In the case of
Mark it is noticeable that no sentence to the gibbet appears in the
record, and I have found no order for it, or mention of it, in the
papers on file.

Phillis and Mark were executed at the usual place of execution in
Cambridge; and the following account of the affair is taken from the
Boston "Evening Post," of Sept. 22, 1755:--

"Thursday last, in the Afternoon, _Mark_, a Negro Man, and
_Phillis_, a Negro Woman, both Servants to the late Capt.
_John Codman_, of _Charlestown_, were executed at
_Cambridge_, for poisoning their said Master, as mentioned
in this Paper some Weeks ago. The Fellow was hanged, and the
Woman burned at a Stake about Ten Yards distant from the
Gallows. They both confessed themselves guilty of the Crime
for which they suffered, acknowledged the Justice of their
Sentence, and died very penitent. After Execution, the Body
of _Mark_ was brought down to _Charlestown_ Common, and
hanged in Chains, on a Gibbet erected there for that
Purpose."

Frothingham, in his "History of Charlestown,"[10] quotes this item
from the "Post," and adds, from Dr. Josiah Bartlett's account of
Charlestown,[11] that "the place where Mark was suspended in irons was
on the northerly side of Cambridge Road, about one fourth of a mile
above our peninsula." He also adds, from the same authority, that
"Phebe, who was the most culpable," became evidence against the
others, and that she was transported to the West Indies.

[Footnote 10: Page 264.]

[Footnote 11: 2 Mass. Hist. Coll., vol. ii. p. 166, and note.]

It is very likely that Phebe was transported, as described by Dr.
Bartlett, but there is nothing on record to show that she was used as
a principal witness. Indeed, the answers of Phillis and Mark on their
examination are mutually recriminative, and amount to a plenary
confession of the crime of each. Besides, as neither the governor nor
the court had any authority to grant a pardon for murder,[12] it is
not likely that any favor was shown to her in accordance with a
promise from either, nor is there any evidence that any lenity was
actually extended to her, except the negative circumstance that she
was not included in the indictment.

[Footnote 12: See Hutchinson's Hist. Mass. Bay, vol. iii. p. 287, n.
Instances of pardons and reprieves occur in our judicial history, but
they were invariably granted in the name of the king, by the
commander