2

Omaha Opera Festival School Incorporated—Nebraska World's Fair Matters—The News at the Capital City.

LINCOLN, Neb., April 20,—The friends and family of Rev. S. D. Roberts have been
searching for him without success since yesterday. Mr. Roberts is a well-known
Methodist minister who has been engaged in ministerial work in this state for the last twenty years. For the last three years he has lived with his family at 1848 Euclid
avenue in this city. For several weeks he has been ill, and during the time he was
quite despondent.

Yesterday morning the family discovered when they arose that he had left the house. The bed showed signs of having been occupied, but nothing was found to indicate when he left. He left his watch and some money that was on the dresser. The family at once commenced a search for the missing man. As no trace was found later in the day City Detective Malone was called in and joined in the endeavor to [?] him. All efforts up to this time have been fruitless, and there is as little known tonight as when the fact that he had left the house was first discovered. The family and intimate friends are confident that he will never be found alive. They do not doubt but that his mind has become deranged from his sickness and branding over business troubles. Many incidents of the last few days which were passed by as of trivial importance at the time are now recalled to support the theory.

Rev. S. D. Roberts is described as a man about five feet eight or nine inches in
height, and of slender build. He wears a sandy mustache and chin beard. When he
left home he wore a high silk hat, a dark Prince Albert coat, dark vest and pantaloons, and laced shoes, lie is about 48 years of age. He was for six years presiding eider of the Beatrice district of the Methodist church, and was for three years pastor of the church at David City. He lived in Beatrice seven years. He has also lived in Peru and Fairbury. He was formerly pastor of the Trinity Methodist
Episcopal church in this city, but for nearly two years he has had no regular charge. For four years he has been connected with the proprietorship of the Beatrice Chautauqua and for two years was president and general manager ofo it. He was at one time a half owner of it. Up to the time of the recent reorganization of this enterprise it was not a financial success and [?]. Roberts sustained some severe loses. He has worried a great deal over the indebtedness of the Chautauqua
and to his distress over its affairs may be attributed, his friends say, his recent illness. Last fall he attended conference and was assigned the charge at Plattsmouth, where he worked for some six weeks with spiritual results that were highly gratifying to himself, but he was finally compiled to give up his charge there because of his Chautauqua troubles.

Since that time he has been filling occasional appointments by the presiding
elder. Friends who are well acquainted with his affairs say that he is possessed of
property worth something like $50,000. He owns a comfortable home at 1846 Euclid
Avenue, where he lived with his wife and four children. He also owned two blocks and a half in University place, one farm near Crete, two farms in Fillmore county
and other valuable property, Mr. Roberts served for three years in the army during
the war of 1861-65. He has no relatives living in Nebraska. Preparations are being made tonight to organize a large searching party and go carefully over all the country south and southeast of the city.

Is the Law Constitutional

In the supreme court today was filed the case of Henry Trumble and others against
Martha Trumble and others, a proceeding in error from Lancaster county.

The case was commenced in the probate court by Martha Trumble, the widow of
William Trumble, who asked that an order admitting the will of William Trumble to probate be set aside. The widow declares her intention to take under the statute and
not under the will.

The widow gained her point in the probate court and an order was made giving
to her her homestead interest and her one-third interest in other property as provided by the set of 1880. The case was carried to the district court and the judgment in favor of the widow was affirmed. The case is now brought up by Henry Trumble, one of the heirs and administrators of the estate of William Trumble. The point relied upon by the plaintiff in error is the unconstitutionality of the act of 1808. The same question was raised in the case of the settlement of the John Sheedy estate, but the case was compromised and dismissed before trial.

The brief of plaintiffs in error in the Trumble case recites the objections of the
act, which is the law regulating the distribution of estates. The objections are:

That the act contains more than one subjects; that the act is broader than its title;
that it directly and by implication amends several sections of the acts relating to wills, dower, courtesy and married women, without repealing said suctions and re-enacting them entire: that it contravenes that part of the constitution which provides that no law shall be amended unless the new set contains the section or sections so amended, and the section or sections so amended shall be repealed; that the act is an invasion of vested rights and is in conflict with the constitutional provision that no person shall be deprived of his property without due process of law.

The question is an interesting one to lawyers, and, if brought to a hearing, will determine the question of the soundness of the act of 1885, which gives to the wife a
fee simple title to realty instead of a dower interest, as formerly, Reese and Hillkerson are the attorneys for plaintiffs in error in the case.