knowing this defendant for sixteen years and that during them, they had not heard that he had been married, separated, nor that he had any other impediment, either impediente or dirimente, to contracting the marriage he intended. |
| At this communication, he said that what they said happened, and there were the questions and responses referred to | Said parish priest Adan considered this sufficient information and ordered that they prepare the authorizations for the informaciones |
| but that it seems to him that at the time he did not have any with the parish priest other than the notary here noting the effects that without doubt resulted from setting down this defendant as single, which were why the parish priest believed that he was never married and was satisfied with such a limited información de libertad and cancelled the requirement for banns in Zitácuaro, which if they had been executed would naturally produced and discovered the impediment or notice of marriage from someone else. | or banns in Zitácuaro, but prepared by the notary Joseph de Cordoba and brought for confirmation to the said parish priest, who at this time was with Father Juan Martinez of the Company [of Jesus]. He ordered that this defendant and his second wife be summoned, and once there they asked them if they intended to dwell in the jurisdiction, and they responded yes. The said parish priest and Father Martinez said, animo morandi being sufficient cause not to dispatch the required dated documents and also in order to avoid expenses and multiplication of legal fees. |
| At the communication of these proceedings, he said that it is true that he took his second wife from the house of someone named Magdalena and not from her parents’ house because she was hiding from them although he does not remember why. (This defendant might well remember that he was living with her outside of marriage and that her priest Francisco Maya told him to stop visiting her house, as this Francisco testified on the reverse side of folio 95.) And that he took her to the copper mines in the jurisdiction of Zitácuaro, and he worked for Francisco Mungia, where they were | Four or six months after this second marriage, this defendant returned with his second wife to San Juan Zitácuaro where the ecclesiastical judge Don Francisco Joseph Albardo had already issued a decree dated September 15, 1733, one month before [the defendant] married for the second time. Because he discovered this, this defendant fled from the said town with Mariana |
| for about three or four months, and as the two were passing through Taxco on the way to Temascaltepec, the Lieutenant caught them, and although he does not remember the exact amount of time that he was jailed, he knows that it was three or four months. Alcalde Solorzano told him to leave because he paid him and also he removed his wife from the house where she was deposited, and they came to Taxco. And it is true that having returned already married to Zitácuaro, the ecclesiastical judge arrested this defendant on the fifth day of said month and year, but it is not true that his second wife was deposited, as he already has said. | Maya and coming to this place lived in concubinage with her, [she?] discovered the truth. And as was already stated, having returned married to Zitácuaro, the said ecclesiastical judge ordered on May 4, 1734 that he be jailed and she put in guardianship, which the notary Francisco Gonzalez de Aragón did, putting this defendant in the public jail and she, being sick, was left in guardianship in the house where she was found bedridden. |
| At the communication of this confession, he said that it is true that it happened as stated. | The said ecclesiastical judge took under oath the statement of both, and he said it was true that in July 1733 he took Mariana Maya from Zitácuaro and he was with her in Temascaltepec four months and he married her in Taxco in October in the presence |
| At the communication of this letter, he said that it is false that he wanted to marry Efigenia de Urbina. Before he was well persuaded, he resisted according to and how he has said, and regarding the end of said letter, he cannot say if it was so or not. | of the parish priest Adan de los Rios. The said Mariana Maya declared the same. During the imprisonment of this defendant, various news arrived to the said ecclesiastical judge that his first wife was alive in Urecho, and among them was a letter from Don Manuel de Santa Cruz Motezuma in which he denounced to the said ecclesiastical judge that while working in his mines this defendant wanted to marry Rosa de Urbina, creole from Zitácuaro, and two or three workers in his mines, residents or natives of Patzcuaro or Santa Clara [del Cobre] who knew this defendant, and they knew that he was married in San Juan de Urecho to a black woman who was alive. And said Motezuma added that now he recently heard that the parish priest of Tuzantla, as someone who knew this defendant, had denounced the same thing only a few days ago. The written order of the said parish priest of Tuzantla dated June 8, 1734 states that an unnamed person |
