Eight witnesses were called for the defence.  Ann James, who washed for the family, stated that before Mr. Blandy’s illness there was “a difference between Elizabeth Binfield and Miss Blandy, and Binfield was to go away.”  After Mary’s removal to Oxford gaol (Saturday, 17th August), the witness heard Betty one day in the kitchen make use of the unparliamentary language already quoted.  Mary Banks deposed that she was present at the time, and heard the words spoken.  “It was the night Mr. Blandy was opened” (Thursday, 15th August); she was sure of that; Miss Blandy was then in the house.  Betty Binfield, recalled and confronted with this evidence, persisted in her denial, but admitted the existence of “a little quarrel” with her mistress.  Edward Herne, Mary’s old admirer, gave her a high character as an affectionate, dutiful daughter.  He was in the house as often as four times a week and never heard her swear an oath or speak a disrespectful word of her father.  In cross-examination the witness admitted that in August, 1750, Miss Blandy told him that Cranstoun had put powder in her father’s tea.  He had visited her in prison, and on one occasion, a report having reached her that “the Captain was taken,” she wrung her hands and said, “I hope in God it is true, that he may be brought to justice as well as I, and that he may suffer the punishment due to his crime, as I shall do for mine.”  Here for the first time the prisoner intervened.  Her questions were directed to bring out that she had told Herne on the occasion mentioned that no “damage” resulted upon Cranstoun’s use of the powder, from which fact she inferred its effects harmless, and that the “suffering” spoken of by her had reference to her imprisonment, though guiltless.  For the rest, Thomas Cawley and Thomas Staverton, friends of Mr. Blandy for upwards of twenty years, spoke to the happy relations which to their knowledge subsisted between father and daughter.  On her last visit to Staverton’s house, Mary had remarked that, although her father “had many wives laid out for him,” he would not marry till she was “settled.”  Mrs. Davis, the landlady of the Angel, and Robert Stoke, the officer who took the prisoner into custody, said that Miss Blandy did not then appear to them to be attempting night.  This concluded the exculpatory evidence.  For the defence, Mr. Ford protested against the “unjustifiable and illegal methods” used to prejudice his client, such as the publication of the proceedings at the inquest, and, particularly, the “very scandalous reports” concerning her, circulated since her commitment, to refute which he proposed to call “the reverend gentleman who had attended her,” Parson Swinton.  The Court, however, held that there was no need to do so, as the jury would entirely disregard anything not deposed to in Court.  Mr. Bathurst replying for the Crown, maintained that it was proved to demonstration that Francis Blandy died of poison, put in his gruel upon the 5th of August by the prisoner’s hand,