
    Michael McGlucky v. Henry Bitter.
    Although a parol agreement to work for the defendant for two years, is void, yet the plaintiff may recover for work and labor performed during that time, and may put the contract in evidence to show the understanding between the parties, as to the rate of compensation.
    Action in the second district court, for a balance alleged to be due to the plaintiff, for two years’ services as a morocco dresser. The defendant pleaded a denial and set off. A parol agreement was put in evidence, from which it appeared that the plaintiff had been employed for the two years, at a stipulated rate of compensation. The services of the plaintiff were proved. A judgment was entered for him, and the defendant appealed.
    
      Charles N. Black, for the appellant.
    
      E. R. Bogardus, for the respondent.
   By the Court. Daly, J.

If the oral agreement was an undertaking on the part of the plaintiff to work for two years, it was within the statute and void. The plaintiff was under no obligation to continue in his employer’s service for that length of time, but was at liberty to leave at any time, and could recover for the value of the service he had rendered. If it was not such an agreement, then it is to be taken as an agreement between the parties fixing the rate of compensation. It was So treated by the justice, and the amount that remained unpaid of the wages thus agreed upon, the plaintiff would be entitled to recover. Upon this evidence the defendant could ask no deduction from the plaintiff’s wages, and the justice was right in not allowing it.

Judgment affirmed.  