1907. 
THE RURAL NEW-YORKER 
139 
CORROBORATED TESTIMONY FOR THE 
A. J. C. C. 
A new and important addition is now made- to the 
history of that famous Jersey cattle case. We under¬ 
stand that a suggestion was made to Mr. Rogers that 
the reason why the investigation was not made was be¬ 
cause his affidavit was not corroborated. He has now 
sent to the club the following documents. First comes 
a statement by Mr. Rogers to show that the cattle in 
question are the ones lie purchased from Mr. Daw- 
ley. It ; s also intended to show that the animals ex¬ 
amined by Dr. Barber and Mr. Hunt are the ones over 
which the trouble has arisen. 
The Statement by Mr. Rogers. 
State of New York, 
County of Livingston, 
[ss. 
Isaac C. Itogers does solemnly affirm as follows: that lie 
resi. es in Sparta, Livingston County, New York, and that 
tin or about Eleventh Month ‘.list, 1805 (Nov. 21st, 19051, 
deponent purchased of F. E. Hawley of Fayetteville, 
( nom.aga County, New York, for the Rogers Nurseries, 
ten head of Jersey Cattle, all of which cattle said Pawley 
claimed were Registered with the American Jersey Cattle 
Club. That the said Pawley did afterward furnish registry 
papers and pedigrees for ten head, which papers were 
claimed by said Pawley, to be the proper papers for the 
animals hereinbefore mentioned. 
Deponent further says that the names and ages as shown 
by the said papers, which the said Pawley furnished for 
these ten head of Registered Jersey Cattle did not agree 
with the names and ages as represented by the said Paw¬ 
ley at the time of purchase; that deponent was unable to 
Identify ail of the said animals by the names and ages 
given in the said papers, and so notified the said Pawley. 
Deponent further says that on or about Fourth Month 
18th, 1900 (April 18, 1900) the said Pawley came to the 
deponent's barn. That deponent asked the said Pawley 
to gives the names for the said cattle hereinbefore men¬ 
tioned. That the said Pawley positively refused to give 
the names for the said cattle. That afterwords dur¬ 
ing the same visit by the said Pawley to the farm of the 
said Rogers, deponent placed name tags on a part of these 
particular animals. That the said Pawley admitted that 
deponent had placed the name tags correctly, excepting 
that in the case of two of these particular animals the 
said Pawley finally gave the same name, first for one 
and then for another and left without making any further 
attempt to straighten out the tangle, or properly identify 
these two animals. 
And deponent further says that on or about Fourth 
Month 25th, 190G (April 25, 1996) deponent had the left 
ear of each of the females of the before mentioned cattle, 
purchased from the said Pawley, marked with indelible 
tattoo. That a certain cow which was tagged when 
received from the said Pawley with the name of Kitty 
!>' A (Park Cow), was numbered 03 in her left ear. That 
another one of these particular cattle purchased from the 
said Pawley, which animal was tagged when received from 
the said Pawley with the name of Dotshome Harmony, 
was marked in the left ear with the number 04. That a 
certain heifer, with rings in her nose, referred to in con¬ 
tract, showing terms of purchase for this particular animal 
from the said Pawley as Dotshome Queen Carey, and after¬ 
ward, on Fourth Month 18tli, 1906, identified by the name 
of Dotshome Queen Carey by the said Dawley; was marked 
59 in her left ear. That another one of the same lot of 
cattle, purchased from the said Dawley, a heifer, and this 
particular heifer was identified by the said Dawley on 
Fourth Month 18tli, 1906 as Dotshome Helen Stanley, was 
marked 56 in her left ear. 
And deponent further says that on First Month 30th, 
1907, (January 30tli, 1907) he was present when the ani¬ 
mals above particularly mentioned and marked 03, 04, 59 
and 56 were examined by Pr. Samuel Barber of the town 
of Sparta, Livingston County, New York. That the said 
Pr. Barber saw and referred to tin* numbers in (lie ears 
of each of these particular animals without reference to 
rn.v names or numbers under which they were registered 
by the American Jersey Cattle Club. That the particular 
animals hereinbefore mentioned as being marked numbers 
03, 04, 56 and 59 in their left ears with indelible tattoo, 
were the same animals as examined by tlx* said Pr. Bar¬ 
ber, and referred to by him in his affidavit furnished here¬ 
with as numbers 03, 04. 56 and 59. 
And deponent further says that the said cow marked 
03, now stands registered as Dotshome Matilda Naiad 
191403, dropped Eighth Month 30th. 1903 (Aug. 30. 1903), 
making her ai this time Second Month 2nd, 1907, less than 
3 1-2 years old. That the said registry papers furnished 
by the said Pawley for this particular animal do not 
agree with the animal in either age or name. 
