The Express.
London, England, 1865-06-02 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.—Jrars 1.

Sittings in Banoo.--(Bdors Lord Obief Justice Eris, and
Justices Wills., Bylss, and Smith.)
11,131/TS AND 'ANOTHER e. TUB LONDON £E18173 CI 001 f.

PAINT.--1111 111 Th

This matter came before the court upon a special ease,
which stated the following circumstatom :—The action was
to recover 204, the amount of damage to the plaintiffs' pro-
mises caused by the Frith explosion. The property was
insured in the defendants' company for 6001.,the defendants
covenant* that they would be liable " to pay and make
good to the plaintiff *nth loss or damage u should or might
be caused by fire to the property of the plaintiff." The
fifth °tradition in the raid that lass by lightning
Would be made good where property should have been
scantily set oo fire thereby andburnt in consequence thereof;
and the eighth condition was that books of aoceuet.
bank notes, bill stamps, sad gunpowder were sot included
in the insurance, nor would say damage be made good
where more than Nibs. of gunpowder bad been kept upon
the premises. The plaintiffs' premises were half a mile
from the spot where the explount occurred, and the only
damage austathed was that caused by the concussion, the
pnacipal loss arising from broken windows. The question
for the court was whether this was a lass or damage thawed
against upon the plaintiffs' policy.
Mr. Lush, Q.C., and Mr. Hammen (instructed by Mew:.
Ruse' and Soo) were for the plaintiffs ; and Mr. Maude
(instructed by Messrs. Upton sad Co.) for the defendants.
Mr. Hawes submitted that the damage wu within the
policy, and that of coerce this must depend upon the words
of this particular policy. In many cases the policies were
spinet lose or damage by lire upon the premise insured
but in this case the insurance was against damage caused
by are to the property. These words, he contended, were
large enough to meet the present ease.
Mr. Mande, ea the other hand, argued that the damage in-
sured against was such as should be caused by the direct
action of Bre ; when.., the plaintiffs' windows bad bees
broken by a wave of sir caused by an atmospheric disturb-
ance. Suppose the explosion had taken place under water,
and the damage had hese caused by the rising of the water?
Mr. Justice Willes—Or suppose that an explosion of Sre
damp bad shaken the plaintiffs' house?
Mr. Justice Smith—Or that it had been shaken by an
earthquake?
fire.
Mr. Maude—An earthquake vu believed to be owed by

'Yr. Justice Byles—Bat that, I suppose, would be a gess-
doe for the jury. (Lauehtel
Mr. Mande repeated that this wee not an injury mused
by fire within the ordinary meaning of the words. Suppose
the window had been broken by the discharge of ordeal:we
at a review, could it be said that such damage was canton-
plated when the policy was entered into ? Such a ease es the
one suggested showed Medi the plain meaning of the weeds
in the policy were not adhered to, a great many risks not
saticipated lby the partial would be brought within the risk.
Re, therefore, submitted that the court should adhere both.
plain ordinary meaning of the words in the policy.
The Lord Chief Justice said he thought that the judg-
ment should be for the defendant'. The contract was that
the defendants would reimburse the plaintiffs for sash for
or damage as should be candid by fire to the property in-
sured. The damage in this ease was caused by • rudest
coecussion after an explodes of gunpowder at a distance,
and the question was whether this damage come within the
words of the policy. He took the words according to the
ordinary undentanding of them, and doing this he thought
that they did sot apply to the damage that was sought to
be renovated. The stipulations is to damage by llghtelag,
and by gunpowder on the premises, led him to the inference
that it was not intended to insure against damage frost large
stores of gunpowder which were off the premises.
Mr. Justice Willa thought that no one in ordinary lan-
guage would my that this damage was caused by fire, but by
• concussion of the air, caused by an explosion of gunpow-
der, which in its tom wee tamed by fire. The rale that
they had looked to immediate and not remote causes applied
to this case, and here the immediate muse of damage was
not fire, but aoheuesion of the air.

Mr. logics Byles—Unless there were some reason to the
contrary the words of a contract mug be construed ac-
cording to what ordinary people would understand by the
language. The damage contemplated was to aria by igni-
tios of the article inured, or of some other articles or
property near it. If they put epos the policy & wider
meaning sod included what Lord Bacon called "the cause
of amen," they would then lay down it rule which would
make aa insurance company liable for damage done by an
explain of Vertigo', and frum Agog email shot among
china, far the remote nun of damage would is both oases
be lima Indeed nen would be no absurdity so greet se
not to be included within the policy Wen the plan ordi-
nary meanie, were adhered to.
Judgment foe the del/whine.