The party whom the plaintiff intended to arrest must be correctly described in the process; if he bo not, the processes no justification for the arrest of such person. Thus, to trespass for false imprisonment brought by Jl. the defendant pleaded that B. sued out a latitat against the plaintiff «/?., therein called by the name of C., directed to the sheriff, &c. authorising him to arrest C.; that the sheriff directed his warrant to the defendant, commanding him to take the said Jl. therein called by the name of C.; averment, that Jl. and C. named in the writ and warrant are one and the same person. This plea,on general demurrer, was held tobe bad. Shadgett v. Clipson, 8 East, 328. So, to trespass for taking JlSs goods, the officer pleaded that he took them under a distringas against B. meaning the said'./#., to compel an appearance; averring tha¿ Jl. and B. were the same person. (Jl. had not appeared in the original action.) ''I2eld¿ on demurrer, that the plea was bad. Cole v. Hindson, 6 T. R. 234. So, where Daniel S. Griswold was arrested on process of attachment issued out of the equity side of the Circuit Court of the United States against Samuel S. Griswold, it was held that an action of false imprisonment lay by Daniel S. Griswold against the marshal, his deputy, and the solicitor concerned in the arrest; and that this was so, though Daniel S. Griswold was the peison intended. Griswold v. Sedgwick, 6 Cowen, 456. S. C. 1 Wend. 126.