The loose-paper ORIGINAL probate file of Elias Van Court Sr of Piscataway — NJSA File 2413-2421L: the will's last leaf carrying his own signature and the three witnesses, the estate inventory, and the executors' autographs — "Daniell Cooper" among them.

What this document records

Three readings were wrong and are withdrawn

A 2026-09-01 crop re-read under RULE ZERO-B overturned three readings this entry had carried since 2026-05-26, and each had grown a conclusion on top of it. All three came from a signature block read at whole-page scale. ① "Ana B Vancourt" is not a middle initial. The block reads "Ann ⟨her mark⟩ VanCourt" — the word her sits above the glyph and mark below it, the standard clerical formula. The bold B-shaped stroke IS the mark. A 12× zoom on 2026-06-20 had "confirmed the B" — correctly, as a letterform — because the crop was tight enough to exclude the two words framing it. ⇒ the whole "what does the B stand for — Brown? Bayley? Britton?" line of inquiry is void; corrected on Anne (Cooper) Van Court. ② Moses Van Court signed, not Elias Jr. The block reads Ann (by mark) · Moses van Court · Daniell Cooper, braced together as Exrs — exactly the three executors the will names. The entry's title was corrected to Moses on 2026-06-20 but its body was not, so a fabricated puzzle survived: three lettered hypotheses about whether Elias Jr had stood in for an absent Moses. There was never a discrepancy. ③ The signature reads "Daniell Cooper", with an unambiguous double-l — not the "Daniel Cooper or possibly Daniel Coopere, final letter ambiguous" the entry recorded. That is the spelling Honeyman's abstract [A.16] prints, now confirmed from the autograph.

The testator signed his own name

ELIAS VAN COURT SIGNED IN HIS OWN HAND. Folio 2413 carries a fluent cursive "Elias Vancourt" below the attestation clause, read at 5×. This refutes a standing catalog statement. Elias Van Court Sr recorded "Signed by mark (Elias was illiterate, used X mark; consistent with Guernsey-origin first-generation immigrant)" — and the reasoning built on it goes with it. There is no mark anywhere on this leaf.

The eighth page was never opened

Folio 2421 — PDF page index 7 — is the leaf this entry most needed, and it was recorded as not existing. It carries the carried sum £217:1[4], the £40:0:8 of outstanding debts "Taken out of the Book of ye Elias VCourt Decd", the £257:14:1 subtotal, the £258:16:1 grand total, and the darkest, clearest impression of all three signatures. What the entry transcribed as "page 7 = folio 2421" was in fact folio 2420.

The register copy belongs to a12

THE SAME NJSA ORDER DELIVERED A SECOND PDF — a scan of Liber E pp. 449-451 — and that document is [A.12]'s, not this entry's. Per the same_instrument source hierarchy, each rendering is catalogued once. ⇒ the register-copy readings, including the corrected daughter list, were moved to [A.12] on 2026-09-01. And that PDF's first page is Liber E p. 449, not p. 450 — this entry recorded the will's opening page as missing and raised a follow-up to hunt for it. It was page one.

The daughter conflict did not exist

THE "CONFLICT WITH HONEYMAN" OVER THE FOUR DAUGHTERS WAS A MISREADING, NOT A CONFLICT. This entry reported Liber E as naming "Ann Ester Elizabeth and Mary" against [A.16] Honeyman's "Agness, Jane, Ann, Elizabeth", and Elias Van Court Sr carried it as an unresolved question about a possible fifteenth child. At 4× the register plainly reads "to my four Daughters viz: To my Daughter Agness the Sum of five Pound. To my Daughter Jane the Sum of five pound", continuing overleaf with Ann and Elizabeth. ⇒ Honeyman was right all along, and neither Ester nor Mary is in the document. Corrected at [A.12] and Elias Van Court Sr.

What it still does establish

The entry's central value is undamaged, and is now firmer. A Daniell Cooper autograph of 1750 exists, on the original paper, signed without a mark alongside the widow who used one. The will's "my brother in Law Daniel Cooper" clause is on the register copy [A.12]; what this file adds is the hand.

The comparison is still blocked

AND IT STILL CANNOT BE COMPARED, FOR A REASON THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS FILE. Matching this hand to Daniel Cooper Sr Daniel Cooper Sr needs a second exemplar, and [A.8] has none usable: the 1791 will signature is destroyed by an ink blot, and the 1792 codicil signature is cut by a fold, leaving "Danl". ⇒ the bottleneck is a mid-life Daniel Sr exemplar, not this document. Until then the identification of the signer rests on the "brother in Law" clause and the Anne (Cooper) Van Court argument, not on handwriting.