| in order to clear his conscience denounced this defendant who he knew in Zitácuaro as Bernardo Reyna is married in Urecho to a black woman, and that this accuser learned a few days ago that his wife is alive in Santa Clara and that said Bernardo Reyna is known by another name in his hometown. | |
| He said that it is true that he wrote both letters for the purpose they state. | The said Motezuma also presented to the said ecclesiastical judge two letters that this defendant had written him from jail, dated May 23 and 30 in which he says that he heard that the cause of his imprisonment is because they are saying that his first wife is alive and that his transgression is due to the misinformation of Manuel or Thomas el Rey, who he sent for a certification and returned with the information that his wife was dead, saying the same to many witnesses who will say so. And so |
| he asked the said Motezuma to provide his patronage to get him out of jail, and for which he offered to do the work he was doing in his mines for four or six months. This defendant concluded his letter saying that he found out indirectly from other people that his wife was dead before sending Thomas el Rey. | |
To the eighth chapter of the accusation, he said that he did not act in bad faith in having married for a second time for the reasons that he has already stated in the audiences, and on the sheet of paper that he officially offered in the last audience. On this occasion he was immediately confronted with that which Motezuma wrote to the said ecclesiastical judge, which Thomas el Rey has confirmed under oath. He responded to this admonition that it is false what Thomas el Rey said to Motezuma as would be evident from the witnesses that he named and requested be examined. At the communication of this letter he said that it lacks truth and said Thomas lied because even though he did not bring him the certification, everything else happened | On the back of the first letter of May 23, 1734 that the defendant sent to him, the said Motezuma wrote to the ecclesiastical judge on the 26th of the same month and year in his obligation regarding the charge of being married twice there that is proof that before contracting his second nuptials he dispatched to his hometown a mulato who is commonly known as el Rey for certification of his widower status. I summoned him fifteen days ago and in his presence and asking him the truth of the case in |
| as he declared, as the witnesses that he has cited will say. | vigilance of God Our Lord’s honor, the aforementioned mulato el Rey denied it and only affirmed that he had travelled to the areas around Urecho on other business, at which time the said Reyna, alias Salas, had entrusted him to ask if his wife were living or dead and that he did not do so diligently nor did he bring such certification because [the defendant] did not give him money for it. This the said mulato swore by God Our Lord and the signal of the cross. Note the order afterwards to search for and examine this Thomas el Rey [but] he could not be found. For all these reasons the said ecclesiastical judge ordered that these proceedings be sent to the Commissioner of Valladolid in Michoacán, Don Miguel Romero López de Arbizo, canon and dignitary of its |
cathedral.
After this defendant fled from the jail in Zitácuaro on April 20, 1735 and he returned to search for his second wife, leaving her, according to what he said, in order to come to Urecho to learn if his first wife was alive. Arriving in Charlo, the alcalde mayor arrested him as someone suspected of theft at the end of the year 1735, and the commissioners in the brotherhood of Captain Velazquez brought him to this city of Mexico and the jail of said captain. That which is known in this tribunal and in that jail it was said that he was said to be married two times. Secretary Carillo was ordered to go the jail of said captain and to find out from this defendant all the details of his first marriage, and to leave him as a prisoner of the holy office in the charge of the said Captain Velasquez, which the said secretary Carillo executed in full.
