“MONSTROUS AND ILLEGAL PROCEEDINGS”: LAW ...

ejected this evidence, however, finding the testimony unreliable because the two witnesses
were not only accomplices to the crime, but also prisoners of war in Ribeiro’s custody.
The verdict, however, represented only a temporary setback for Ribeiro. The
following year, he filed a second criminal action for defamation against Christomo.
According to the petition, Christomo had accused Ribeiro of being a “thief, murderer, a
common grifter [canalha], and shameless.” 62 Ribeiro argued that he could not have his
“honor so atrociously stained by [Christomo] and continue to have it be so in the streets and
taverns.” 63 Christomo retained Mathias Teixeira de Almeida, his old progressista ally, to
represent him. Teixeira noted that Christomo’s statements flowed directly from Ribeiro’s
previous and demonstrably false allegations. Teixeira further pointed out that Ribeiro had
attempted to coerce testimony from the two Paraguayan witnesses as part of a concerted
campaign to “persecute his client.” 64
Ribeiro was irate. He declared that only men like Teixeira and Christomo “could
arrive at the conclusion that one who airs his rights to his injured [damnificada] property
before duly constituted authorities and through all legal channels is a persecutor!” 65 Ribeiro
stressed that he was following the law. He had duly respected the verdict in his prior
proceeding against Christomo. He now deserved justice. This time the court found
Christomo guilty of wrongly imputing criminal charges to Ribeiro. It ordered Christomo
imprisoned for two months. Teixeira appealed. He argued that the evidence was
insufficient to support his client’s conviction. The appellate court, however, confirmed the
local verdict.
62 O Coronel Demetrio Ribeiro c. Capt. João Christomo dos Santos, APRGS. Alegrete. Cartório
Civil e Crime. Procesos Crimes, Maço 88, n. 3078 (1869).
63 Ibid., 2.
64 Ibid., 24.
65 Ibid., 24-24bis
357