Document F.380 · birth register · transcription: verbatim
New Jersey state return of births, register vol. 51 p. 344, line 141 - an unnamed Cooper child born 9/30, father Cooper Sam'l 28 book keeper, mother Beers Lulu 25. DGS 4209196 image 362.
- repository
- FamilySearch, DGS 4209196, film 0494233, image 362 of 400. Index places the birth at 30 Sep 1895 with the original place "O., Warren".
- collection
- New Jersey, Births and Christenings, 1660-1980
- date
- 1895-09-30
People named
| As written | Role | Identified as | What this document says |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cooper Saml | head | Samuel Jones Cooper 1869–1951 | occupation: 30 Sep 1895, Book keeper |
| Beers Lulu | spouse | Lulu (Beers) Cooper 1869–1958 candidate | |
| [unnamed] | child | Margery (Cooper) Snyder 1895–1984 candidate |
What this document records
Record
One line of a New Jersey state return of births.
Line 141 as written: place
" (ditto of the line above)
Line 141 as written: month
9
Line 141 as written: day
30
Line 141 as written: child name
[BLANK - no name is entered]
Line 141 as written: sex column
a single tally mark
Line 141 as written: father
Cooper Saml
Line 141 as written: father age
28
Line 141 as written: father occupation
Book Kpr.
Line 141 as written: mother
Beers [ditto marks] Lulu
Line 141 as written: mother age
25
Line 141 as written: children born
2
Line 141 as written: children living
2
Neighbouring lines read: line 140
Cunningham Theodore 21 Farmer / Beers Fannie 20 / 1 1
Neighbouring lines read: line 142
Cooper Fred 45 Engineer / Johnston Elizabeth 33 / 1 1
Reading notes: the fathers age question is answered and the index is not at fault
The trip prep said "Read the father's age - the index says 28 where this man was 26." THE REGISTER ITSELF SAYS 28, read at 4x. So the index copied the page faithfully; whatever is wrong is wrong on the register, put there by the clerk or the informant. AND IT IS DEMONSTRABLY UNRELIABLE, because the same man is ALSO recorded as 28 on [F.379], a return of February 1898 or 1899 - the same age two or three years later. At least one of the two is wrong, and nothing in either document says which. Ages on these returns should not be used to date this man. The mother's ages are consistent by contrast: 25 here, 27 at [F.379].
Reading notes: the child is unnamed here too
The child's name column is empty, exactly as on [F.379]. The index supplies "unnamed female". Both of this couple's returns on these two reels therefore record a birth without recording a name, which is worth knowing before anyone hunts for a named birth record.
Reading notes: the childbearing totals track between the two returns
2 born / 2 living here in Sep 1895; 4 born / 4 living at [F.379] in Feb 1898 or 1899; and 4 born / 4 living in the June 1900 census [D.665], with all four named. The sequence is coherent and leaves no room for an additional child - which is the same conclusion [F.379]'s duplicate-frame finding reaches from the other direction.
Reading notes: a second beers woman on the line above
Line 140 is "Cunningham Theodore 21 Farmer / BEERS FANNIE 20", and line 141's mother is written "Beers" with ditto marks before "Lulu" - i.e. the clerk dittoed the surname from the line immediately above. Two Beers women, in the same place, recorded consecutively. A SISTER IS THE OBVIOUS GUESS AND IT IS NOT ASSERTED. The register says only that both were born Beers. Carried as a todo on Lulu (Beers) Cooper.
What this document does not say
No given name for the child, no sex in words, no parents' birthplaces, no place beyond a ditto mark, and no indication of which of the couple's children this is.