| Having lost the first order that was sent to Urecho, Commissioner Arbizo was directed to examine the first wife who the parish priest in Urecho omitted from the proceedings in the Justificacion of this first marriage, and so on August 31, 1736 he returned to take charge of said examination, which he could not do nor receive until November 26, 1736. | |
To chapters 1, 2, and 3 of the Accusation, he said that it is true what chapters 1 and 2 contain and substantially what is in chapter 3 because although there are some discrepancies, they are not in anything relevant and that he did not leave her with four children, just the three that he mentioned, but he does not know if she was pregnant or not when he left. At the communication of this witness he said that everything it says is true except that he and his first wife were in Urecho the first four years because after one year they left | On October 7 of this year, the parish priest in Santa Clara de Cobre examined and ratified the said first wife who under oath said that she is named Catalina Ramírez, a mulata and 45 years old and married to Bernardo de Salas (Note how they say correctly those who have said that this defendant is known in Minas de Santa Clara and jurisdiction of Urecho by the last name Salas and not by Reyna), whose |
| for Guarimeo where they would have been about another year and from here they came to the copper mines in the jurisdiction of Ario, where there is no town other than that of Guacana, and that the distance from there to Urecho is about a day’s journey but that from the Santa Clara mines where they take the copper to be smelted, it is 8 days journey by mule train. | characteristics she described. And that she married this defendant in the village of San Juan de Urecho about twenty years ago, being the parish priest Br. Don Buenaventura de Alexandre y Villa Roel, the sponsors Thomas Rangel and his wife María Martínez, and the witnesses Antonio Zepeda and Joseph Rangel. And the first four years they lived as a married couple in the said village of Urecho and afterward in Guarimeo, in the jurisdiction of this village of Santa Clara del Cobre, and afterwards they came to the Paraco sugar mill in the jurisdiction of Turicato, where they lived for three to four years, and there the defendant left her with four children, who were María de la Concepción, Marcos Anastasio, Roberto Doroteo, and Phelipe de la Cruz. And because of this, this witness returned to Urecho and that he left her without motive nor cause about twelve years ago and that she did not hear anything about him until she heard that he was |
| 2. | in Valladolid and that he once wrote her a letter from San Juan Zitácuaro that she no longer has and it was lost (this letter is in the files although not complete), begging her to come there because he found himself in trouble for having married a second time, and that this is the truth, etc. |
| At the communication of this witness, he said what was said was true, although he did not know that he had a brother-in-law by that name. | The Commissioner Arbizu charged the parish priest Alexandre with examining these four witnesses. The first Pasqual Rodrigo Lozano on November 7, 1735 under oath said that he is a resident of Urecho and that he remembers the wedding that Br. Don Joseph de Bramblia had celebrated in Urecho and that the said Salas was his brother-in-law and that the sponsors were Thomas Ranxel and María |
| de la Cruz. That it was ordered that the truth be known and so he affirmed and ratified it. He said he is 50 years old. | |
| At the communication of this witness he said that it is true what it says. | On the same day and in the same manner the sponsor of the first marriage, María de la Cruz, widow of Thomas Rangel, was examined and under oath she said that while at the Rancho de Cacanguyo as an act of charity she attended as a sponsor the marriage said Bernardo Reyna and Catalina Ramírez, who she had seen fifteen days ago in the mine of Yguaran. The witness was about seventy years old. |
| At the communication of this witness he said that it is true what it says. | Joseph Manuel, about forty years old, said he attended the wedding of Bernardo de Reyna y Salas con Catalina Ramírez and even made a joke about how the young man was small compared to his wife. |
| At the communication of this witness he said that it is true what it says about the marriage and three children but he did not know about what was said happened with his daughter. | Bartholome Guebara, about 35 years old, was questioned in the [same?] form as the others. He said that he had attended and saw married the said Bernardo Reyna y Salas |
| and Catalina Ramírez whom he had known in the time when they became parents, [and] making a life as a married couple they had three children named Marcos, Roberto and a girl named María de la Concepción, who married in the place of Cacanguyo but one year later she died in childbirth along with the baby, and that the said two aforementioned sons are found today in the company of their mother, all of which affirmed the witness, etc. | |
| To chapter 4 of the Accusation he said that while he was in jail in Zitácuaro on the copper worker Diego Perez’s denunciation, Baraxas came and told him that his first wife was alive because that same rainy season he had seen her in the mines of Apupato. (Note with this how he could still have doubted that his first wife was alive and that after leaving jail it would have been better if he had gone to search for her and not the second wife.) And that when said Varaxas returned to the mines he gave him a letter for his first wife in which he was compelled to ask her many pardons for having married a second time but that it was the fault of | With these proceedings also came the letter mentioned above that this defendant wrote to his wife from San Juan Zitácuaro, which is a half page, folded but much of the last quarter is cut off including where the signature of this defendant is, and it explains how he found himself jailed in said town for being married two times and that he thought that she was dead when he married the second time because Thomas el Rey had assured him of it. Because of this he made a mistake similar |
her cousin, Thomas el Rey, who he had sent to learn if she was alive and returned with assurances that she was dead. At the communication he said that this was the letter that he had mentioned in another audience, and that everything is his his hand until the first line, although it seems the hand of this differs from the rest because from here the pen writing it is very fine. | to what she could also have made with such assurances as he had, for which he asked God for mercy and her for her favor and that she forgive him and come to said town. And he said other things that are omitted as not being relevant. With this he was ordered brought to the secret jails on November 22, 1736, and he was brought the following day and put in them. Order of the Trial On the 26th of the said month and year he was given his first audience in which he said that he was named as had been stated and of the caste, residence, and age that had been said, married to Mariana Maya with whom he celebrated marriage three years ago as of October 5, with the parish priest Adan de los Ríos and sponsors Gregorio López and his wife in attendance. Before he was married to Catalina Ramírez, mestiza, whom he met in the village of Ario, and they celebrated marriage about 16 ot 17 years ago in the chapel of the San Juan hacienda in the [jurisdiction?] of Urecho, the priest being Br. |
Alexandre and attending in his name Don Joseph Brenbila, diocesan priest, and sponsorers Thomas Ranxel, coyote, and his wife María, mulata.