And deponent further says that the particular animal 
marked 04, was tagged when received from the said Paw¬ 
ley with the name of Dotshome Harmony, and afterward 
identified by the said Pawley; that tin* registry papers for 
the said Dotshome Harmony show her number to be 
193207, and recorded as dropped Twelfth Month 10th, 1908 
(Pec. 10, 1903). That the registry papers do not agree 
with tiie age of this particular animal. 
And deponent further says that he has watched the 
development of the teeth of the two particular animals, 
heifers, designated as and marked numbers 56 and 59. 
That during the early part of Eleventh Month 1906 the 
animal marked number 59 shed her last pair of milk teeth 
and began cutting her Iasi pair of permanent incisors. 
That at this time Second Month 2nd, 1907 (Feb. 2nd, 1907) 
the animal marked 56 is just shedding her Iasi pair of 
milk teeth and cutting her last pair of permanent incisors. 
That both 56 and 59 show the same development of the 
horn and that in tlir- opinion of deponent it is impossible 
that these two particular aninuus marked numbers 56 and 
59 be full sisters. That the registry papers for either 
or both of these animals therefore cannot be correct. 
And deponent further says that he was present when 
the animals above particularly referred to as numbers 03, 
04. 56 and 59 were examined by Chester I. Hunt of the 
town of Portage, Livingston Co., New York, on Second 
Month 2nd, 1907 (Feb. 2, 1907) during his visit to the 
deponent’s farm. That the said Hunt saw and referred 
to the numbers in the left ears of these* particular animals 
marked numbers 03, 04. 56 and 59, and that they are the 
same animals referred to by the said Hunt in his affi¬ 
davit as 03, 04, 56 and 59. 
Affirmed before me this 2nd day 
of February. 1907. isaac c. Rogers. 
Sereno F. Adams, 
Notary Public. 
The Age of the Cows. 
The following statements need little comment. Dr. 
Barber and Mr. Hunt swear to the ages of the cattle 
and Mr. Hunt gives further facts which seem to leave 
the A. J. C. C. no further excuse for refusing the inves¬ 
tigation. 
State of New York, 1 
( ss 
County of Livingston, >' * 
Samuel Barber being duly sworn says that lie is a veteri¬ 
nary surgeon, residing and practicing his profession in 
the town of Sparta, Liv. Co., N. Y. and that he has been 
a practicing veterinary surgeon for upwards of twenty- 
five years last past. 
Deponent further says that ho was called to examine 
certain Jersey Cattle at the farm of Isaac C. Rogers, in 
Sparta, Liv. Co., N. Y. on January 30th, 1907; and that 
in his opinion as a judge of the age of cattle the cow 
marked in car number 03 is at least eight years old; and 
that the cow marked in ear number o4 is at least six (6) 
years old. 
And deponent further says that he also examined two 
young cows marked in ear, one number 56 and the other 
number 59; that he considers the cow marked number 59 is 
from three to six months older than the cow marked number 
56, and that it would be an impossibility for these two 
animals marked 56 and 59 to be full sisters. 
Sworn to before me this 2nd day 
of February, 1907. SAMDEL barber, v. s. 
Sereno F. Adams, 
Notary Public. 
State of New York, 1 t 
County of Livingston, > 
Chester I. Hunt being duly sworn says, that he has 
been a breeder of ^Registered Jersey Cattle for upwards 
of 12 years last past, that he resides in the town of 
Portage. Livingston County, New York; that in or about 
the month of February, 1906 he went to the farm of Isaac 
C. Rogers in Sparta, Livingston County, New York, to 
examine certain Jersey Cattle which the said Rogers stated 
In deponent that he had bought of F. E. Dawley of Fay¬ 
etteville, Onondaga County, New York. That he did 
examine.a certain cow which the said Rogers claimed he 
had bought in this particular lot of cattle from the said 
Pawley, and which particular cow the said Rogers stated 
was marked Kitty P’ A (Park Cow) when received from 
the said Pawley. That at that time deponent considered 
tl»is particular cow to be at least seven years old. 
And deponent further says that he examined at the 
same time another cow from this particular lot Of cattle 
purchased from the said Pawley, which the said Rogers 
Stated to deponent was marked Dotshome Harmony when 
received from the said Pawley. That he considered this 
particular animal at that time to be at least four or live 
years old. 
