“MONSTROUS AND ILLEGAL PROCEEDINGS”: LAW ...

caused by the 1825 Cisplatine War to remain. It was only in 1830 that Prado Lima finally
obtained a judgment from the local juiz de paz ejecting Ferreira from the tract. Any claim
Leão might assert based on Ferreira’s ownership had been thoroughly adjudicated and
discredited by Alegrete’s courts. Prado Lima also pointed to the multiple legal judgments he
had obtained against Leão. He further produced the 1836 contract in which Leão himself
appeared to recognize his property rights. Prado Lima concluded by arguing that “only
through scorn [irrisão] can one classify such actions emanating from a legal authority as
derisive, null and a criminal assault upon property rights.” 134
Teixeira in turn attacked Prado Lima’s carefully constructed legal precedents by
seeking to disentangle the strands of law and coercion intertwined within them. He argued
that rather than reflecting Prado Lima’s legitimate legal rights, the numerous judgments
against his client were “monstrous and illegal proceedings” that only confirmed his
opponent’s coercive practices. 135 The court, Teixeira and the vizinhos throughout Alegrete
following the case no doubt understood that the coercive actions allegedly taken by Prado
Lima throughout the 1830s against Leão were a normal part of establishing property rights.
Yet by associating Prado Lima with “illegal proceedings” instead of valid decrees from
Alegrete’s courts, Teixeira could make clear to the local audience that the Ribeiros’ factional
rivals could no longer secure the recognition of substantive legal rights for their allies. At
least in Alegrete, Prado Lima was now outside of the systems of localized justice that
constituted borderlands legalities.
Not surprisingly given the shifting political circumstances in the town, the court
agreed. The court first concluded that Leão had purchased legitimate title to the disputed
134 Ibid., 38.
135 Ibid., 76.
212