“MONSTROUS AND ILLEGAL PROCEEDINGS”: LAW ...

of “honorable vizinhos” once again provided the foundation for Prado Lima’s substantive
legal rights.
Teixeira equally recognized the importance of personal testimony for establishing
property claims. He immediately sought to marshal together testimony favoring Lisboa’s
claim, as well as undermine the credibility of Prado Lima’s numerous witnesses. Teixeira
traveled widely. He took depositions from the neighboring towns of Uruguaiana and São
Gabriel. He further arranged for the local judge to travel to the disputed lands in order to
better determine the boundaries in question. At the same time, Teixeira accused Prado
Lima’s witnesses of bias. He argued that three of the men called to testify possessed a direct
financial stake in the outcome of the proceeding. In addition, Teixeira noted that several of
the witnesses were Prado Lima’s relatives. This, combined with their vague testimony as to
the property’s true boundaries, compelled the court to discredit it. Collectively, Teixeira’s
efforts aimed not only to demonstrate Lisboa’s property rights, but also publicly manifest the
numerous webs of reciprocal connections between the Ribeiros and important vizinhos
throughout the borderlands. The case was as much about demonstrating political power as
securing substantive rights. 130
For the moment, however, Prado Lima’s allies stood firm. The trial court noted that
all of Prado Lima’s witnesses’ testimony, although occasionally vague, was consistent. It
further found Prado Lima’s witnesses persuasive. The court wrote that the “ages, wealth,
and character of the same, are additional proof to guarantee the facts regarding
possession.” 131 Reflecting the substantial resources at his disposal, Teixeira appealed the case
to Porto Alegre and then to the Tribunal de Relações in Rio de Janeiro. Both courts confirmed
130 Doña Francisca Oliveira Lisboa c. Joaquim dos Santos Prado Lima, 41; 185-206.
131 Ibid., 24bis.
210