
    George W. Townsend, App’lt, v. Thomas Minford, Resp’t.
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,
    
    
      Filed May 14, 1888.)
    
    Statute of frauds—Contract of service not to be performed within a. YEAR.
    In February, 1884, the plaintiff entered into an oral agreement with the defendant to work for him one year from April, 1884. Held, that this contract was void under the statute of frauds, not being in writing, and the plaintiff could not recover for services performed during a portion of this period.
    Appeal from a judgment of the Dutchess county special term dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint.
    
      John W. Bartrum, for pl’ff; Charles S. Simpkins, for def’t.
   Dykman, J.

—This is an action to recover the damages sustained by the plaintiff by reason of his discharge by the • defendant from his service.

It was proved upon the trial and found by the trial judge that the plaintiff and defendant made an agreement in February, 1884, by which the plaintiff and his wife were to work for the defendant one year from the first day of April, 1884. The agreement was not reduced to writing, and the plaintiff and his wife were discharged in December, 1884, .after working from the first day of April under the con- . tract.

The complaint was dismissed on the trial because the contract was void under the statute of frauds.

The plaintiff has appealed from the judgment, but the case seems very plain, and the judgment should be af-

• firmed, with costs.

Pratt, J., concurs; Barnard, P. J,, not sitting.  