EVELYN LAYE GRANTED A DIVORCE

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 73, Issue 370, 13 September 1930, Page 15 (Supplement)

EVELYN LAYE GRANTED A DIVORCE

SCENE IN COURT JESSIE MATTHEWS COLLAPSES There was a dramatic scene in the divorce court, London, when Evelyn Laye, the actress (in private life Mrs Evelyn Elsie Monro), was granted a decree nisi against her husband, Robert Hale Monro, known on the stage as Connie Hale. Jessie Matthews, the actress (Mrs Jessie Margaret Lytton), who intervened, collapsed during the reading of some letters, and had to be assisted from the court. The case was a sequel to the action heard in November last, when Miss Matthews obtained a decree nisi against her husband, Lord Alva Lytton, tho actor, discretion being exercised in her favour with regard to her association with Sonnie Hale. As Miss Laye had to return to the United States to fulfil a film contract, her evidence had been taken before an examiner. Husband “On Trial” Miss Laye and Mr Hale were married in 1926. There were no children. They lived happily until the beginning of 1928, when the husband joined the cast in the revue “This Year of Grace,” in which Miss Matthews was also playing. When Miss Laye went for a weekend to Manchester where the revue was having an opening run, she alleged that her husband and Miss Matthews were more than friendly. They denied, however, that they were in love with each other. The husband, it was alleged, afterward admitted he had misconducted himself with Miss Matthews. On his promising to give her up Miss Laye took him back, and in August, 1928, they lived together in a flat at South Audlcy Street. Mr Hale, however, stayed only about a fortnight, and then was found to be associating with Miss Matthews. Mr W. O. Willis, for Miss Laye, submitted that the wife’s act did not amount to condonation. He had written her hypocritical letters, and he really went back by a trick. “He gets his wife to allow him to

come back,” said Mr Willis, *‘an<T then tells people he is only there on trial.” “A Cad,” says Judge Mr Justice Hill, in giving judgment, said the misconduct of the husband with Miss Matthews was not disputed. It was clearly proved in correspondence between the two parties. “It is quite c.leaj that the husband in that correspondence admits himself to be a cad,” said Mr Justice Hill, “and the. woman Matthews writes letters which show her to be a person of an odious mind.” It was clear that the wife took her husband back wholly on his promise ro dissociate himself fro m Miss Matthews, except professionally. That condition was broken, and the forgiveness therefore became inoperative. lie granted a decree nisi with costs.