Asked for his life story, he said that he was born in San Juan Zitácuaro where he was baptized and as a boy grew up in Minas de Santa Clara del Cobre with his uncles Juan Manuel and Agustín Salas, with whom he lived until he married said Catalina with whom he lived as a married couple in said mines for three or four years, producing three children, the oldest named María and the other two Marcos and Roberto, and he does not know what became of them. He came to San Juan Zitácuaro from where he went to Minas de Taxco, and he was and resided there and in the surrounding areas of Zacualpa de Sultepec and Temascaltepec.
And about three years ago he returned to Zitácuaro with his wife Mariana Maya with the intention of living there, but then the ecclesiastical judge arrested him for the reasons that he would have had to guess, but then he heard said that they had wanted to arrest him because his first wife was alive. And as he did not think himself guilty (Note how he wants to establish good faith), he did not take it seriously. He was jailed from May 5, 1734 until April 25 of the following year when he fled from jail and returned to Zacualpa and then to where they said his first wife was, and in Charo the corregidor arrested him and from there brought him to the house of Captain Velasquez.
Arriving at the question of whether he knows or presumes the cause, etc. And to the question he responded that he presumes he was imprisoned for being married two
times but that he had married the second time without malice, deeming that his first wife was not alive according to the efforts that he made and that had shown that she was dead because otherwise he would not have [married the second time] since he prided himself on being a Christian. And if he were put before the wrath of God what he will try to demonstrate, without the Holy Office watching him since he is alone and jailed from the aforesaid proceedings being carried out, that they would come to understand his sincerity.
In the second audience, he said nothing, and only asked for paper that was given to him. And in the third audience that took place on the first of December of the said year, he brought written in his own hand a sheet of paper. In which he stated the motives and reasons by which he believed
| Francisco Mungio was examined over the news from the Indians and he said that which will be seen further on. | the death of his first wife to be certain. First of all, the aforementioned three men from his homeland, one of whom was named Juan Bernadino (Perhaps this is who the second wife stated had told him this in front of her, and he was named Bernardino but this woman did not say it was on this occasion.) accompanied by others, arrived to Taxco where he was working in the mines of Don Joseph de la Borda. And they asked him why he did not come for his children, and this defendant responded that it was because he wanted his children but they were with their mother. They replied that she had already died and that his children were living in their grandfather’s house. Afterward when he was working in the mines of Francisco Munguia, the said three men went there and told the same thing to said Francisco Munxia (Note that it does not say in the case that this defendant was in Taxco two seasons working in the mines of Don Joseph de la Borda nor that before he had worked in those of Mungia, |
having been in those of Taxco, and moreover his own statement to the parish priest of Taxco says that after he had left his first wife and being in Zitácuaro for two years he had left Zitácuaro for the first time he went to Temascaltepec where he resided for a year and a half and returned to Zitácuaro and at the end of the two years that he was there, he came to Taxco where he was four and a half [years], making various trips to Zitácuaro until after about eight months he returned to this Real). And that then that Holy Week while serving in the mines of said Mungia, arrived in the presence of his master Thomas el Rey (whom this defendant did not know at the time), and he said that he was headed to the city of Patzcuaro. For this reason he asked said Mungia how far it was between Patzcuaro and Urecho, and he told him that it was one day on the road, and he told him that he had to take care of a task for this defendant who was in his house and so would he go there and ask for
a writ. And as a result said Thomas came and he gave him this order that requested the writ from Don Francisco Gonzalez, notary of the ecclesiastical judge of Zitácuaro, and gave it along with two pesos to the said Rey. This defendant remained in service to [Mungia] as a pot maker in the mines, as he did until said Rey returned from this trip, telling him as well as his Master Mungia that he had been in Patzcuaro and encountered Phelipe Espinosa, his cousin, to whom said Rey told the reason for his trip and said Phelipe responded that the wife of this defendant was already dead. And that having passed through San Juan de Urecho he entered the writ that he carried to the parish priest, who was with another man and the two informed him that the said parish priest had
