One history book my professor gave me contains around eight easily recognizable clerical errors. An Example of these errors is "Demosthenese", which should have been spelled without an "e" at the end. Overall, the book is accurate, save for one statement claiming that the Great Wall of China can be seen from the moon. So what do you think? Should you be excessively concerned with minor details?
I would me more worried if it is an accurate book from a decent publisher. Mistakes like that should have been picked up in the reviewing process. If you professor said it was good to use, then it most likely is, he probably knows more about that book then I do. As a whole minor errors do not mean you shout omit that reference, though it does raise eyebrows to it's origin and trustworthiness
The Great Wall of China being seen from space (not the moon, IIRC) was something that Nixon told the Chinese to compliment them when he was working on reopening relations, so it's understandable that it might have worked its way into a history text, even though it's false. Still, I'd check other sources if I found anything else that I didn't feel sure of.
I'm often confused by the fact that when new insight into history comes along that history continues to be taught with the (now) mistakes intact. So, I've come to doubt all reference material. And then there's the possibility that the new insights might be wrong as well. In the words of Bernie Laplante (Hero): It's all bullshit, layers and layers of bullshit. You just have to pick a layer and say, there! That's my bullshit.
It depends on which part you're referencing. Anything other than the Great Wall portion should be fine. Also, you can reference typos by adding [sic] after the word to show that the error is present in the original text.