In each of the seven  cases above-mentioned, the defendant was convicted for selling opium in violation of Act No. 1461.  The evidence of the Government sufficiently proved the offense in each case.  No evidence was offered by the  defendants, except that of two  witnesses, one the defendant Lim-Qui.  On cross-examination he was asked what was the substance contained in the small can then in  court,  which the witnesses  for the Government had testified was bought from him.  His counsel objected to the question, the court overruled the  objection, and directed  the  witness  to  answer.   Thereupon  his counsel withdrew him from the stand  and asked  to  have  all the testimony given by him stricken from the record.

The only other witness was Du-Buntiong, who was tried at the same time with the seven defendants above-mentioned, but who did not appeal.   His testimony related to the sale by himself,  and  there was nothing in it which could relate to the  other defendants, except some statements about the private character of one of the witnesses for the Government.

The testimony of the  prosecution was, therefore, uncontradicted.  The fact that the  witnesses for the Government made the purchases of opium for the purpose of securing evidence to convict the defendants of a violation of the law, did not make them accomplices in  the crime,  and their testimony stands as the testimony of any other witness in a  case. (Commonwealth vs. Baker, 155 Mass., 287.)

The judgment of the court below in each case above mentioned is affirmed, with  one-seventh of the costs of this instance against each one of the seven defendants. So ordered.

Arellano, C. J., Torres, Mapa, Carson, and Tracey, JJ., concur.