Appellant insists that the court erred in not giving its requested peremptory instruction directing the jury to find in its favor, the policy excluding recovery on account of accidents suffered by insured while driving a motor truck.

The undisputed testimony shows that appellee was injured while cranking the car or truck — was out on the ground attempting to start it by turning the crank when the injury was sustained. The policy expressly insures against accidental injuries sustained while operating, driving, riding in or on, demonstrating, adjusting or cranking an automobile. This language necessarily covers and insures against the risk attending upon cranking an automobile, unless, it is so limited by said part 4, § E, as not to do so. This exception relates only to injuries received while driving or riding in or on any motorcycle, automobile truck, tractor or aircraft, and is not in conflict with or repugnant to the insuring clause covering the risk of bodily injury sustained while cranking an automobile. Since the risk from cranking an automobile is covered expressly and since the exemption or exception is not broad enough or sufficiently specific to exempt the company from liability for injury received from cranking an automobile truck, it necessarily follows that the court did not err in refusing the request for a peremptory instruction. English v. Shelby, 116 Ark. 212, 172 S. W. 817.

We find no error in the other instruction complained of, and the evidence is sufficient to support the judgment, which must be affirmed It is so ordered.