opinion: HADLEY v. MASSACHUSETTS.
  No. 1179,
  Misc.
  Decided June 12, 1967.
  Louis M. Nordlinger for appellant.
  Elliot L. Richardson, Attorney General of Massachusetts, and Willie J. Davis, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
  Per Curiam.
  The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts for further consideration in light of Camara v. Municipal Court of the City and County of San Francisco, 387 U. S. 523.
  Mr. Justice Clark, Mr. Justice Harlan, and Mr. Justice Stewart dissent and would affirm the judgment for the reasons stated in Mr. Justice Clark’s dissenting opinion in Camara v. Municipal Court of the City and County of San Francisco, 387 U. S., at 546.
choices: case did not arise on cert or cert not granted federal court conflict federal court conflict and to resolve important or significant question putative conflict conflict between federal court and state court state court conflict federal court confusion or uncertainty state court confusion or uncertainty federal court and state court confusion or uncertainty to resolve important or significant question to resolve question presented no reason given other reason