In Griese v. State, 820 S.W.2d 389 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1991, pet. ref'd), the court was concerned with an affidavit pertaining to the informant's observation of defendant's alleged illegal bookmaking/gambling activities. Requiring that the interpretation of probable cause affidavits be carried out in a common sense and realistic manner, the court concluded that it was "obvious that the informant had personal knowledge of appellant's bookmaking activities." Griese v. State, 820 S.W.2d at 391-92. In Barraza v. State, 900 S.W.2d 840, 842 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 1995, no pet.), the court found the affidavit insufficient because it contained only the statement that affiant was told by another officer that that officer had been contacted by a reliable and credible confidential informant. There was no other corroboration. See Barraza v. State, 900 S.W.2d at 842.