6

{On the left margin: Testimony of Father Prior Fray Juan de Montemayor}

The City of the Most Holy Name of Jesus on the fourth of April of sixteen twenty-five, his most reverend lordship for the said
investigation and to know when and how was lost the cross with which
the most holy child was [originally] found, summoned Padre Fray Juan de Montemayor
before him, prior of the convent of the child Jesus of this city. From him
was received a legal oath on his word as priest
and by the [religious] order that he [is a member of]. Having placed his hand
[on] his chest he gave [the above oath] and promised to tell the truth. [He was] asked
what he knew about the case and the news that he had had
about it. He said that when he became prior of this convent he did not even know
that the holy child had jewels nor had he heard about it until, after
fifteen or twenty days more or less after his arrival. [At that time] Padre Fray Juan Ruiz
told this declarant that the child had jewels. And then
at that moment this declarant, with Padre Fray Juan Ruiz, went to see them.
[They] compared the said jewels one by one with the record
that Padre Fray Juan de Tujo had left. [This record was signed with Fray Tujo's name and the name] of
Padre Fray Antonio Ximénez. This declarant could not find
the cross and moreover [he could not find] a necklace that, based on the record,
weighed one tae. This declarant asked Padre
Fray Juan Ruiz "what cross would be the one that was missing?" [Ruiz] could not
ascertain [to this declarant] whether it was the cross with which the child was [originally] found or another [cross] because
the said Padre Fray Juan Ruiz was not aware of how it looked like.
Nor did the record of the jewels indicate anything more than these
words "an enamelled golden cross found with the child"
and almost all of the [crosses] he had were made of gold and enamelled. Moreover,
the record adds "with a string of pearls and gold" and the
cross that is on this string is not the one that is missing, despite
having [an image of] our lady on the one side and [of] Christ on the other side there. This
worsened the confusion with which Padre Fray Juan Ruiz
told this declarant the above. [He said] that he was not sure but that it seemed to him
that the cross that they said was found with the child had the image of our lady.
Later as it seemed that the cross was not there
on this string but instead that it was the necklace stolen by the thief.
With these doubts, the declarant says that
he waited for Padre Fray Antonio Ximénez [to return]
from Panay. And when [Ximénez] returned, [Ximénez] did not know how to report
the cross and necklace['s disappearance] and instead he felt frustrated and said that
this declarant was harassing him. And because of this [reaction] and because of the said
sadness this declarant doubted
whether this cross or some other [cross that] was missing, until was seen [during the]