Farmers Allege Libel In “Town And Around”

Press, Volume CVII, Issue 31514, 31 October 1967, Page 30

Farmers Allege Libel In “Town And Around”

(New Zealand Press Association)

WELLINGTON, October 30.

A film recording of the television programme, “Town and Around,” telecast on February 15, which is the subject of a $40,000 claim by two Wairarapa farmers for damages for alleged libel, was shown to a jury today in the Supreme Court in Wellington.

The hearing began this morning of a claim against the New Zealand Broadcasting Corporation in which Clarence Montague Meredith and his son, John Clarence Meredith, both of Orui Station, on the East Coast of the North Island, near Masterton, are each claiming $20,000.

The case is being heard by the Chief Justice (Sir Richard Wild) and a jury of 12. Mr J. H. Dunn is appearing for the plaintiffs and Mr R. G. Collins, with him Mr F. M. Shanahan, for the defendant corporation. The plaintiffs claim that the script of the programme telecast on February 15 contained words concerning them and was broadcast “together with a visual image.” The words complained of were:

“One of the drawbacks of the habitation of the planet earth by man Is his tendency to take over large areas of it for himself at the expense of keeping everybody else out. This manifests itself in high degrees of civilisation with such signs as ‘Keep Out’. ‘No Trespassing,’ ‘No Standing At All Times.’ ‘No Parking’ and what have you. “Now here’s an interesting case on Riversdale Beach. Beaches in New Zealand are generally considered free territory and it was with surprise we found a fence built to prevent holidaymakers from using this particular stretch of coast in the Wairarapa."

The plaintiffs claim that the fence in question was erected to prevent livestock from straying. The corporation ad mits the telecast but denies that the words complained of were defamatory of the plaintiffs.

The hearing is expected to last several days.

“Precise Reference”

Mr Dunn, opening the plaintiff’s case, said the matter complained of was telecast from WNTVI in the “Town and Around” series of programmes. It did not refer to

the plaintiffs by name, but It was clear to people who knew the locality that the reference was to their property. The film showed a girl commentator, Reida Familton, standing by the fence in question. There had been a precise reference to the area and then the visual image, which showed the coastline and fence. Mr Dunn said there were three inferences to be drawn from what Miss Familton said: The first, that the plaintiffs had burnt a commercial fisherman’s property: the sec-

ond, that the plaintiffs acted unlawfully in excluding people from the beach; and the third, that the plaintiffs had acted wrongly and reprehensively in depriving the public of their rights. Mr Dunn said the script of the telecast was not a prepared statement, but “a type of girlish chatter into the microphone, speaking of ‘super-duper fish’ and pseudolegal jargon about the Privy Council”. But underneath it all, Mr Dunn said, was an element of venom directed at the plaintiffs. With the permission of his Honour and consent of counsel for the defendant, Mr Dunn then handed to the jury a typescript of what Miss Familton had said in the telecast.

Family Farm The plaintiff, Clarence Meredith, said that Orui Station was run in a family partnership, he and his son being responsible for its management. The seaward boundary of the property was not fenced, and it would be impossible to fence it. There had been complaints about cattle straying from the property at a point known as Flat Rock, and he and his son decided that there could be an accident there, so a fence was erected to prevent this and keep the cattle in. Mr Meredith said the Flat Rock ledge was about 130 yards long and was within the title of the Orui property. “We erected a fence ind placed a stile on it to enable people wanting to go to the beach to do so,” the plaintiff went on. “When the first fence was smashed down, we built a more substantial one, which is still standing.” Mr Meredith said that the telecast reference to the commercial fishing property being burnt would point to him and his son having caused it. Mr Dunn: Did you burn It? —No. These men were there with my permission. What do you say to the suggestion in the telecast that the erection of the fence was due to determination that no-one was to get past there?—lt was ridiculous and false.

“Irresponsibles” In answer to a question by Mr Collins, Mr Meredith said that no-one could get past the fence on the rock without trespassing on his land. Mr Collins: If you wished to put up a barrier to stop people going further, that would be the logical point to put it?—Yes, if we wished to do that.

Asked by Mr Collins if he were happy for the responsible settlers at Riversdale to move along the coast along the front of his property, the plaintiff replied that he was more happy that they should do so than have “irresponsibles” there. Mr Meredith said he had been approached by the president of the Riversdale Progressive Association, whose members had tried to establish the right to walk along the foreshore.

Mr Meredith: The president approached me to donate a chain-wide strip of the coastline.

Mr Collins: This caused you distress and you gave the letter you had received to your solicitor to reply to?—Yes. Mr Dunn objected to the trend of the cross-examination by Mr Collins, submitting that there had been no plea of justification by the defendant. The making of the statements on the television programme had been conceded by the defence. His Honour allowed Mr Collins to proceed, and Mr Meredith said the public had never been stopped from going up to the rock or over the fence. Mr Collins: The first fence must have been demolished by someone who did not want a fence on the rock?

Mr Meredith; Or to get one back on me. The present fence is drilled into the rock?—Yes.

The hearing will be resumed tomorrow morning.