Clara May Crowfoot

Clara May Crowfoot died from shock due to violence.

A woman was tried but acquitted.

Clara Crowfoot had been born on 26 June 1919 at Exeter and was an illegitimate child and when she was 2 month's old she was brought to Ipswich by her mother and then transferred, with her mother's consent to the care of a woman who kept her until February 1921.

The woman that took care of the child said she was perfectly healthy and well whilst she was with her, describing her as a robust  and hearty baby in every way.

At the end of January 1921, the woman that was tried for her murder, who lived in Langford, had advertised that she wished to take in a child to bring up with her own. Clara Crowfoot's mother saw the advert, and as she was paying £2 a month for her maintenance, and that the woman was willing to take her in for nothing, she took Clara Crowfoot to her on 5 February 1921.

The woman had already had a child of her own, aged 6, and told Clara Crowfoot's mother that she wanted a child to be a companion for her daughter, noting that her husband, who was a coal porter, was out all day at work.

It was noted that the woman had asked for no money to take Clara Crowfoot in and was doing it out of love.

At that time Clara Crowfoot was healthy and well, and her mother didn't see her again until she was dead although she sent her small presents from time to time.

Everything seemed to be all right with Clara Crowfoot until about two or three months later when neighbours started to notice bruises on her.

In November 1921 Clara Crowfoot appeared very much marked and bruised and on 26 November 1921, a doctor was summoned, at which time she was described as being one mass of sores and bruises, which it was considered must have been the result of direct violence.

Clara Crowfoot died later the same day.

The medical evidence showed that her death was due to shock caused by external violence.

The woman said that Clara Crowfoot had had dirty habits and that she had not been unduly ill-treated, but the doctor's evidence indicated that the marks on her body were far in excess of what might be caused by any normal correction.

In evidence, the neighbours said that they had heard the sounds of blows being administered, and the child screaming, and it was suggested that Clara Crowfoot had then been severely beaten. It was further noted that there had been a dividing room as well as the wall between the neighbours and the room in which Clara Crowfoot had slept.

With regards to the motive, the judge stated that it was not for the prosecution to find a motive, only to prove the facts, but suggested that the woman might have found Clara Crowfoot was more trouble than she had thought or hoped it would be, noting that there was no direct benefit to be got from Clara Crowfoot's death so far as insurance was concerned, it being noted that the woman had taken three insurance policies out on her own child and an endowment on Clara Crowfoot, which would have meant she would get £20 at a certain age or, upon her natural death, the guardian would receive four-fifths of the premiums paid, which in her case would be about £1 or £1 10s.

When the judge summed up, he said that the sole question was whether the woman had ill-treated and assaulted Clara Crowfoot wilfully or whether she might have bruised herself by falling about because of weakness of her legs. The judge noted that there was such a thing as a woman showing affection for a child at one time and losing her temper over it at another, and said that the jury had to consider whether that had been the case.

The judge added that if they were satisfied that the woman had ill-treated the child, but that that had not been the cause of death, that they could find the woman guilty of a lesser offence under the Children Act, that of wilful ill-treatment.

After a retirement the jury found the woman not guilty of manslaughter, but guilty of wilful ill-treatment, and she was sentenced to 6 months' hard labour.