Government Code section 68097: "Witnesses in civil cases may demand the payment of their mileage and fees for one day, in advance, and when so demanded shall not be compelled to attend until the allowances are paid except as hereinafter provided for members of the California Highway Patrol, sheriffs, deputy sheriffs and city policemen." In Ray v. Clark, 57 Cal.App. 467 [ 207 P. 501], the court said (p. 469): "The memorandum of costs, with such an affidavit attached, established prima facie the right of the plaintiff to have the total amount shown by those items inserted in the judgment ( Barnhart v. Kron, 88 Cal. 447 [26 P. 210]; Miller v. Highland D. Co. et al., 91 Cal. 103 [27 P. 536].) It devolved upon the moving party to show that the items were not properly included within the cost bill, and this it failed to do.

The party seeking to tax costs, it is urged, has the burden of proving that the items objected to are not proper. (Citing Ray v. Clark, 57 Cal.App. 467 [ 207 P. 501].) Thus, a prima facie showing was made that $14,100 was a reasonable attorney's fee by the defendant, and the plaintiff, by introducing evidence that $2,500 was a reasonable fee for defense counsel and by not introducing evidence to dispute the $1,600 portion of defendant's claim for fees, made a prima facie showing that $4,100 represented reasonable attorney's fees.

The prevailing party may file a memorandum covering his items of costs even though disbursements for such items have not been made. ( Ray v. Clark, 57 Cal.App. 467, 469 [ 207 P. 501].) Defendants incurred legal liability to pay the costs of litigation even though some other party may have agreed to reimburse them or to pay all the expenses of the litigation.

Such facts show a memorandum sufficient in form and substance and sustain the conclusion of the trial court. ( Ray v. Clark, 57 Cal.App. 467 [ 207 P. 501]; Stafford v. Hill, 63 Cal.App. 15 [ 217 P. 766]; Murphy v. F.D. Cornell Co., 110 Cal.App. 452 [ 294 P. 490].) [2] The defendant was allowed the statutory amount for printing his briefs on appeal.

It also appears therefrom that the greater portion of the land attached is subject to a deed of trust and mortgages, and that several hundred acres had been sold and full payment made therefor by the purchaser. [2] While it has been held that where the items claimed as costs do not appear on their face to be necessary, and their correctness is challenged by the affidavit of the contesting party, the burden is then upon the claimant to prove that the charges are proper, and if he fails to introduce evidence to that effect they should be stricken out ( Miller v. Highland Ditch Co., 91 Cal. 103 [27 P. 536]; Senior v. Anderson, 130 Cal. 290 [ 62 P. 563]; Whitaker v. Moran, 23 Cal.App. 758 [ 139 P. 901]), nevertheless, where the items appear to be proper charges a verified memorandum of costs is prima facie evidence that the same had been necessarily incurred ( Fay v. Fay, 165 Cal. 469 [ 132 P. 1040]; Ray v. Clark, 57 Cal.App. 467 [ 207 P. 501]). [3] Here the cost of levying the attachment was primafacie a proper charge; and considering the encumbered condition of defendant's land as shown by the affidavits it does not necessarily appear that the expenditure was made in bad faith or for the purpose of obstruction. The question was primarily one for the trial court, the determination of the items allowable for costs being left largely to its discretion; and unless an abuse of discretion is shown such determination will not be disturbed on appeal ( Welch v. Alcott, 178 Cal. 530 [ 174 P. 34]; Puppo v. Larosa, 194 Cal. 721 [ 230 P. 440]).

Historically, verifying by oath was accomplished by using sworn affidavit procedures. (See Ray v. Clark (1922) 57 Cal.App. 467, 468 [attorney affidavit attached to the cost memorandum]; see also Snodgrass v. Snodgrass (1930) 103 Cal.App. 412, 413 [purported affidavit of verification signed by attorney, but jurat was not completed].) For 150 years, California law has defined an affidavit as "a written declaration under oath" (§ 2003), taken by "any officer authorized to administer oaths" (§ 2012).

A verified memorandum of costs is prima facie proof of their propriety, and it is the responsibility of the party opposing the costs to point out errors. (Ray v. Clark (1922) 57 Cal.App. 467, 468-469.) California Rules of Court, rule 3.1700(b)(1), provides, "Any notice of motion to strike or to tax costs must be served and filed 15 days after service of the cost memorandum. . . ."

A verified memorandum of costs is prima facie proof of their propriety, and it is the responsibility of the party opposing the costs to point out errors. (Ray v. Clark (1922) 57 Cal.App. 467, 468-469.) "The 'failure to file a motion to tax costs constitutes a waiver of the right to object'" to a costs bill.