MRS. MINER IS VINDICATED Tettlroony That Clebreeht KUeed Her Shown to Have Been Bated on Malice. The AppUt, Dlvika ojC the Supresrae Court la rooWya hsa reversed an, appeal a decree of ' Absoluts divorce ob-Ulnsd by Mrs. Julie. W. " A." lebrecht (rona Henry A. Siebrecht Jr., member of the firm of Slebrecht Son, wholesale florists end owners f the, f iebrecht Uuiiaing. at 425 Fifth Avenue. Tbe decision wee made publie yesterday, and It not only clears the defendant of tbe charges made by his wife, but vindicates Mrs. ytanceaclna Miner ?t N Rocbelle, who; was named aa co-respondent. : " - ' Mr. and Mrs. glebrecht and, lira. Miner and her husband, Frank; Mf. Miner, wfao is connected with the Qorham Company, at Fifth Avenue and Thirty-sixth Street, were friends for mapy"yarsj and the incidents on which Mrs. Slebrecht based her suit vrere, alleged to have taken place In the Summer of 1907 at Hawley ville, Conn., whra' the two famlUea were accustomed to pass belr vacations. It was tbe proprietress of the Summer home, Mrs. Thursa Tucker, the most important of twenty-two witnesses for the plaintiff, who testified that while s-aslng- through hole In the attlo floor of the farmhouse, she bad seen Slebrecht kiss Mrs. Miner. In, the record, of the case on appeal, Mr Tuckec'was, referred to ' as tae ' stovepipe bole Peeper. Both families resided in New Rochelle. Tbe Siebvechte lived on North Ayenue aod the Miners on Park Place, 8tnce the divorce' was granted by Justice MiUs In White Plains on Aug. 6, 1912, the Miners have continued te reside together. Mrs. Slebrecht, who was MU AcJter and a granddaughter of one .Of the founders of tbe firm of Acker. Merrall A Condlt, got the custody of two of her four children with alimony, of $2M) a month. v, Slebrecht's attorney, John M. Gardner of 141 Broadway, made Ws atrongest appeal before the Appellate Division for the vindication of tbe name of Mrs. Miner. Referring to the testimony " of Mrs. Tucker. th attorney told the. Appellate Livllon: v Thurza Tucker, the so-called 4 ftove-plpe hole witness,' is shown to have been Inflamed with bias, growing out of a personal Quarrel between herself and the co-respondent years ago. Besides the physical conditions ' under which she made the alleged observations on her own statement convict her of deliberate perjury concerning tbe vital fact In the case, while her many contradictions and most Improbable statements thoroughly Impeach ner and show her 'to be an unreliable and, revengeful witness.'' Concerning the weight of evidence necessary to decide a divorce case beyond doubt, and tbe careful scrutiny of iha farta a.nri evidence to command the confidence of a careful, prudent, and cautious Judge, the attorney added this appear In behalf of Mrs. Miner: , rGnided by this standard "Of Judicial exaction and protection we invoke the most careful attention to and scrutiny t.ir thl raurt of the evidence UDon wbich tbe judgment on appeal was based. We make this request not only lu behalf of the defendant herein, my client, and hie entire family, but In the Interest of an, honored mother, daughter, end wife, whose whole family and her numerous friends champion her cause, and whom we and they believe to be the victim of a criminal eonanlracV. arid a rains C whom tbe decision of the learned court below baa been accomplished by manmacturea and biased testimony, "lot making this request, we believe that.- had tha court below tiossessed the advantage which a more analytical examination of th evidence now presents In a printed record, which counsel for tbe defendant is able nerewitn to present, the result would have been different." - ' The testimony which the higher court repudiates in Its decision' and on which tbe divorce decree mainly rests, includes that of Mrs. Tucker, describing' the departure for Manhattan of Mr. Miner and lira. Slebrecht one day in August, t'W7 in thou vnriil ' " " After Mr. Slebrecht drove Mrs. Ble brecht and Mr. Miner to the station he came back and hitched the horse to a tree, in front of the houae. While be was bitching the horse to the tree ( went up In the attic ?t the house to msat sure taera was nouunE wiouk. Mra Miner came up stairs while I was in1 the attic. While ln the attks I looked through the stovepipe hole (an opening throuxh the floor to the room below) and saw Mrs. Miner. Mr. Slebrecht came up stairs. I saw him kiss Mra Miner. 7 By several architects It was shown on the appeal of tbe case that It would have been, physically impossible for any one in tne attic looking through the eix-lnch stovepipe hole, to have seen wnai airs, xucner sata sue bad wit nessed la the room beneath. It also shown that tbe door to this room was open and tbe place In full view of all the guests of the house and members nt the two families, soma nf whom were passing by or through, the room In which Mra Miner and Sie- fcrecnt were, said to kave been at the time of the "stovepipe peeptng.' Moat of the other witnesses were dis charged maids and servants of Mr. and Mrs. Miner, end their' testimony bad little bearing on the case. According to the attorney tor tbe defense, - tbe decision cannot he" annealed im" tha Court of Appeals. a I ' t- ' .