OPINION AND ORDER
HANNUM, District Judge.
Presently before the court is a petition for writ of habeas corpus in which relator, Leon Pinder, attacks his conviction for "Lottery" and "Traffic in Lottery Tickets", on Bill of Indictment No. 100, December Sessions, 1967, Court of Common Pleas, Criminal Division, Delaware County, Pennsylvania.
Relator challenges the legality of his confinement upon the grounds that: (1) his conviction was based upon evidence seized during an unlawful search of his person in violation of his rights under the Fourth Amendment; (2) the trial court's refusal to compel disclosure of the identity of a confidential informer violated relator's rights under the Sixth Amendment; (3) the trial court improperly commented upon relator's decision not to testify in his own behalf in violation of his rights under the Fifth Amendment.
On August 26, 1967, relator was arrested and charged in the abovementioned indictment with lottery and traffic in lottery tickets.
Relator entered a plea of not guilty and on April 4, 1968, was tried by a jury and found guilty.
On July 15, 1968, relator's motions for new trial and in arrest of judgment were denied, and on August 7, 1968, relator was sentenced to imprisonment for a period of three (3) months in the county jail and to pay a fine of three hundred ($300) dollars.
Relator appealed his conviction to the Pennsylvania Superior Court, and on February 7, 1969, the conviction was affirmed per curiam. Commonwealth v. Pinder, 214 Pa. Super. 723, 249 A. 2d 801 (1969).
On April 30, 1969, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania denied allocatur. No. 52-A, Misc. Docket No. 17.
On July 31, 1970, relator filed a petition in the Court of Common Pleas, Criminal Division, of Delaware County to review and reconsider the sentence imposed. This petition was denied on August 19, 1970, and the present petition followed.
Relator is approximately sixty-eight (68) years old, and has no prior conviction and with the agreement of the District Attorney of Delaware County, has been released on bail pending the disposition of the instant petition.
After carefully examining the state court records, the court concludes that they are complete and adequate and that an evidentiary hearing in this court is, therefore, not necessary. Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293, 83 S. Ct. 745, 9 L. Ed. 2d 770 (1963).
Relator's first contention involves the question of whether the information contained in the affidavit used to obtain the search warrant was legally sufficient to establish the requisite probable cause for the issuance of the warrant. This case presents a very close question.
The information contained in the affidavit is as follows:
"The grounds for probable cause and reasons for affiant's belief are the following to wit; Complaints and information received from persons of reliable and good reputation, which your affiant has reason to believe and does believe to be true and upon which he has relied in making this affidavit, that this office received information from a person of reliable and good reputation which the affiant has reason to believe and does believe to be true and that information received from this informant has proved to be true and correct in the past that this man was engaged in picking up number plays.
"Personal knowledge, that this man has been observed by investigating officers approaching people on the street and in front of various houses and in turn the people would hand him slips of white paper which we believe to be number sets. Surveillance dates: Aug. 15, 16, 17, 18, 1967, 1600 block of W. 3rd St., Chester, 100 Block Central Ave. Chester, 200 Broomall St., Chester."