left there a long time ago. (Note that this priest would have to be Br. Alexandre, the same one who at the order of the Holy Office gave the statement about the first marriage, and so it would be natural to write to the Commissioner of Valladolid, Don Miguel Romero López de Arbizu something about this letter and Thomas el Rey.) Asking if he brought the money for the burial record, he responded that he brought two pesos, and the parish priest replied that it would cost six pesos, and at the least five. And as he did not have them, the said Rey considered selling the mule for enough money and buying a horse, which would cover the remainer of the five pesos, but he did not find anyone to buy it and for this reason he had come without the burial record, but he swore
to God one and a thousand times that the wife of this defendant was dead. And he asked that this Thomas el Rey be arrested for giving false witness and brought to this Holy Office so that he could state his motives for having made him commit the error of marrying a second time. And he also asked that Francisco Mungia and other give people who he listed be examined as witnesses to the reply that Thomas el Rey brought.
On January 10, 1737
A long recrimination was made to him that even if all that he had written on the sheet of paper were true, he could not deny that he had had malice in contracting his second marriage as he had failed to present himself as a widower to the parish priest, and referring him to this news of his widowerhood, he hid his previous marriage on purpose
and under oath he had sworn that he was single and free of marriage. And he failed to tell the truth and to observe his vow when referring in his presentation to having left Zitácuaro for the first time at age 21 for Minas de Temascaltepec and Taxco he did not mention the Minas de Santa Clara and region of Urecho and that with these falsehoods, good faith and lack of malice is not possible.
He said that he knew that in this he had erred, but that he did it, and he guaranteed that he had come to be certain of his wife’s death as the people who he stated in his statement assured him.
On January 10 of this year of 1737, the accusation composed of 11 charges was made to him, to which he responded
under oath that which is found in the margin of the trial.
On the 18th of the same month and year, he spoke with his attorney who also requested these witnesses be examined for this defendant.
And so a very long commission was made on February 4, 1737 to carry out these proceedings, which the Commissioner of Maravatio and Zitácuaro, Licenciado Arriola executed. These were received on May 8 of this year, and they state that not examined were the mulato messenger Thomas el Rey, and Gaspar Pinto and Manuel Bernardino, who were thought to be alive and who are two of the three who this defendant said told him as well as Francisco Mungia that his first wife was alive before Thomas el Rey was dispatched. Francisco Mungia was examined and his testimony ratified by the said Commissioner
| It was not seen as fit to give this to the defendant. | according to the commission. And under oath he said that it would have been more than four years that he knew this defendant who had worked as a carter in his mines and that he lived in the same house when he told him that he was married in Santa Clara del Cobre but he had news that his wife had died. And that this defendant, having gone to Zitácuaro, returned to his house afterward, asking him to accompany him to go look for a man who they said had come in order to give information on his first wife. And having accompanied him to the place and house of Thomas Muñoz and not finding this man, the witness parted company with the defendant, who being in the service of the witness told him how in Don Alexandro de Eguia’s Mina de los Reyes were 3 indios (these seem to be those whom he named |
at the beginning of his written statement) from his homeland who knew that his wife was dead. And some time having passed, this defendant went to said Mina de los Reyes and was with the three indios who told him that the reason why they had not gone to see his servant Bernardo who was jailed in Temascaltepec by a woman whom he had gone off with and married was because his other wife was already dead and that if they could have done there they would have gone and given bail from the second jail. And the witness continued giving the descriptions and names of the three indios.
