New Jersey state return of births, register page 351, line 24 - an unnamed Cooper child born 2/13 at "O.", father Cooper Sam'l 28 clerk, mother Beere[s] Lula 27. DGS 4209861, THE SAME PAGE at images 374 and 383.

What this document records

Record

One line of a New Jersey state return of births - a ruled register listing births by place, date, child, father, mother and the mother's childbearing totals.

Line 24 as written: place

O.

Line 24 as written: month

2

Line 24 as written: day

13

Line 24 as written: child name

[BLANK - no name is entered]

Line 24 as written: sex column

a single tally mark in the first of the paired columns

Line 24 as written: father

Cooper Sam'l

Line 24 as written: father age

28

Line 24 as written: father occupation

Clerk

Line 24 as written: mother

Beere[s] Lula

Line 24 as written: mother age

27

Line 24 as written: children born

4

Line 24 as written: children living

4

Context lines read: note

Read across both frames to establish that they are the same page. A sample:

Context lines read: line 11

Currie George 45 Tin-smith / Lattemann Mary 36 / 5 5

Context lines read: line 19

Cooper D.S 25 Store Kpr / Meltinger Emma 21 / 1 1

Context lines read: line 25

Cyphers Daniel 48 R.R. Conductor / Varner Martha 38 / 10 10

Context lines read: line 32

Case Harry 24 / Chidester Luella 20 / 2 2

Reading notes: images 374 and 383 are the same page and that settles it

Every line matches across the two frames - the same thirty-odd households in the same order with the same ages and the same childbearing totals. CHECKED MECHANICALLY, not by eye alone: the two page regions were aligned and differenced pixel by pixel. Best mean absolute difference 6.68 on a 0-255 scale, at an offset of 3px horizontally and 1px vertically, with only 1.5% of pixels differing by more than 40. Two different register pages, written in different hands with different names, could not produce that; the residual is scan noise and the slightly different viewer scaling. So this is ONE RETURN PHOTOGRAPHED TWICE on the reel, nine frames apart, and indexed from each frame - which is exactly the "duplicate re-shot frames do happen on these reels" possibility the trip prep raised, with [A.176] as precedent.

Reading notes: which confirms p175 and means there is no extra son

Samuel Jones Cooper had concluded the two index rows were one return indexed twice, and [D.665] supported it - Lulu is "4 children born, 4 living" in June 1900 with all four named, leaving no room for a son Samuel. The conclusion was reached BEFORE anyone had the image numbers, and the prep flagged that nine frames apart is not obviously one page. It is one page. The conclusion stands, now on direct evidence rather than on inference from a census. The line's own "4 children born / 4 living" says the same thing from the other direction: this birth is one of the four, not a fifth.

Reading notes: the child is unnamed on the register which explains both index rows

The child's name column on line 24 is EMPTY. That is why one index row reads "Not Shown Cooper". The other reads "Samuel Cooper" - which is the FATHER's name, the indexer having taken the only Cooper forename on the line. Neither row attests a child called Samuel, and the register attests no given name at all.

Reading notes: the place is o and the volume title is misleading

The place column holds a single letter "O." The sibling return on the other reel ([F.380] / DGS 4209196 image 362) is indexed with its original place as "O., Warren", so "O." is read as OXFORD, WARREN CO. That reading comes from the sibling record, not from this page, and is flagged accordingly. It matters because the FamilySearch viewer titles this volume "Monmouth Birth Registers 1898-1899" and the standardised event place on the index rows reads "Monmouth, New Jersey". The trip prep warned to ignore that, and the place column bears the warning out.

Reading notes: the year is not on the line

The line gives month 2 and day 13 and no year; the volume spans 1898-1899, so the birth is 13 February 1898 OR 1899. The index says "1898 or 1899" for the same reason. NOT narrowed here.

Reading notes: the mother is lula not lulu

The register reads "Lula", and the surname reads "Beere" with a terminal flourish that may or may not be an s. The catalog carries her as Lulu Beers. Recorded as written; no correction is asserted from a single clerk's hand.

What this document does not say

No given name for the child, no year, no exact place beyond the abbreviation, no parents' birthplaces, no street, and nothing identifying which of the four children this birth is.