Fish v. Glass

It clearly appeared on the trial of this case by the testimony of one of the appellants, who were conducting a business having in it what was called a Parisian Suit Department, that in September, 1892, they made a bargain with the appellee, who was then in their service in that department, to serve them for a year, beginning on the first day of the next October, for $45 per week.

There was no writing, and, as the brief of the appellants truly says, the statute of frauds prevented that bargain from binding the parties.

It was no impediment to their making a new one.

Then, also, from the testimony…