
    Commonwealth vs. William Putnam.
    Although it is proved that a witness in a criminal case is actuated by malice against the defendant, the court should not instruct the jury to disregard his testimony altogether; but, after giving proper cautions, leave it for them to say how much credit shall be given to it.
    Indictment against the defendant as a common seller of intoxicating liquors. At the trial in the superior court, there was evidence tending to show that Horace Murdock, a witness for the Commonwealth, was actuated by malice, and bad made some of the purchases of liquor to which he testified for the purpose of obtaining evidence against the defendant; and the defendant’s counsel requested the court to instruct the jury that, if this was true, it was their duty to disregard his testimony altogether. But Lord, J instructed them that these considerations went to the credit of the witness, and, if the facts were true, they should look with great caution and distrust upon his evidence; but still it was for them to say how much credit should be given to it. The defendant was convicted, and alleged exceptions.
    
      W. Griswold, for the defendant.
    
      Foster, A. G., for the Commonwealth.
   Bigelow, C. J.

The instructions were clearly right, and substantially in conformity with those suggested by this court, as being appropriate to testimony coming from a person standing in the position in which it appeared that the witness in behalf of the government was placed at the trial of this cause. Commonwealth v. Downing, 4 Gray, 29.

Exceptions overruled.  