Book 7, folio 261, _et seq._ The second instance of litigation was in the year 625, the auditor of accounts claiming that the royal officials must deliver to him all the books, vouchers, and papers of the treasury for which he asked; and that he could take them to his house, without any time-limit in which they must be returned. The royal officials claimed the very opposite to the above. Therefore, the Audiencia decreed an act on January 2, 626, ordering the auditor of accounts not to take the said papers from the treasury, but to audit the said account there. The auditor of accounts (at that time Luis de Vera Encalada) having entered a petition, the Audiencia enacted on the twenty-seventh of the said month and year that, notwithstanding the above-mentioned act, the said auditor of accounts, in consideration of the ill-health that he alleges, may exercise his duties in his house; but that he may not demand any paper by act from the royal officials except in virtue of the act from the tribunal of accounts for this purpose which proceeds, in which he is under obligation to ask for the papers which shall be necessary. From those which shall be ordered to be delivered to him, he shall select what shall be necessary, and shall return them to the treasury in accordance with the ordinance. Book 7, folio 344. The third instance of litigation was at that same period, on the question whether the auditor of accounts was to audit the accounts of private persons, who should have to account for royal revenues, or whether he was to review those concluded by the royal officials. The Audiencia ordered that the said auditor of accounts should not audit accounts of that class. Book 7, folios 77-79. After the year 628, the said tribunal of accounts ordered by an act that the auditor of accounts could make additions to and draw up results [_resultas_] from the accounts concluded by the royal officials, provided he do it in a separate blankbook without making notes in the royal books.