This is a single issue case in which the defendant has claimed error in the alleged failure of the judge to instruct the jury that they must find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had the specific intent to kidnap. There was no error.
The judge instructed the jury by quoting the material part of the kidnapping statute, G. L. c. 265, Section 26, and by reading the language of the indictment, which uses the wording of the statute. The charge when read as a whole is not wanting in specificity as to the intent required for kidnapping. See Commonwealth v. Smith, 381 Mass. 141 , 146 (1980). Contrast Commonwealth v. Ware, 5 Mass. App. Ct. 506 , 509-510 (1977), S.C., 375 Mass. 118 (1978).
There is no merit to the defendant's single argument on appeal that probable cause was wanting in the issuance of the search warrant that led to the seizure of gaming implements and to his conviction of violating G. L. c. 271, Sections 17 and 17A. The two-prong test of Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 114 (1964), was met. The anonymity of the informant is not fatal. See Commonwealth v. Alessio, 377 Mass. 76 , 81-82 (1979). The informant's tip to the police officer who obtained the warrant as to the defendant's name, unpublished telephone number and sports betting pursuits was corroborated by the police officer's observations of the defendant's house and by his telephone conversation with the defendant about placing a bet on the hockey game that night between Toronto and Atlanta. See Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 415 (1969); Commonwealth v. Vynorius, 369 Mass. 17 , 21-22 (1975); Commonwealth v. Lotfy, 8 Mass. App. Ct. 126 , 130-131 (1979).