Upon an issue whether the owner of real estate during the continuance of an option given upon it, offered to sell it to another party at less than the option price, a statement made by such party to a witness that such an offer had been made to him is not admissible evidence against the owner; it is mere hearsay; the fact that during the continuance of the option the owner bargains the property to a third party, but contingent upon the failure of the option holder to comply with the terms of his option, does not alone constitute a breach of the option by the owner; upon the issue whether the owner during the continuance of the option dissuaded a possible customer of the option holder from purchasing from him, evidence that the owner and the customer had several interviews, and, after the termination of the option, entered into a .contract relative to the land, does not alone prove dissuasion by the owner; the customer may nevertheless have first of his own notion, abandoned the option holder, and then have sought to persuade the reluctant owner; the affirmative of such an issue is not sustained so long as the evidence merely justifies suspicions or surmises, or so long as the negative may, after all, be consistent with the evidential facts; a proposition is not proved until the evidence becomes inconsistent with the negative. Smith v. Lawrence, 98 Me. 92, 56 A. 455.