And that what would have been four years ago this next Easter, this defendant was searching for someone who would go to find out about his first wife when he met Thomas el Rey who was travelling, and asking him where he was going, said Thomas responded to Santa Clara del Cobre. Taking advantage of the opportunity, the witness commissioned
said Thomas to meet this defendant in order to give him the writ with which he was to bring certification of the death of his first wife, and said Thomas offered to do it, but the witness did not find out if he brought said writ. That which he found out was that this defendant was going to go with said Rey to Calderas’s house on the hacienda of Santa Ana, with the consent of the witness. The witness also knows when Rey returned and the defendant saw him, he asked how it had gone and he responded to them well, because even though he did not bring the certification as he did not have more than two pesos and the parish priest aksed him for eight, which he could not come up because there was no one to buy the mule on which he came, he found out for certain that the defendant’s wife was dead from one Phelipe Espinosa
who he met in Patzcuaro. Having explained how he had come for the aforementioned certification, this Espinosa responded that he was a cousin of the defendant and it was true that his wife was dead. This Thomas added that if he valued his oath, he would swear one and a thousand times that she was dead. (Note how this witness indicates that Rey put the basis and knowledge of the wife’s death on Phelipe Espinosa more than the parish priest in contrast to what this defendant says in his written statement where, even though he refers to Thomas el Rey meeting Phelipe Espinosa before arriving in Urecho, this defendant maintains in said statement that the principal foundation that Thomas el Rey had to confirm the death of his wife was what had happened with the parish priest.) Note also that this witness does not say in communication [End document]
| Regarding the communication of this first part of the testimony of this witness, he said that it is true although he did not find out more until the notary himself banished him and removed him from the jail. | Don Francisco Gonzalez de Aragón, notary and ecclesiastical judge for Zitácuaro was examined and ratified as the previous witness by said Commissioner Arriola under oath. He said that he had known this defendant for seven years in that region, and he knew that he was married in the region of San Juan de Urecho because when Albarado was ecclesiastical judge, this defendant was living in concubinage with Efigenia de Urbina and so this judge banished him from the town of Zitácuaro so that he would marry her, an order communicated to the witness as the document he exhibited states. |
| Regarding the communication of this document, he said that all happened as it states. And because this defendant doubted that | The exhibited document is a written statement by this defendant that begins that it was presented to the said |
| he had made the statement and signed it, seeming to him that it would have been done by his brother Joseph. Their two signatures were shown to him and he recognized them as theirs and what was read to him was true. | judge Albarado on May 24, 1731. In which was said that during the two months that he was imprisoned in jail because Efigenia de Urbina had presumed that he had promised her marriage, which could not happen because (outside of other reasons that he stated and are omitted as irrelevant) he is married in the jurisdiction of Patzcuaro, as informed by his brother Joseph de Reyna, resident in this town, who could swear to this under oath. And so concluded, they removed him from jail so that he could follow and continue in married life that he thought to have in this town, bringing his wife. He signed this statement, and according to this order and notification of exile from this same day, he was to live the married life with his wife, to which he responded that he was willing, and he signed it. |
| Regarding the communication of chapters two and three of this | Said Don Francisco Gonzalez continued |
3rd witness He said that it is false what is said in the second chapter except that about the missive letter or writ, as it is true that the notary Gonzalez gave it to him. [The notary] did not tell him until one year after his exile that which was stated nor did he speak with him about his second marriage until he asked for said missive letter which was 3 or 4 years after his exile. And that at the time he requested the letter it is true that he had news that his wife was dead (Note that he was given his audience before his attorney entered. He sais that he was amending this response because now he had remembered that he was with the notary Gonzalez at the time that the witness stated except the first time was about a year after his exile and the second when he requested | his testimony and says that about one year ago, this defendant returned and appeared before the notary of the ecclesiastical judge and told him that he wanted to marry Mariana Maya because his wife was dead. He responded to this that when he brought his wife’s death certificate the proceedings would move forward, and that he would need a writ for this and that the parish priest of the place where she died would give it. Saying that he could not afford the cost, the defendant asked the witness to give him a missive letter for the parish priest, which the witness did. And several days later the defendant returned and told him that he had sent his letter with a mulato named el Rey, who had not brought certification of the death since he did not have enough money, to which the witness replied that he should not deceive himself and unless the certificate came he was not approving the proceedings. And that he did not see him again |
