Be it remembered that when the case came up for trial on the 31^st day of December 1863 before John R. Graham Police Judge of the City of Frankfort, the deft Weitzel appeared and by his counsel moved to quash the warrant against him because the same does not charge an offense within the jurisdiction of this court or any offense known to the laws of the land — which motion was overuled — by the court to which defendant excepted and still excepts — The defendant then demurred to the warrant because it did not state facts Sufficient to constitute an offense against the laws, which being heard, the said demurrer was overruled, and the warrant sustained, to which ruling the defendant excepted and still excepts

And thereupon both the Commonwealth and the defendants announcing themselves ready for trial came the following jury, towit R W Blackburn, Lewis Crutcher, Charles Featherstone, W T Bacon,

H. J. Sheets., Minos Williams, Alex. Snelling, H. S. Ellis, J W Tate Nelson Heffner, James Walston & F D Reddish, who were solemnly sworn to well and truly try the issue, and a true verdict render in this of case of thes Commonwealth and said Weitizel under said warrant.

The Commonwealth then introduced Robert Aigie, who being examined upon his vocie due by defendants counsel, stated that he was was one of Several persons who, at the instance of the city attorney were engaged in ferreting out sales of Negroes, [...] & laws of spiritous liquors to slaves and free negroes, and he engaged in that capacity with a view furthee to & obtain for himself whatever part of the penalty was allowed by the city ordinance of Frankfort: as an informed in such cases — that he communicated to the city attorney the facts set forth in the warrant & he did so as the informer and with the view & expectation

of obtaining the informer's portion of any judgment rendered against the defendant in this case — that he was the informer in this case & expected if the defendant was convicted to get his portion ^(¹/4) one fourth^ of the judgment — Thereupon the deft by his counsel objected to said Aigie being examined as a witness for the Com'th because he was directly interested on the side of the Com'th in producing the conviction of the defendant. The City Attorney here read in evidence the following ordinances passed by the Board of Councilmen of the city of Frankfort:
on the 1^st July 1862:

"Be it ordained by the Board of Councilmen of the City of Frankfort
&#167: 1. That if any person, within the limits of the city of Frankfort, shall sell, give or lend to any slave

or slaves, of which he is not the owner or hirer for the time being, any spiritous or intoxicating liquor, in any quantity whatever, without the

written permission of the owner or hirer of such slave or slaves, he shall upon conviction thereof, be fined one hundred dollars for every such offense — one fourth to go to the City Attorney, one fourth to the informer and the balance to the City Treasury.

&#167: 2, The fact that a slave was seen to go into any house where liquor is ordinarily sold and come out with liquor, or come out drunk or intoxicatinged, if he was not in such condition when he went in, shall be deemed sufficient evidence of the guilt of the party accused under the first section; and this ordinance shall be in force from and after its passage.

Geo W Gwinn, Mayor
Attest
Jno W Batchelor, City Clerk
July 1 — 3[...].

City ordinance

Selling giving or Loaning Liquor to Negroes,

Be it ordained by the Board of Councilmen of the City of Frankfort That the ordinance of this Board

2
passed July 1, 1862 in relation to selling giving, or loan lending intoxicating liquors to slaves & c be and the Lawe is hereby so amended,

1^st That said ordinance shall apply to free negroes as well as to slaves.

2^d That the informer in all cases and under all circumstances, shall be a competent witness under said ordinance, and that the reward of one fourth of the penalty which the city gives the informer shall in no wase invalidate his testimony

3^d This ordinance to be in force from and after its passage.

By order of the Board
G. W. Gwinn, Mayor,

Attest:
Jas W Batchelor, City Clerk
Frankfort, Aug 18, 1863 — 3[...]

Thereupon the court decided that said Robert Aigie was a competent witness and overruled Said motion to exclude him as a witness to which defendant excepted and still excepts —

Said Aigie then stated further that he was at the defendants tavern in the city of Frankfort on the 17^th December — took a drink himself there — that while he was there John Berney

a free man of color living in Frankfort came, called for a dram of whiskey at- — Weitzel the deft. furnished him the whiskey that is a dram, Berney drank it at the bar, paid for it and retired. John Prossee another free negro was with John Berney, & also bought a dram from deft and paid for it — Wietzel keeps tavern and he keeps liquors for sale — ^Berney brought no vessel with him & had nothing with him to take the whiskey away. He asked only for a dram.^

Jas Aigie stated that he was with Robert Aigie on the occassioned ^alluded to by him^ he stated the same facts which the latter did —

The It was admitted in the case by the Commonwealth that the defendant was a regularly licensed & legal tavern keeper — and was such on the 17^th December 1863 — Here the evidence above and the foregoing was all the evidence in the cause on either side The witness James Aigie further stated that it was understood between him and his father Robert Aigie that he James Aigie was to get a part of the penalty which would be awarded to said Robert Aigie as informer herein — that he James was about 16 years —

The deft moved to exclude

from the jury the entire testimony of James and Robert Aigie, on the ground that on in this case they are incompetent witnesses for the Commonwealth — But the court overruled said motion to which deft excepted and still excepts —

The Commonwealth by the exattorney Court then at the instance of the city attorney move the court addressed instructed the jury as follows: (Here issued instructions of city attorney) — Deft. excepted to the giving of said instructions and still excepts.

The deft then asked the court to instruct the jury as follows:

(Here insert deft's instructions) marked from 1 to 10 inclusive) The Court then give No^s 2, 6, and 10 asked by deft and refused to give isntructions No^s. 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, & 9, to which deft excepted and Still excepts.

After the argument of counsel the before thee jury, the jury retired, and returned into court, the following verdict:

We of the jury find the defendant guilty.

F D Reddish
Foreman

And thereupon the court rendered the following judgment (Here insert it)-

The defendant immediately after the rendition of the judgment herein moved the court to arrest said judgment because the warrant does not state facts sufficient to constitute a public offense, which motion was overruled, and the defendant excepted and Still excepts-

The foregoing was all the evidence addressed in the case, and the foregoing instructions were all ^the instructions^ given by the court in either the case and on either Side —

The defendant prays that this his bill of exceptions be signed and sealed

by the cou Judge of this court which is accordingly done. and defendant prayes an appeal to the court of appeals which is granted

Com'th
vs } Bill of Exceptions
Gabriel Weitzel