Evelyn Laye Granted a Divorce

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 1070, 6 September 1930, Page 24

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 Sonnie Hale. Jessie Matthews, the actress i 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. the 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 192 G. There were no children. ~ , ... Thev lived happily until ihe 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 Matthew's w’ere more than friendly. They denied, however, that they weie in love with each other. The husband, it was alleged, afterward admitted he had misconducted himself with Miss Matthews. On j his promising to give her up Miss . Laye took him back, and in August, j 1928, they lived together in a flat at . South Audley Street. i Mr. Halfe, however, stayed only about a fortnight, and then was found to be associating with Miss j Matthews. Mr W. O. Willis, for Miss Laye, j submitted that the wife's act in tak-j ing her husband back did not amount to condonation. He had written her hypocritical letters, and he really w'ent back by a trick. “He gets his wife to allow hint to ; come back.” said Mr. Willis, ‘and 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 betw'een the two j parties. “It is quite clear 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 ;to dissociate himself from Miss ! Matthews, except professionally. That I condition was broken, and the for- ! giveness therefore became inoperative.

He granted a decree nisi with costs.