(and anyone else who wants to jump in)
I asked this question last fall, but didn’t get much in the way of responses. I haven’t had any luck myself in tracking down an answer, so thought that I would try again, what with the new members who have joined the SDMB and all.
The question is this. Until about 20 years ago, one of the divisions of the English High Court was the “Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division.” (No, there wasn’t much in the way of organizational logic in putting those three together.) English lawyers gave the division the nickname of “Wills, Wives and Wrecks.”
Now, I’ve heard that nickname used orally on several occasions, but I can’t find an honest-to-gosh written reference to it. Since I referred to it in an article I wrote and am now trying to track down citations before sending the article to a publisher, this leaves me in a bit of pickle. (I know, I know: research, then write.)
I’ve checked Partridge, Brewer’s, and several other books, without much luck.
Any help would be appreciated.
There is a 1994 lecture by Frank L. Wiswall, Jr., The Jurisdiction and Practice of the Admiralty Court Revisted, which includes the following:
“In England and Wales since 1969 the first notable development has proven to be almost wholly historical - the ironically peaceful ‘capture’ of the Admiralty Court by the foremost of the Courts of Common Law. By s2 of the Administration of Justice Act of 1970 the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division of the High Court - popularly known as ‘wills, wives and wrecks’ - was reconstituted as the Family Division and the Admiralty Court transferred to the Queen’s Bench Division with a status equal to that of the Commercial Court.”
Other than the lecture whitetho linked to, I can find only one other reference. There is a marine column titled “Wills, Wives, and Wrecks” in the IINZ Bulletin (Insurance Institute of New Zealand).
marvellous - thanks, folks.
further research based on your links has led me to The Development of Admiralty Jurisdiction and Practice Since 1800, by the same Wiswall chap, and there on p. 102, n.5 is the reference I need - thanks very much. (I’m old-fashioned and prefer to cite to real books, not websites.) Plus, it looks like an interesting read.