JWTruth.orgRecurso documentado de comparação
Ask JWTruth Pesquisar
Português (Brasil)

Esta página em

Somente em inglês

Todos os idiomas

Autoridade e prestação de contas · Claim record

Em 19 de outubro de 1908, o Tribunal Superior da Pensilvânia confirmou a sentença proferida com base no veredicto de um júri a favor de Maria F. Russell contra o marido, pelo fundamento de indignidades à sua pessoa. O tribunal descreveu a conduta dele como “de contínua e arrogante dominação”, e concluiu que ele a tratara como uma serviçal diante dos empregados, insinuara que ela não estava em seu juízo perfeito e a levara a temer um processo para apurar sua sanidade mental. A sentença foi de separação, não de dissolução do casamento: o Anuário de 1975 cita seus termos, que ordenavam que as partes “fossem separadas de cama e mesa”.

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

Em 19 de outubro de 1908, o Tribunal Superior da Pensilvânia confirmou a sentença proferida com base no veredicto de um júri a favor de Maria F. Russell contra o marido, pelo fundamento de indignidades à sua pessoa. O tribunal descreveu a conduta dele como “de contínua e arrogante dominação”, e concluiu que ele a tratara como uma serviçal diante dos empregados, insinuara que ela não estava em seu juízo perfeito e a levara a temer um processo para apurar sua sanidade mental. A sentença foi de separação, não de dissolução do casamento: o Anuário de 1975 cita seus termos, que ordenavam que as partes “fossem separadas de cama e mesa”. Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 19 de outubro de 19081975 Yearbook of Jehovah's Witnesses, 1975

A posição da organização ou explicação posterior: O Anuário de 1975 cita o próprio relato de Russell: “A sentença do tribunal não foi de divórcio, mas de separação … A acusação de minha esposa era de crueldade, mas a única crueldade apresentada como prova foi minha recusa, numa ocasião, de lhe dar um beijo quando ela o pediu.” É correto dizer que não se concedeu divórcio absoluto; o acórdão publicado descreve as provas de maneira muito diferente.

Mostrar as provas (2 fontes)
Registro público oficial Verificado

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

19 de outubro 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.”

Cópia arquivada ou alternativa

Nota de procedência e verificação

Nota de confiança. 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.

Procedência da digitalização. 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 em. 19 de setembro de 2026 · Identificador da fonte. src-ctr-pasuper-1908-1019-russell-v-russell

Publicação primária das Testemunhas de Jeová 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.”

Fonte oficial

Nota de procedência e verificação

Nota de confiança. 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 em. 19 de setembro de 2026 · Identificador da fonte. src-ctr-yb-1975-p67-separation

Página da afirmação Corrigir ou atualizar

A direct link to this claim is https://jwtruth.org/pt-br/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.