Sea Breeze, a little bit of background to the pamphlet you are quoting is probably in order.
Wikipedia reports that Rev. J. J. Ross first published and distributed a four-page leaflet titled, Some Facts about the Self-Styled "Pastor" Charles T. Russell (of Millennial Dawn Fame) in June 1912. He alleged that Russell was involved in questionable business practices, had defrauded his estranged wife, and denounced his qualifications, legitimacy and moral example as a Pastor.
At that time Canada had two laws governing libel. Under the one the falsifier may be punished by the assessment of damages and money. Under the other, criminal libel, he is subject to imprisonment. Russell entered suit against Rev. Ross under the criminal act, at the advice of his attorneys, because as Ross had no property, a suit for damages would not stop him. The lower Court found there was a case to answer and committed Ross to appear before the high court to answer an indictment. But when the case went to the high court the Judge called up an English precedent and told the Grand Jury "Unless the jury finds that this alleged libel would cause a breach of the public peace in Canada then no indictment should be returned, but the parties should resort to civil suit for damages." As Russell lived in New York and would not breach the peace anyway, the jury returned "no bill". Russell did not resort to civil action for damages as he was advised that it would be useless as Ross was financially irresponsible and could not be compelled by a civil action to publish a retraction.
With this as background, Ross then published the pamphlet which you quote from, knowing that Russell was unlikely to go through the whole rigmarole again. What did Russell actually say during cross-examination? According to the Wikipedia article, he said that he had attended public school for seven years, having left when he was about fourteen years of age, after which he received instruction through private tutors. He said that he was versed in Latin terms "to an extent" but did not know Hebrew or Greek, that he had never been ordained by any bishop or minister, and had never attended a theological seminary or any schools of higher learning.
Clearly, then, Ross leaves out the fact that Russell received instruction through private tutors after he left school at fourteen, which was not uncommon in those days. Ross says that the Attorney asked "Do you know the Greek"? In fact, the Attorney asked "Do you know the Greek alphabet"? And as for ordination, anyone who has been a JW understands that Russell was claiming ordination, or authorization to preach, came from God not any body of men. In short, Ross was a terminological inexactitudiner.
Those interested can read Rutherford's account of the trial in A Great Battle in the Ecclesiastical Heavens, pp.31-37 and Russell's comments in the Watchtower of September 15, 1914, pp.5543-5544,