| the missive letter.) And the rest of the third chapter of having returned married to Zitácuaro is true except that his second wife was deposited in some house. | until this defendant appeared here married to Mariana Maya, according to what he said. Then he was jailed and she, on the order of the said ecclesiastical judge, was deposited in her parents’ house as she was sick with chills. And having been jailed for many days, this witness offered to travel to Valladolid with which purpose he spoke to the Vicar-general and Commissioner Doctor Arbizu about this defendant, and he relayed what this defendant had said that if he merited punishment, they would give it to him, only that they remove him from prison. And when the witness returned from this city to Zitácuaro and was ready to bring this defendant to Doctor Arbizo, he escaped from the jail with the rest of the prisoners who all went into the church except this defendant who fled elsewhere, and that this is the truth, etc. |
| This witness testimony was not included in the communication. | Francisco Maya, father of the second wife, was examined and ratified. He said that he knew this defendant for five years in this region as he served as a carter in the copper mines, during which time |
he asked his daughter Mariana to be his wife, and although he consented then, the witness learned afterward that this defendant was married in San Juan de Urecho. His brother, Joseph de Reyna, assured him that the woman had died the year of the measles epidemic, to which the witness responded that they had to bring certification that she was dead. And that it is true that the witness gave a letter and two pesos to a pardo called El Rey who went to Patzcuaro in order to bring that certification, entrusting him also with many requests on his behalf. And that in the interim this defendant went to replace and work for the aforementioned Rey in Don Juan de Alzate’s boiler house. And that it is also true that said Rey returned from the trip and went to the witness’s house and told him that he did not bring the certification because the parish priest
had asked him for six pesos and that having waited in his corridor, the priest went to leave and he told him that he will bring five pesos, which he searched for but could not come up with, which he why he returned without said certification, but that certainly the wife of this defendant who was named Catalina was dead. With this the marriage was suspended. The witness continued that this defendant kept coming to his house and he that admonished him to stop, and he took her and brought her to Real de Taxco from where he returned to this town saying that he had married his daughter, and that this is true, etc.
Also examined and ratified were Thomas de Arriaga, age 45; Miguel Gutierrez, 32; Nicolas de la Piedra, 60; Juan Antonio de Molina, 40, who whose testimonies are not included in this relation because they testified as hearsay what this defendant said about Thomas el Rey, which conformed in its substance with what this defendant
| At the communication of this witness testimony, he said that most of what it refers to is true regarding what happened with Diego Perez, although not in the form that the witness stated, but as the defendant had declared already in one of his audiences. (Note that this defendant said to the inquisitor who oversaw this communication and meeting with the lawyer that the threat that he made to Diego Perez was not that he would injure nor do other harm to his body only that he would have to pay the interest and damage that would follow from his not working or putting bread on the table, which would happen if he was imprisoned by his denunciation, and it was ordered to stop writing as it did not seem necessary or helpful.) It was said to him that he was not telling the truth in having said in one of his audiencies that his imprisonment by Urbina had happened ten or eleven years ago when | had to say. Diego Perez, negron español, copper worker by occupation, was examined and ratified in the said month of Abril and present year of 1737. He said (upon being asked why he had denounced this defendant to the ecclesiastical judge for being married two times) that he was not the one who denounced him nor does he know who did, but that about it was about three years ago that Juan Tinoco, resident of the copper mine at Santa Clara, [said] that he did not know how this defendant could be married in this town of Zitácuaro because his wife was alive and that he just left her in her house. And that with this he made the decision to denounce him but before he did, he called upon this defendant and asked him if he was cohabitating with Mariana to which he responded no because he was married to her because some Missionary Fathers had forced him to marry her. The witness responded to this |
| the petition that was read and the judicial order state that it was almost six years ago on May 24, 1731. This creates additional suspicion against him that in such a brief time between said date of May 24, 1731 until he sought to marry a second time during which hardly two years passed since he received the news that he claims about his first wife, and more if the year of the measles epidemic would have been in Zitácuaro before 1731. (Note that it was in Mexico in 1727.) He said to the first that he had said ten or eleven years not because he was lying but because it seemed to him that it had been that much time and for this reason inflated, more or less, these years, and that it is easy to make a mistake, giving the fragility of memory. And that he did not say to the notary at the time he requested to leave the jail to which Urbina had confined him, and certainly his wife lived except | that he was badly married because if he would have presented himself as a widow they would have made him bring certification of his wife’s death, and that this witness knew she was living in Santa Clara, which is why he was obligated to denounce him and so that if he was living in mala amistad with Mariana, he would separate himself from her. This defendant responded to this that would go see if his wife was alive or dead. And that the witness did not have the opportunity to make this denunciation because that same night this defendant was imprisoned by the ecclesiastical judge, and after four or six months of his imprisonment, Manuel Barajas, resident of Santa Clara del Cobre, arrived and informed the witness how he had been in jail with this defendant and he hold told him that his wife was alive and he entrusted this to him. And that shortly afterward, the witness went to said jail on business at which time he called upon this defendant who informed him that |
