## Facts

- Dickinson was an elected member of the New York City Board of Aldermen.
- Antonio Covino had been discharged from the Department of Street Cleaning.
- John Woodbury, the Street Cleaning Commissioner, wrote that Covino’s dismissal would be reconsidered if the Board approved additional funding for the department.
- A funding measure was pending before the Board that would authorize additional funds (including through corporate stock issuance).
- Dickinson wrote that he would vote to help secure the additional funds if Covino were reinstated.
- Dickinson did not dispute the authenticity of the letters; he argued the correspondence did not, as a matter of law, amount to bribery.
- A magistrate held Dickinson to bail and ordered him to appear in the Court of General Sessions on a bribery charge under New York Penal Code § 72.
- Dickinson sought habeas corpus, challenging the sufficiency of the complaint and the legality of his commitment; relief was denied, and he appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether an agreement by a public official to cast an official vote in exchange for reinstatement of a discharged employee constitutes acceptance (or agreement to accept) a “bribe” or “valuable consideration” under New York Penal Code § 72.
2. Whether the complaint and the evidence before the magistrate established legal sufficiency and probable cause to justify holding Dickinson to bail and requiring appearance in the trial court, precluding habeas corpus discharge.

## Decision

- The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of habeas corpus relief.
- The court held that the alleged quid pro quo—an alderman’s vote in exchange for Covino’s reinstatement—fell within Penal Code § 72’s reach.
- The court concluded the complaint was not void for failure to allege a crime and that the committing magistrate acted within lawful authority.
- Dickinson’s commitment to bail and order to appear in General Sessions were sustained.

## Legal Principles

- Under Penal Code § 72, a bribe or “thing of value” is not limited to money or property and may include nonmonetary benefits offered as consideration for official action.
- An official’s agreement to perform an official act based on an understanding of reciprocal benefit may satisfy the statute even if the official receives no direct pecuniary gain.
- On habeas corpus challenging a pretrial commitment, the reviewing court addresses legal sufficiency and jurisdictional validity, not guilt or innocence; where the allegations and supporting proof show probable cause of an offense, discharge is improper.

## Conclusion

The court held that an alderman’s written agreement to vote for a pending funding measure in exchange for the reinstatement of a discharged employee could constitute bribery because the reinstatement was a “thing of value” under the statute, and it therefore upheld the pretrial commitment and denied habeas corpus relief.


People ex rel. Dickinson v. Van De Carr, 87 A.D. 386 (N.Y. App. Div. 1903)