According to the ruling inAppleby v Erie Tobacco Co, why is the intent of the defendant irrelevant to establishing that a nuisance exists? Why is an injunction the appropriate remedy according to the court inAppleby? What, according to Justice Cote's ruling inMoore v Sweet, does a plaintiff need to establish to succeed in unjust enrichment? In what sense, according to the ruling inWilkinson v Downton, were the actions of the defendant intended to harm the plaintiff? Why, according to Lord Abinger's decision inFouldes v Willoughby, is the defendant's interference with the plaintiff's horse a trespass to chattels, but not a conversion? Why, according to the ruling inTurner v Thorne, is the defendant liable for the damages suffered by the plaintiff?