The opinion
OPINION ON APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR REHEARING
MORRISON, Judge.
By Supplemental Transcript the trial court has forwarded to this Court the affidavit for the search warrant and we will now discuss the grounds of error relating thereto not considered in our original opinion.
Appellant’s first ground of error in regard to the affidavit is that it was made in bad faith. He predicates this contention on the ground that the affidavit alleges that the place sought to be searched was “a place where implements, devices, equipment and paraphernalia” used in a “policy game” are kept, whereas Officer Rundell testified that he expected someone to bring policy paraphernalia to appellant’s address on the afternoon he executed the warrant. The good faith of the officers’ affidavit could not be questioned since during the search of the premises in addition to the paraphernalia brought there that afternoon they found an “implement, device or equipment” in the form of a policy cage which could not have been brought in the suit case which arrived later in the day.
Appellant next contends that the affidavit for the search warrant violated his constitutional rights under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution because it contained, among other allegations of probable cause, this sentence: *208 “The affiants have knowledge and know that Sherman T. Irwin has purchased Federal Wagering Occupation Stamps from the Austin District to cover a period from July 1, 1964 through June 30, 1965.” His contention relies upon the two recent opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States in Marchetti v. United States, 390 U.S. 39 , 88 S.Ct. 697 , 19 L.Ed.2d 889 , and Grosso v. United States, 390 U.S. 62 , 88 S.Ct. 709 , 19 L.Ed.2d 906 .
Without discussing the question of the retroactivity of those holdings, we do observe that in both cases the accuseds refused to buy the Wagering Occupation stamps and the Supreme Court upheld their refusal on the ground that to require them to make known to the public the fact that they were preparing to violate State law would be an abridgment of their Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate themselves. Here appellant did not rely upon his Fifth Amendment right and purchased the Wagering stamp, and thus waived any right he might have had not to incriminate himself. This ground of error is overruled.
He next contends that the affidavit is defective because it contains no statement that the affiants or their informers spoke with their own personal knowledge. The affidavit clearly contained recitations of facts known to the affiants. 1 The omission of the word “personal” preceding the word “knowledge” does not vitiate the affidavit, as we view the holding of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102 , 85 S.Ct. 741 , 13 L.Ed.2d 684 . Viewing the affidavit as a whole we find it sufficient to show probable cause.
His next ground of error is that the court erred in not requiring the State to disclose the names of the affiants’ informers. Appellant points to no fact which would intimate that the informers had taken a material part in the commission of the offense, or had been present when the offense was committed, or might have been a witness to its commission. We adhere to our recent holding in Acosta v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 403 S.W.2d 434 , in which we discussed the holdings of the Supreme Court of the United States in Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53 , 77 S.Ct. 623 , 1 L.Ed.2d 639 , and Rugendorf v. United States, 376 U.S. 528 , 84 S.Ct. 825 , 11 L.Ed.2d 887 .
Though not discussed in our original opinion we will now overrule appellant’s ground of error that the trial court erred in failing to disqualify himself at the trial because he acted as the magistrate who issued the search warrant. We do not agree that this case comes within the rule announced by the Supreme Court of the United States in In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133 , 75 S.Ct. 623 , 99 L.Ed. 942 . *209 In that case what the court heard while acting as a “one man grand jury” went to the guilt or innocence of the accused. In the case at bar the recitations in the affidavits were reduced to writing and became a public record. These recitations were the only thing the trial court or this Court could consider. They are before us now for review and we hold them to be sufficient.
In addition to what we said in our original opinion we now point out that in appellant’s objections to the court’s charge he does not give the court any intimation or notice as to which testimony he now refers to as “extraneous offenses”. In Garver v. State, 158 Tex.Cr.R. 585 , 258 S.W.2d 812 , we said “If an accused is dissatisfied with the court’s charge, he should make his objections in specific terms, thereby clearly informing the court of what he wants or does not want in the charge.”
Appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.
. “We have recently received, within the last thirty days, information from two credible persons who have furnished us reliable information on several occasions within the past five years. The information which we have received is that Sherman T. Irwin said that he had on the above described premises a duplicating machine and equipment on which he was currently producing and printing policy slips for the use and purpose of gaming and carrying on a policy game; and that there was on these premises other necessary books, implements, equipment and parahernalia for the carrying on of a policy game.
“We were further informed by the same sources that the said Sherman T. Irwin had in his employment more than a dozen persons engaged in the carrying on of policy games.
* * * * *
“We the affiants, also have knowledge that the said Sherman T. Irwin has been engaged from time to time for the past twenty years, in the illegal occupation of keeping and exhibiting a policy game.
“An intermittent surveillance of the above described premises carried on for a period of the last three or four weeks, has revealed Melvin Hill, also known as Percy Hill, and Russell I. Bond, both residents of Galveston County, Texas, and both known to the affiants to be involved in carrying on and keeping and exhibiting of policy games, coming upon and leaving the above described premises.”