The principal issues here are, on the first count, whether the statute of frauds (R. L., c. 383, s. 2) bars the plaintiff's action, and on the second count, whether certain evidence was erroneously admitted.
The plaintiff herself testified that she made an oral agreement for one year's employment with Romeo J. Champagne, the president of the defendant corporation "about . . . June 29, 1951...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.
