201 HIllIXG BY PAEOL. 



within the year, is not taken out of the statute, because it may be 

 Jct'eated on a given event, was exactly in point. And^^rv Aldcrson B.: 

 '' Tlie Tery circumstance that tlie contract exceeds the year brings it 

 within the statute. If it were not so, contracts for any number of years 

 might be made by parol, provided they contain a defeasance, which 

 might come into operation before the end of the first year. The reason 

 for the enactment was tliat there might be no dispute beyond the year as 

 to the terms of the contract. Bccston v. Colhjer was the case of a yearly 

 hiring. There was a contract to be performed within the year, and that 

 might lead to another, which the parties might or might not make for a 

 year. If they did enter into it after the first or any subsequent year, 

 it was a fresh contract ; but when once the contract exceeds the year, 

 the circumstance that it is defeasible will not make it other than a 

 contract for more than a year. See the absurdity of holding otherwise : 

 at the end of two years and a-half, one of the parties might claim a 

 right to put an end to a parol contract for five years, by giving three 

 months' notice ; but the very dispute might be whether or not he had a 

 right to give such notice. That shows that this is a contract within the 

 statute." 



In the case oi Banks v. Crossland, 10 L. E. Q. B. 97, by parol hiring 

 on the 11th Xovember, respondent agreed to serve appellant for one year 

 from November 23rd. Respondent did not enter his service, and an 

 information was taken out under 30 & 31 Vict. c. 141, by s. 3 of which 

 nothing in this Act shall apply to any contract of service other than a 

 contract within the meaning of the enactment of the first schedule of 

 tills Act, or some or one of them. By 4 Geo. IV. c. 34, s. 3 (which is in 

 the schedule), proceedings can be taken against a servant in husbandry 

 who has not entered into his service, only if the contract be in writing 

 signed by the parties to it. Held that no proceedings could be taken 

 against respondent under the Act 1867; also that as the contract was 

 not to be performed witliin the year, and was not in writing ; section 4 

 of the Statute of Frauds would have prevented the enforcing the 

 contract. 



By a parol agreement the defendant in Collis v. Botthamley agreed 

 with the plaintiir to serve him for a year from a future day, and that 

 the service thenceforth should continue subject to be determined by 

 three months' notice. After the expiration of the year the defendant 

 quitted the plaintiff's service without notice, and the Court of Exchequer 

 held that the jtlaintiff' might maintain an action for this breach of their 

 agreement, notwithstanding the Statute of Frauds. And ^mr Watson B. : 

 *' After the exjiiration of the year a fresh contract arose." 



"Where A on July 20th made proposals in writing (unsigned) to B to 



