to him. One of the soldiers later on picked out Ferrer from among the prisoners, on three oecasions, reçogniziug him as the same man; that was two months after he had séen him.4 3rd. Juan Puig, the President of the Republican com- mittee of Masnou, spoken of in the declaration of the bar- ber, said he had no relations with Ferrer. The latter, on the morning of the 28th, sent for him to come to the barber shop. Ferrer told him they must help the movement in Barcelona and begin by inciting the inhabitants to burn the convents and churches. He believes that all was due to Ferrer who told him he had presented a manifesto to Iglesias and others, menacing the Government.53 A lieutenant of the Civil Guards, Leoncio Ponti, declares that he knows through private confidences that Ferrer took active part in the revolutionary troubles of Masnou and Premia de Mar. Domingo Casas,5" mayor of the village of Premia de Mar, declares that a man, named Ferrer, came to him, told him what was happening in Barcelona, and asked his help. He refused and Ferrer left much annoyed.
- It is remarkable that the
Judge Instractor should not have fried to find out whether or not Ferrer actually wore Buch a suit and hat on the 26th, aa he could Ensily have done by interrogating all the men who saw him on that east a suspiclon on his sip, if the was his. DE The X Law, XVI Title, pro- vldes that a man Indieted in a trial may nọt testify agn inst an- other mån iudleted in the same kause, great danger of his bearing false testimony. in order to gain his own discharge. This old law has now been abolished and replaced by the present codes which estab- lish slmilar guarantees. éver, it expresses a rule of com- mon sense which ought to be re- gurded as always in vigor. In the present case this man Juan Puig had been arrested and indiçted, but after his declaration in the Ferrer trial, his prosecution was abandoned, and be was released. These are facts, and they speak for thetmselves.
- Thia man was also arrested
and Indieted, and later on re- leased, See above note (56). because there would be That le the version given by the feporters présent at the triaf. Later on, durfng hie speech of ac- cusation, the Public PrOBecutor sald, when quoting, this testl- montal, that both, soldiers recog- plzed him, make t Biip? uder make a Rlip? Dia the "Propecntor. make a slip? Did he maka it latentionally or uninten- Honally? There is no way of ind- Ing out as the "summary" bas
- ot zot been pabliabed. However,
the Fronceutor must havę, known that according 'to a well-known Dsx of evidence, one single wit A no witness. Thnt would How- Did the reporters
Did the official