| that she was married in Urecho, which is the truth that the three [?] have stated on other occasions. They told him that his first wife had died of measles but also it is certain that he did not believe them, only Thomas el Rey, and that is the truth. | he was the cause of his suffering since he had been denounced by him, and that when he got out of there he [the witness] would have to pay for all he [the defendant] was suffering. And that the witness replied that he had not denounced him even though he deserved it since his wife was certainly alive, and that if he wanted he could bring her within eight days. To which this defendant responded that she was dead and that he knew so through the efforts of Thomas el Rey, who had not brought him the death certificate for lack of reales, even though the news of her death was certain. To which the witness replied that he was not the one who he had to make understand. And that here he was called Reyna and there he was known as Salas, and this it is truth, etc. On May 29, 1737, the 12 witnesses and the rest of the evidence against him was communicated to him, and he responded all of which runs in the margins of the trial. And on June 18 they shared it with his attorney with whose approval and opinion he said that he begged this Holy Tribunal to absolve him and to free him from the charge that was made against him, treating him with the mildness and clemency that |
it practices and that he humbly begs it, sufficiently repentant for everything that will be considered a transgression or neglect of his Christian obligations. For this he asks and implores this Holy Tribunal to look upon and attend to him with mercy for all of the following reasons.
First, the will is the workshop which gives rise to wrongdoings and through which they are identified, and in the present matter it will be clearly seen that I acted because I was carried away by my sensuality as I was in an unchaste relationship with Mariana Maya, as stated in the document of the matrimonial proceedings that preceded marriage to her and as the witnesses testified. Avoiding this situation motivated him to omit the stated information from the matrimonial proceedings, with which it is well known that I have directed all these maneuvers so as not to hinder that unchaste relationship.
Second, because
it will also be recognized as a result of what is stated above that in not having used the word “widow” for my estado, it was not because of any particular malice only because what happened to me with that notary Gonzalez, who, if he did not skip the proceedings regarding the first marriage, I could not continue with those for the other marriage, and because of the urgency of time caused by the unchaste relationship with Mariana Maya, I did not want to hinder things with that word, which is what motivated me to say I was single.
Third, because in cases where it is certain that the first wife is dead, a man is free to marry a second time, and what can offer doubt is the manner and way of being certain of the spouse’s death, and for this only one witness is sufficient in the opinion of some. And with the assistance
of other circumstances, there will be greater reason for that Opinion. Here we find ourselves in the situation that Thomas el Rey and others convinced me [of the death of my first wife], which together with the many years that had passed since I had left Catalina Ramírez, my first wife, gave me reason to believe it. And given this concept of proof based on method and intention through which I attempted to manage this matter, I always sought to verify this death whether by requesting the letter to Notary Gonzalez so that they did not charge me the fees that had previously been a problem or whether through the same Thomas el Rey, from whom it can be inferred not only that he persuaded me and that I believed the death of my wife but also that I sought in this way to fulfill my obligation though the methods that would verify it. And having so diverted me, he could only spur on the danger from which I could not escape my unchaste relationship with Mariana.
Finally, because when they told me and I found out that my first wife was alive, I demonstrated my repentance as I felt regret from what happened, and so demonstrate the letters that I wrote to her and the Confession that I made in previous audiences as part of my defense. I ask and beg this Holy Tribunal to order done as I have asked, which is that it attends and looks upon me with the mercy that corresponds to my frailty as I have put myself to atoning for this and that I have sufficiently repented, having understood my errors. And this and the absolution that I requested attenuate the most serious charge that provoked the case, the bad opinion of the Holy Sacrament of Marriage, which I have never shared, and so corresponds to that which I have
requested carried out. In which case the conclusion of this defense is reached and understood, concluding as it concludes definitively.
The fiscal was notified of all this.