And deponent further says that on February 2nd, 1907. 
lie was again called to the farm of the said Rogers to 
examine cattle hereinbefore mentioned. That he did ex¬ 
amine a certain cow marked in left ear with indelible 
tattoo with the number 03. That deponent considers this 
particular cow marked 03 to be at least 8 years old at 
this time (Feb. 2, 1907). That this particular cow marked 
03 is the same cow which deponent examined when on 
ids previous visit to the farm of the said Rogers during 
the month of February, 1906, and which particular cow 
was then claimed by the said Rogers to have been marked 
Kitty P’ A (Park Cow), when received from the said 
Pawley. 
And deponent further says that during this particular 
visit to the farm of the said Rogers on February 2nd, 
1907, that he .did examine another cow marked in left ear 
with indelible tattoo with the number 04. That in the 
opinion of deponent, this particular cow number 04 is at 
least six years old. 
And deponent further says that during this particular 
visit to tiie farm of the said Rogers on February 2nd, 
1907. that he did examine two other young cows, one 
numbered 56 and the other numbered 59 in the left ear of 
each. That in the opinion of the deponent, both of these 
animals are past 4 years old, but that the particular 
animal marked number 59 is but a few months older than 
tiie animal marked number 56, and that it would be 
impossible for these two animals numbered 56 and 59 to 
be full sisters. 
And deponent further says that on or about April 18th, 
1906, he met F. E Pawley of Fayetteville, Onondaga 
County. New York, at the farm of the said Rogers. That 
the said Rogers asked the said Dawley to give the names 
of the cattle, which the said Dawley has sold to the said 
Rogers. That tin- said Pawley did then and there posi¬ 
tively refuse to give tiie names of the said cattle. That 
afterward during this same visit on April 18th, 1906. as 
the said Rogers placed tiie name tag on a part of these 
particular cattle, the said Pawley admitted that the said 
Rogers had placed the said name tags aright: excepting 
that in the case of two of these particular animals tiie 
said Pawley finally gave the same name, first for one and 
then for the other, and left without making any attempt 
to straighten out the tangle. 
WHO IS RIGHT “1 
ABOUT THE BEST 
CREAM SEPAR ATORP 
Every cream separator manufacturer, old and new alike, 
claims that his separator is oetter than any other WHO IS 
RIGHT ? Who can honestly make such a claim ? We will leave 
the answer to you hut wish to submit a few facts for your con¬ 
sideration. The I)E LAVAL machine was the original separator 
and it has been manufactured for twenty-eight years, twice as 
long as any other machine. The world’s best inventors and 
mechanics have been constantly work ug and trying to better 
it and thousands of dollars have been spent annually in this 
effort. The L)E LAVAL has for many years been thori.ugnl/ 
tested, tried and used in every civilized country in the world 
and under every conceivable condition. Over 800,000 have been 
sold to date, seve al times all other makes combined. From 
these tests and exper ences the DE LAVAL experts have 
learned what a cream separator must be to be called BEST. 
The UE LAVAL machine of to-day represents this knowledge. 
Every feature of its construction is the result of years of study 
and practical experience an 1 the expenditure of vast sums of 
money. Nothing has been left undone that would help to make 
and keep the 1)E LAVAL the BEST of all sepa ators. No 
separator built to-day contains any feature whatever, not used 
in the DE LAVAL, which has Lot at some time or other been 
tried out by the DE LAVAL experts and cast aside for something 
better in the pre ent DE LAVAL construction Consider these 
facts well, consult every experienced separator user you can, 
learn all that is possible about cream separators and then tell us 
WHO you think is RIGHT. Meanwhile send for a DE Lfi VAL 
catalog of separator facts and reasons, to be had for the asking. 
The De Laval Separator Co. 
Randolph & Canal Streets 
CHICAGO 
1213 & 1215 Filbert Street 
PHILADELPHIA 
Drumm & Sacramento Sts. 
SAN FRANCISCO 
General Offices: 
74 Cortlandt St. 
NEW YORK. 
173-177 William Street 
MONTREAL 
14 & 16 Princess Street 
WINNIPEG 
107 First Street 
PORTLAND, OREG. 
Free Homesteads 
SPECIAL TRAINS 
Leave Syracuse, N.Y. 
MARCH 19th 
For MANITOBA, SASKATCHEWAN and 
ALBERTA HOMESTEADS 
A Canadian Government Representative will 
accompany this train through to destination 
For Certificates entitling to Cheap Rates Literature and all 
particulars, apply to Supt. of Immigration, Ottawa, Can., or 
THOS. DUNCAN, Canadian Govt. Agt. Syracuse CankBldg.,Syracuse,N.Y. 
