JWTruth.orgRecurso documentado de comparación
Ask JWTruth Buscar
Español

Esta página en

Solo en inglés

Todos los idiomas

Autoridad y rendición de cuentas · Claim record

El 19 de octubre de 1908 el Tribunal Superior de Pensilvania confirmó la sentencia dictada a partir del veredicto de un jurado a favor de Maria F. Russell contra su marido, por indignidades contra su persona. El tribunal describió la conducta de él como “one of continual arrogant domination”, y concluyó que la había tratado como a una sirvienta delante del servicio doméstico, que había dado a entender que no estaba en su sano juicio y que le había hecho temer que se iniciara un procedimiento para examinar su cordura. La resolución era una separación, no una disolución del matrimonio: el Anuario de 1975 cita sus palabras, que ordenaban que las partes “be separated from bed and board”.

Claim ID claim-authority-russell-v-russell-1908Concerns 19 de octubre de 1908Contexto
Contexto · 19 de octubre de 1908 Verificado

El 19 de octubre de 1908 el Tribunal Superior de Pensilvania confirmó la sentencia dictada a partir del veredicto de un jurado a favor de Maria F. Russell contra su marido, por indignidades contra su persona. El tribunal describió la conducta de él como “one of continual arrogant domination”, y concluyó que la había tratado como a una sirvienta delante del servicio doméstico, que había dado a entender que no estaba en su sano juicio y que le había hecho temer que se iniciara un procedimiento para examinar su cordura. La resolución era una separación, no una disolución del matrimonio: el Anuario de 1975 cita sus palabras, que ordenaban que las partes “be separated from bed and board”. Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 19 de octubre de 19081975 Yearbook of Jehovah's Witnesses, 1975

La posición de la organización o su explicación posterior: El Anuario de 1975 cita el propio relato de Russell: “The decree of the court was not divorce, but separation … My wife's charge was cruelty, but the only cruelty put in evidence was my refusal on one occasion to give her a kiss when she had requested it.” Es cierto que no se concedió un divorcio absoluto; la sentencia publicada describe las pruebas de manera muy distinta.

Mostrar las pruebas (2 fuentes)
Registro público oficial Verificado

Superior Court of Pennsylvania, “Russell v. Russell, Appellant, 37 Pa. Super. 348”

19 de octubre de 1908 · pp.348-354 · Orlady, J. · Superior Court of Pennsylvania

“His course of conduct toward his wife evidenced such insistent egotism and extravagant self-praise that it would be manifest to the jury that his conduct towards her was one of continual arrogant domination, that would necessarily render the life of any sensitive Christian woman a burden and make her condition intolerable. The indignities offered to her in treating her as a menial in the presence of servants, intimating that she was of unsound mind, and that she was under the influence of designing and wicked persons fully warranted her withdrawal from his house, and justified her fear that he intended to further humiliate her by a threat to resort to legal proceedings to test her sanity.”

The appeal (No. 202, April Term 1908) was brought by Charles T. Russell from the decree of the Court of Common Pleas No. 1, Allegheny County (June Term 1903, No. 459), entered on a jury's verdict for Maria F. Russell. The Superior Court affirmed. The opinion also records that Russell said of his wife that “she is a woman of high intellectual qualities and of perfect moral character”, and quotes his own letter: “I conclude that I am adapted to no one, and that no one is adapted to me, except the Lord.”

Copia archivada o alternativa

Nota de procedencia y verificación

Nota de confianza. The full official-reporter text was downloaded and read. The libel charged “indignities to the person”; the reporter’s syllabus is headed “Divorce — Cruel and barbarous treatment — Mental suffering — Evidence”, the head matter records the appeal as being “from decree of C. P. No. 1, Allegheny Co., June T., 1903, No. 459, granting divorce in case of Maria F. Russell, by her next friend, Emma H. Russell, v. Charles T. Russell”, and the opinion speaks of evidence sufficient “to warrant them in finding the facts essential to a lawful dissolution of the marriage tie”. This report does not itself describe the decree as one from bed and board; that wording comes from the decree as quoted in the 1975 Yearbook. The opinion makes no mention of the “jellyfish” testimony or of any allegation of adultery. One OCR break in the reporter’s text (“fully warranted hex-withdrawal from his house”) has been repaired to “her withdrawal” in the quotation above.

Procedencia del escaneo. Caselaw Access Project (Harvard Law School Library) static edition of the official reporter, Pennsylvania Superior Court Reports vol. 37.

Corroborado por. src-ctr-yb-1975-p67-separation

Notes. The head matter records the argument date as 7 May 1908 and the judgment as “Affirmed”, and names the trial judge as MacFarlane, J. The 1975 Yearbook names the trial judge as “Justice Collier”; the discrepancy is unresolved and neither name should be published as settled.

Consultado. 19 de septiembre de 2026 · Identificador de la fuente. src-ctr-pasuper-1908-1019-russell-v-russell

Publicación primaria de los testigos de Jehová Verificado

1975 Yearbook of Jehovah's Witnesses, “Part 1—United States of America”

1975 · pp.67-68 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society

“Without notice, she separated from him in 1897, after nearly eighteen years of marriage. ... In June 1903 Mrs. Russell filed in the Court of Common Pleas at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, a suit for legal separation. During April 1906 the case came up for trial before Justice Collier and a jury. Nearly two years later, on March 4, 1908, a decree was issued that was styled “In Divorce.” The language of the decree is: “It is now ordered, adjudged and decreed that Maria F. Russell, the Libellant; and Charles T. Russell, the Respondent, be separated from bed and board.” ... This was a legalized separation and there never was an absolute divorce, as some erroneously have held.”

The Society's fullest published account of the marriage. It also quotes Russell's own answer given at Dublin in 1911: “I am not divorced from my wife. The decree of the court was not divorce, but separation, granted by a sympathetic jury, which declared that we would both be happier separated. My wife's charge was cruelty, but the only cruelty put in evidence was my refusal on one occasion to give her a kiss when she had requested it.”

Fuente oficial

Nota de procedencia y verificación

Nota de confianza. Opened on the Watchtower Online Library; the page markers 67 and 68 bracket the passage and the document’s citation code is yb75 pp. 34-109. The Yearbook is correct that no absolute divorce was granted, and it is the source of the decree’s own wording. Its characterisation of the evidence differs materially from the Superior Court’s description of that evidence.

Corroborado por. src-ctr-pasuper-1908-1019-russell-v-russell

Consultado. 19 de septiembre de 2026 · Identificador de la fuente. src-ctr-yb-1975-p67-separation

Página de la afirmación Corregir o actualizar

A direct link to this claim is https://jwtruth.org/es/evidence/claim-authority-russell-v-russell-1908/. Every source above opens the original document or the best available copy. If you believe the wording, date or context is wrong, report an error.