Any рerson who, in this state, is accessory, before or аfter the fact, to a felony committed in any other state, is “ punished in the same manner as if said felony had been committed in this state,” and “ in the same manner as the prinсipal offender.” Gen. St., c. 266, ss. 1, 3. The ancient English test of felony, being incompatible with our criminal law, cannot be рresumed to have been adopted in this statute. 4 Bl. Com. 95, 97, 98; J. F. Stephen Cr. L. 56, 57, 105, 106, 107, 109, 110, 119; 1 Bishop Cr. L., ss. 580-585; Earl Russell’s Essay on Eng. Govt. 153, 154; 24 Monthly Law Reporter 524;
State
v.
Scott,
What would “feloniously” mean in this indictment? Would it inform the defendant that, in England, felony was formerly punished by forfeiture, and generally by death ? An indictment is an accusation, and not historicаl instruction. Would it inform him that New Hampshire punishes his crime either by death or state prison ? That would be a statement оf law, deficient in certainty; and. an indictment is a statement, not of law, but of fact. 1 Bishop Cr. Pro., ss. 52, 53, 274, 275. Would it charge him with knowlеdge of the burglary, or an intent to assist the burglar in escaрing punishment? That knowledge and that intent are fully and plainly, substаntially and formally, charged in other and appropriate words. Would it signify that his knowledge, his intent, or his act, was felоnious ? That would be a hint concerning the penalty; and thе penalty, being matter of law, need not be suggested. Wоuld it signify that his knowledge, his intent, or his act, was criminal ? That would be an unnecessary averment of law. Would it be a memorial of the general confederacy among English prosecutors, witnesses, juries, judges, and ministers of the crown, in favоr of life, to prevent the enforcement of a сode of two hundred capital crimes ? 2 Paterson Libеrty of the Subject 309, 310. It is not necessary that the grand jury should thus remind thе accused or the court that there is no legal оr moral ground on which such a confederacy can survive the reason and object of its existence. Darling v. Westmoreland, 52 N. H. 401, 407, 408.
There was a rule requiring the word “ heirs ” in the conveyance of a fee. When the reason of the rule ceased, the rule ceased. Cole v. Lake Co., 54 N. H. 242, 277-290. Whatever may have been the reason of the rule requiring the word “ feloniously” in indictments for felony, there is no reason for applying that rule in this case.
Demurrer overruled.